“Cumberbitches” Fan Name Setting Back The Women’s Movement

“‘Cumberbitches’ fan name sets back feminism,” says Benedict Cumberbatch.

Benedict Cumberbatch sweetly confronted his fans over the ‘Cumberbitches’ nickname, suggesting that it set the women’s movement back a few decades.

He told Ellen DeGeneres that he wants his fans to come up with a more “empowering” collective name.

Speaking to a talk-show host recently, Cumberbatch said: “It’s like trying to squeeze a confession out of me getting me to actually say that word, because I squirm a little bit about it.

I definitely didn’t come up with it. That’s part of my problem with it. I just went: ‘Ladies, this is wonderful. I’m very flattered, but has this not set feminism back a little bit? Empower yourselves. If you’re going to get silly about a guy, maybe a little bit more of a sort of, you know, a high-regard, self-regarding name.’”

But his fans insisted they didn’t mean any harm.

Cumberbatch said: “They were very sweet. They wrote back and were like: ‘Well we didn’t mean any harm to feminism! We’re just having a little bit of fun with your name.’”

Cumberbatch has spoken out in support of feminism before. Last year, he joined ELLE Magazine and the Fawcett Society’s “this is what a feminist looks like” campaign.

###

Cumberbitches’ Fan Name Sets Back Feminism
Written By Helen Nianias

“This Is What A Feminist Looks Like”
Written By Mollie Goodfellow

Advertisements

So all these companies making money off your personal information, do you receive a check?

 UnitedStatesPrivacyLaw
The state of California is the furthest along in establishing privacy laws for its people. This includes medical privacy, internet privacy, as well as laws that restrict businesses, medical facilities, the internet from using your personal information to make money for themselves. After all, do you receive a check from the profits they make off of you?
 

California Law – Constitutional Right to Privacy


California Privacy Rights Include:


Public Record Exemption for Sex Offense Victims California Government Code section 6254 and California Penal Code section 293. These laws prohibit the disclosure of the names and addresses of victims of specific sex-related crimes in documents provided in response to requests for records, including responses provided under the California Public Records Act.
Domestic Violence Victim Privacy – California Civil Code section 1798.79.8 This law prohibits a domestic violence victim service provider from being required to reveal the personally identifying information of its clients or potential clients as a part of applying for or receiving grants or financial assistance for its services. It defines “victim service provider” to mean a non-governmental organization that provides shelter or services to victims of domestic violence.

Medical Information, Collection for Direct Marketing Purposes – California Civil Code section1798.91. This law prohibits a business from seeking to obtain medical information from an individual for direct marketing purposes without, (1) clearly disclosing how the information will be used and shared, and (2) getting the individual’s consent.

Medical Information Confidentiality – California Civil Code sections 56-56.37.This law puts limits on the disclosure of patients’ medical information by medical providers, health plans, pharmaceutical companies, and many businesses organized for the purpose of maintaining medical information. It specifically prohibits many types of marketing uses and disclosures. It requires an electronic health or medical record system to protect the integrity of electronic medical information and to automatically record and preserve any change or deletion.

Court Records: Protection of Victim and Witness Information – California Penal Code section 964.This law requires the district attorney and the courts in each county to establish a procedure to protect confidential personal information regarding any witness or victim contained in a police report, arrest report, or investigative report submitted to a court by a prosecutor in support of a criminal complaint, indictment, or information, or by a prosecutor or law enforcement officer in support of a search warrant or an arrest warrant.

The state of Virginia has no procedure in place to protect an individual’s privacy regarding public court records.  Instead of protecting victim/witness information, Virginia has the opposite law –>  Virginia Freedom of Information Act.

(*)(*)(*)

 

InformationPrivacy

Disposal of Customer Records – California Civil Code sections 1798.80 – 1798.81 and 1798.84.These sections require businesses to shred, erase or otherwise modify the personal information when disposing of customer records under their control. It provides a “safe harbor” from civil litigation for a business that has come into possession of records containing personal information that were abandoned, so long as the business disposes of them as provided in the statute.

Electronic Eavesdropping – California Penal Code sections 630-638. Among other things, this law prohibits, with exceptions, electronic eavesdropping on or recording of private communications by telephone, radio telephone, cellular radio telephone, cable or any other device or in any other manner.  It prohibits cable TV and satellite TV operators from monitoring or recording conversations in a subscriber’s residence, or from sharing individually identifiable information on subscriber viewing habits or other personal information without written consent (section 637.5).

Electronic Surveillance in Rental Cars – California Civil Code section 1936. This law prohibits vehicle rental companies from using, accessing, or obtaining information relating to a renter’s use of a rental vehicle obtained using onboard electronic surveillance technology, except in limited circumstances. It requires rental companies to obtain a renter’s consent before using or disclosing information about the renter’s use of the vehicle.

Employment of OffendersCalifornia Penal Code section 4017.1 and Penal Code section 5071 and California Welfare and Institutions Code section 219.5. Prison and county jail inmates may not have jobs that give them access to personal information. The same prohibitions apply to offenders performing community service in lieu of a fine or custody.

Identification Devices, Prohibition on Bodily Implanting – California Civil Code section 52.7.This law prohibits a person from requiring, coercing, or compelling any other individual to undergo the subcutaneous implanting of an identification device. The law specifically requires that it be liberally construed to protect privacy and bodily integrity. The law also provides for the assessment of civil penalties for violation, as specified, and allows an aggrieved party to bring an action for damages and injunctive relief, subject to a 3-year statute of limitation, or as otherwise provided.

 

More

We’re Not Finished With the Women’s Liberation Movement

Yes!  We’re making civil liberties victories left and right!

However, without the Equal Rights Amendment, these same civil rights will reappear in new bills in future legislative sessions, requiring another round of battles.

The ERA would place women into the constitution giving them full equality and citizenship.  Once ratified, there will be no necessity for all these individual civil rights battles.

 

The ERA is for every citizen.  Whether you’re a tea-party woman or a feminist man, the ERA will benefit you. 

 

Males Also Benefit From An ERA Ratification
by Virginia NOW’s President, Diana Egozcue

 

 ERA Factsheet

ERA Logo by Paradise Kendra



Let’s Ratify!

Paradise
Virginia NOW
Communications VP/Webmistress

Image

Reproductive Justice is Social Justice

Congressional GOP to bring a vote on a 20-Week Abortion Ban,
this Thursday (Jan 22), the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
Please read, and contact your representative.

We know Senator Hyde of the Hyde Amendment was just comfortable the knowledge that his restriction on federal funding for abortion in Medicaid would mostly affect poor women and poor women of color. He knew darn well he couldn’t stop rich women from exerting control over their own bodies, their reproductive, creative, and working lives.

And since then, we have seen reduction after cut in services, programs, and education that would support women who are raising children. On top of this, an average pay gap (77/100) that results in millions of missing dollars in women’s incomes over their lifetimes (affecting not only base income, but 410(k) contributions, and Social Security benefits as well), decades of flat salaries and income for all American workers, and an increasing slide of available jobs into the never-enough of minimum wage work.

Now, our fresh new conservative Congress wants to use the
anniversary of Roe v. Wade to introduce a 20-week abortion ban.

As readers of this blog likely know, such a prohibition would make a timely abortion nearly impossible for huge numbers of women — for reasons too many to rehearse her but which include the often delayed manner in which women discover they’re pregnant, the many difficulties in accessing care in many states (TRAP regulations, lack of facilities, ….) — the whole point of this legislation is to make the deadline so short and the path to exercising one’s own conscience so difficult that women who don’t want a (another) child will wind up having one anyway. Many of us have seen the statistical maps. Women of all kinds who live in GOP controlled states and counties have less access to health care, and specifically to reproductive health care — resulting, more direly, in increased mortality rates for women and mothers. This disadvantage increases as those counties get either poorer or more ethnically mixed, thanks to the confluence of forces I describe above.

So, this 20-week ban effectively doubles-down
on the Hyde Amendment’s nefarious effects.

Of course, these anti-choice citizens and politicians are not pro-child. They are not organizing en masse to adopt or otherwise care for these children. The child is not the point. Controlling/punishing the woman is. Katha Pollitt’s Pro does a marvelous job elaborating the evidence of this ultimate goal. (Please buy it through one of these fine independent or feminist bookstores.)

So, we have a political and economic climate that is hostile to women’s freedom and pursuit of happiness on a number of levels. It’s even a climate that makes raising healthy, educated, productive citizens really damn hard. Expand the concept of reproductive justice to include creating conditions that support women who want to be mothers — no matter their race or class — and we find ourselves at an intersection vital to social justice generally.

Women of color have understood and organized their reproductive justice activism around this intersection for a long time now. They gone in this direction partly because their relationship to a white-dominated state complicates the history of reproduction for women of color in some horrifying ways all of which result (still) in denying women control over their own fates and the well-being of their children. (The link I offer here is a gentle version of this history.) We’re still sterilizing women against their will in prisons in the US, we’re still taking Native American children from their families for the flimsiest of reasons.

I suggest we bring this fuller and
more nuanced understanding of choice and justice
to the women of the Congressional GOP and their colleagues.

Congresswoman Renee Elmers (R-NC), and a small cohort of GOP women, are rebelling against this ban on the grounds that it’s a bad PR move and will (further) alienate young women (all women) from the GOP.

I suggest that we both support Rep. Elmers, and educate her more broadly on the many dimensions of reproductive justice. These bans create only harm. They have no positive effect on the society, the economy, or the people directly affected by them. Even the “science” used to justify them is largely a sack of lies made out of false concern and overt racism and hatred of the disadvantaged.

To share this broader perspective with Rep. Elmers or your own representatives, please use this directory. It leads you to their websites, all their social media, their official emails — the whole kit and caboodle.

On this MLK Day, when we are remembering our lost warriors for social justice and still dreaming of the future in the beloved community, let’s make sure that women — all women — are free to help build that community, that polity, whether by being mothers, or by contributing their talents, energy, and intellect in a myriad of other — and vital — ways.

For women!
Dr. Simone Roberts
Web Editor / Historian / ERA Coordinator
Virginia NOW

:: Sources/Organizations in this Article ::

Amplify Your Voice
Black Women’s Health Initiative
Congressional Directory
Rep. Renee Elmers (R-NC)

Fund Abortion Now
MS. Magazine

RH Reality Check
Think Progress
Trust Black Women
The Washington Post

Medical Privacy: Not So Private

 

Many patients don’t realize that a physician’s ability to service the community can be suspended or retracted entirely by the DEA for their patient’s misuse or diversion of drugs.

(*)  ###  (*)

Why is this an issue for the everyday American who never intends to overdose or abuse their prescription dosage?

protectpatientinfo.jpg

 

 

The DEA is implementing stricter and stricter regulations on physicians and their ability to provide prescriptions. They are also enforcing legal penalties for abuse of prescription drugs on the doctor who prescribed them as well as the patient who actually broke “regulation”.

For example, if a patient went to a second doctor in addition to their primary one to gain a second prescription, the DEA now uses the Prescription Monitoring Program to enforce the legal repercussions against the doctors who prescribed a medication for their patient in addition to the person who committed the crime.


(*)    The DEA’s agenda is not medical. It is political.   (*)

 

They are expecting doctors to be responsible for their patient’s actions outside of the office.

  • Why is it the doctor’s fault if a patient were to overdose on a medication?
  • Why should the doctor to go prison or lose their medical license if their patient obtained duplicate medications from another physician?

 

They shouldn’t be. They’re not cops. They’re there to provide the best health care possible. They can’t do this if the DEA puts so many barriers in their way that they’re afraid to write up a legitimate prescription that could save a life, prolong a life, or enrich one.

The DEA is the enforcing arm of this agenda, the “messenger”.

 

The Department of Health and Human Services (through the Food and Drug Administration) has the responsibility of making medical recommendations on drug related issues to the Secretary of Health based on scientific evaluations.

Beyond the medical spectrum, the Office of Diversion Control (DEA Headquarters) has expanded its department making it a primary goal to “regulate” controlled substances in hopes of decreasing drug abuse.

Under federal law, all businesses which manufacture or distribute controlled drugs, all health professionals entitled to dispense, administer or prescribe them, and all pharmacies entitled to fill prescriptions must register with the DEA. Registrants must comply with a series of regulatory requirements relating to drug security, records accountability, and adherence to standards.

All of these investigations are conducted by Diversion Investigators (DIs), a specialist position within the DEA assigned to investigate suspected sources of diversion and take appropriate criminal and/or administrative actions. Prescription Database Management Programs (PDMP) aid and facilitate investigation and surveillance.

Sometimes in an effort to solve a problem, we end up creating a new one. Sometimes with the most sincere motivations, laws do more to restrict our freedom than to protect the innocent.

(*)

Our privacy, protection, and freedom rely on the level of medical expertise and the direct relationship between doctor and patient access permitted within our healthcare system.

 

Fight for the future.

 (*)  ###  (*)

  More

#YesAllWomen: Responses to violent masculinity and rape culture

My last two posts for VaNOW have been of a series on #BringBackOurGirls. It’s not a coincidence that at about the same time the webisphere started the conversation #YesAllWomen. The problem of “religious” extremists going to the lengths of enslavement and murder to prevent Girls from becoming educated women, and the problem of the constant and ubiquitous threats of intimate and sexual violence against women in the West are just two peas in a pod.

Related hashtags: #YesAllWhiteWomen, #NotAllMen, #NotOneMore, #YesAllWomen #NotAllMen (a double #) :– these are complicated conversations.*

Both of these daily kinds of violence create a world where masculinity is defined in part (even largely) by access to women bodies and control over women’s lives and permission to do great violence to achieve either one. That’s called Patriarchy. And terrible as it is, the webisphere and these heinous situations, most recently noticed in California, the history and theory that feminists have collected, studied, made for the last several decades is now becoming regular public conversation:– in this we have every reason for great hope and continued persistent work.

My social media has been on fire with posts on these instances of the problem. Some of them are so good, and so useful, that I want to be sure you have them all in one place. They are like a lesson plan for people who still don’t get it, and a reminder for us that good feminist work is being done everywhere.

From The Good Men Project, a father’s reflection on who Girls are taught from childhood to accept male violence (click).

Over on Tumblr, VampMissEdith, offered a memory about a boy who wanted to date her little sister, both in 8th grade, who brought a handgun to school to shoot her for not saying yes (click).

Just pause and remember that in the 1990s, in Jonesboro AR, a boy in 4th grade took a rifle to school and committed a mass shooting. It was underreported at the time, but his reason for doing it was that the Girl he had crush on would not be his girlfriend.

UpWorthy has reblogged this vlog on sex and relationship education (and excellent source if you live in an abstinence state) SEX +. Here Laci Green reminds us that 70 of the last 71 mass shootings have been committed by white males who felt owed (sex, a promotion, good marks on their dissertation, whatever) and turned their dissatisfaction outward (click).

At The Nation, the marvelous Jessica Valenti has written a long piece on global male violence and its toll on women everywhere. It is one of the most concise and rock solid articles I’ve seen in the popular press on this issue in a long time. “A Rape A Minute, a Thousand Corpses a Year” (click). — I thank The Nation for their recent focus on rape culture. They are taking this problem very seriously indeed.

In the 1980s, a physics student rejected by his preferred graduate program, rounded up the women in the program, complained that it was their fault that he did not get into grad school just because he was a man, and killed all 12 women.

Men have been killing women for being women forever. We are, at last, in a position to push the hard cultural and psychological work of changing the dynamics that make this fact terrible, but not at all surprising.

Men, you need to remember a bit of wisdom we were given by Maya Angelou, may she rest in the bosom of her God.

“You alone are enough. You have nothing to prove to anyone.” #MayaAngelou.

Patriarchy convinces you that you are not enough. You are never king-enough, alpha-enough, strong-enough, sexed-enough. This is how it controls you. And some of you get tired and angry, and some of you are pathological narcissists like the shooter at UCSB in Isla Vista, and you shoot lots of people — often women — to get even.

“You alone are enough. You have nothing to prove to anyone.”

Women, Girls, Men, Boys:– let us make this a mantra of the new world.

#YesAllWomen are suspicious of every man they meet, because a few of you are very, very dangerous indeed. As @ashedryden put it: “Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. Imagine 10% of are poision.” How would you deal with M&Ms???

You can get used to it, or you can help us change it.

*These links were shared by: Margaret Howard  her organization and Carrie Tilton-Jones. Thanks for your good eyes!
*Sorry the hashtags are not linked. I am hvaing a bad technology day where some Andriod apps make it really damn hard to create/share links. These tags are all active on Twitter right now. Easy to find.

Carry on,
Simone Roberts
Web Editor/Historian
VA NOW

Military Rape: Let’s Get Real Justice!!!

From our President, Diana Egozcue:
NOW asks for your voice in support our military men and women!Chain of command is not the system in which to address rape/sexual abuse cases; it’s too easy for commanders to find themselves in deep conflicts of interest. Removing this power from commanders would help to insure that guilty parties are punished, and that personal relationships and cronyism do not influence justice. This neutrality would protect a commander’s authority with their troops by allowing the commander to support all of her or his subordinates in the maintenance of good order and discipline.

*   *   *

Senator Gillibrand (D-NY), in support of S.967 — Military Justice Improvement Act —  is working to persuade Congress and the Department of Defense to remove a commander’s authority to change convictions after a court martial has found the defendant(s) guilty. The bill addresses rape and sexual abuse, as well as other serious crimes. In some recent cases (in Aviano, Italy for example), commanders have overturned convictions even in cases of rape. Both male and female commanders in all branches of the military have been found to have reversed or altered sentences of the courts martial.

Chain of command is not the system in which to address rape/sexual abuse cases; it’s too easy for commanders to find themselves in deep conflicts of interest.

Our two Senators Warner and Kaine have not signed onto this bill as co-sponsors.

The senator’s aides tell me that they are waiting for a reconciliation with Senator McCaskill’s bill. That bill does not remove the commander’s authority. Senator Warner has voiced an opinion that removing this one power would interfere with command authority structure. This is the same reasoning that the military used while testifying before the Senate. I, personally, can disagree with this logic because I was an Air Force brat and an Army JAG wife. (The JAG Corps are the lawyers and judges for the military.) Removing this power from commanders would help to insure that guilty parties are punished, and that personal relationships and cronyism do not influence justice. This neutrality would protect a commander’s authority with their troops by allowing the commander to support all of her or his subordinates in the maintenance of good order and discipline.

NOW asks Virginians to participate in an action to help military women and men who are sexually assaulted to finally get justice. Military women and men are entitled to full legal protection.

Please call or e-mail Senators Warner and Kaine to ask them to co-sponsor Senator Gillibrand’s bill, S967. 

If you call, and are not comfortable talking to an aide, leave a voice mail. E-mail if that is easiest for you, but take action.

I’ve listed the senator’s contact information, and some talking points which you can use to persuade the senators to co-sponsor the bill. If you feel inspired, you can also use the talking points to write a letter to the editor of your local paper.

Senator Warner             (202) 224-2023                 www.warner.senate.gov

Senator Kaine                (202) 224-4024                  www.kaine.senate.gov

Talking Points

  •  Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s Military Justice Improvement Act (S.967) places sexual assault cases, and other serious crimes punishable by one year or more, outside the victim’s chain of command and in the hands of a trained military prosecutor.
  •  Sexual assault has become an epidemic in the U.S.  By the military’s own estimates, about 26,000 sexual assaults occurred throughout all branches of the armed forces in 2012 alone – a 35 percent increase over 2011.  However, only 3,374 assaults were reported in 2012, and only 300 were prosecuted.
  •  Currently, victims must report sexual assault to their commanders, who lack specialized training to deal with sexual trauma, and who often have relationships with the perpetrators.  Commanders routinely downplay sexual assaults, retaliate agains victims, protect perpetrators and have even reversed jury convictions after a case has gone all the way to trial.
  •  In 2012, 47 percent of sexual assault survivors who did not report the crime named fear of retaliation as the reason.  Sixty-two percent of women who did report said they later experienced some form of retaliation.
  •  Under S. 967, victims would report to an independent military prosecutor who is trained in sexual trauma and has no personal or professional relationship with the accused or accuser.
  •  Military brass oppose S.967 on the grounds that commanders need complete authority to maintain good order and discipline in the ranks.  But in fact, the current system undermines “good order and discipline in the ranks” because it puts decision making power in the hands of commanders who are untrained and often tainted by personal conflicts of interest, leaving victims without justice and perpetrators free to rape again and again, thus undermining a commander’s moral authority and perceived trustworthiness.

My thanks for your action to protect our military women and men,

Diana Egozcue, President
The Virginia Chapter of the National Organization for Women

Virginia Is For Lovers, Ken.

Virginia NOW affirms the established right of privacy in any consensual adult relationship without government interference at any level, of any branch, or by any officer. We refuse to return to discriminatory “anti-sodomy” laws of the past concerning so-called “vice” in order to mollify the cultural anxiety of misinformed ultraconservatives.

Virginia NOW asserts that the state and federal governments have no business in our bedrooms, our consenting adult relationships, our reproductive choices, nor in the gender combination or marital status under which we engage in sex or love. A sexually healthy and enjoyable future is part of a progressive agenda. Virginia is, after all, for lovers!

As a leading organization working for women’s rights and equality for all, Virginia NOW opposes Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s misguided campaign to restore Virginia’s regressive “crimes against nature” law.

We demand better protections for our children from sexual predators, and we demand to remain free to engage in consenting adult relationships without the interference of the state. These are not contradictory demands.

Cuccinelli’s actions in this and other cases indicate that he will pursue his personal agenda regardless of its impact on Virginians and regardless of court rulings, legislative process, or even common sense. As he did in forcing the adoption of hospital-level standards for health and abortion clinics, in fighting health care reform, in opposing non-discrimination policies at state colleges and universities and adoption, and in harassing a professor researching climate change, Cuccinelli is using the office of attorney general to impose his will.

Such demagoguery and aggression are not meaningful politics or policy. The private lives of consenting adults are not up for regulation, and certainly should not become collateral damage in the revisionist efforts currently pursued by the Republican candidate for governor.

Virginia NOW calls on all candidates from both parties in statewide and local elections to oppose Cuccinelli’s attempts to reinstate Virginia’s regressive “crimes against nature” law. Virginia NOW calls on voters to support candidates who will work on job creation and healthcare for all and on issues of equality and justice, rather than intrusions into our bedrooms and private lives.

Voter Registration  

DonateVANOWPAC Donate to Virginia NOW

                              

 ###

Background

Note:  Not all Virginia NOW members are lawyers or legal experts, however:

Virginia NOW finds that the context of the Attorney General’s current appeal to the Supreme Court to reinstate Virginia’s “anti-sodomy” laws helps to bring his larger intentions into sharp focus. Like many ultraconservatives, he seems to think the cultural modernity of the 20th and 21st centuries is a problem to be solved by a kind of counter-reformation.

In April 2013, Virginia’s anti-sodomy / crimes against nature law was struck down. The full range of normal adult sexual behavior has only been decriminalized in VA since this past spring—and that includes “lascivious cohabitation.” The state’s attorney general is currently seeking a stay of this 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling by the Supreme Court.

Our Attorney General wants the “crimes against nature” law back in place in order prosecute a 47-year-old man who solicited a teenager for oral sex. But, Supreme Court cases are rarely limited to the one act that sets them in motion. Virginia laws on sex and consent are complicated, and they seem to allow minors over the age of 15 to consent to sex with minors of a similar age, but they do not allow consent between teens and adults (as well they should not.)

Cuccinelli is using a statutory rape case to reinstate laws that he’s been told three times Virginia’s courts would rather not have on the books. He’s launching a website in support of the crimes against nature laws under the guise of protecting Virginia’s children from predators.

We need better laws against child rape and the sexual abuse of children, which he did not fight for as Attorney General. His lack of oversight allowed this 47-year-old to violate a minor and suffer rather light consequences. We also need our personal liberty. Neither is optional, and they do not contradict each other.

“Crimes against nature laws” have historically been used to harass and jail LGBTQIA citizens; and have been considered unconstitutional by many since the Lawrence v. Texas SCOTUS decision in 2003. (Again, the authors are not constitutional lawyers.)

The freedom to live in one’s gender expression, to transition into one’s true gender, to love the person one’s heart is set on, to cohabitate, to live alone, to abstain from love or sex, or to enjoy sex for the sheer fun of it all have not one thing to do with punishing sexual predators who violate the bodily and spiritual integrity of Virginian adults or children.

There’s a worrying context here. Attorney General Cuccinelli is well known for his culturally conservative views—his arguments from Natural Law doctrine, for instance:

In 2009, Cuccinelli told the Virginian-Pilot that “homosexual acts” are wrong. ”They’re intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law-based country, it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that. … They don’t comport with natural law. I happen to think that it represents (to put it politely; I need my thesaurus to be polite) behavior that is not healthy to an individual and in aggregate is not healthy to society,” he said. – The Huffington Post

He loosely references the doctrine in the amicus brief he co-authored in support of Prop 8 in which he also argues that same-sex marriage opens a slippery slope to polygamy—despite the painfully obvious logical and historical weakness of slippery slope arguments.  The SCOTUS did not agree with Mr. Cuccinelli concerning Prop 8, and went right on to overturn DOMA. Never mind that in that case of Mother Nature v. Natural Law, Mother Nature prevails. Turns out Natural Law isn’t all that natural.

But, the Attorney General follows often equally specious argumentative lines in his (more successful) sieges on women’s reproductive care via crushing regulation on health care and abortion clinics, his patent refusal to allow the Department of Juvenile Justice and the state’s universities to adopt non-discrimination policies for LGBTQIA youth, and his barring of the Board of Social Services from protecting:

Virginians seeking to adopt or foster children, and children eligible for adoption or foster care, from discrimination by licensed child placing agencies based on race, national origin, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, political beliefs, sexual orientation, disability and family status. – The ACLU

That is, such agencies are allowed to refuse adoption on these, ahem, “grounds.”

Given this record of behavior, Virginia NOW thinks Cuccinelli is running a cultural agenda based on his own faith and moral compass and not on the shared interests and rights of all Virginians. He’s wasting the Commonwealth’s tax dollars on a petition to the Supreme Court that seems to be going nowhere fast given recent rulings. And, according the same ACLU article just cited, he doesn’t seem to understand the boundaries of the power of his office. It seems that the only force that can impede the culture warrior in is the power of an election.

In the United States, we do not rule from religious doctrine, but from reason and with a bias toward the expansion of civil and personal liberties. We seek to protect our citizens from violation and damage, but not from pursuits of happiness that harm none—whether lascivious or not.

Ken Cuccinelli clearly does not hold to this long and honorable tradition.

Virginia NOW calls on all candidates from both parties in statewide and local elections to oppose Cuccinelli’s attempts to reinstate Virginia’s regressive “crimes against nature” law.  Virginia NOW encourages voters to support candidates who talk about jobs, healthcare for all, equality and justice, rather than intrusions into our bedrooms and private lives.