Losing ground

So much is happening it is hard to decide what to write about so I've decided to touch on a few crucial concerns this week.

I just learned that PPS is going to be providing funding for an alternative school to be housed at Jefferson High School and run by the Mt. Olivet Baptist Church. Although the appalling nature of this decision is evident in the last sentence, there is more. Superintendent, Vicki Phillips is proposing closing elementary schools all over the city, including the one my children attend, and yet, there seems to be funding available for an openly christian school. What happened to the separation of church and state? And why is there money for a new school but not for my existent local school? But wait, there's still more. Mt. Olivet also donated a whopping $15,000 to the Yes on 36 campaign in 2004. So, not only will PPS be funding religion instead of education, they will also be funding homophobia. If this matters to you, and I think it should, contact Phillips now and tell her this is an outrage. Contact the school board and tell them this is an outrage. PPS should not be funding alternative schools until they can fund the schools we have. It makes me wonder about the future of public schools in Portland in general. Is there a day in the not too distant future when there will be no more public education?

In that same moral vain, The Committee to Protect our Daughters is out getting signatures to get an intiative on the ballot that would require teen girls 15-18 to notify parents before an abortion. The committe is a front for Oregon Right to Life, run by Gail Atteberry. I have no doubt Ms. Atteberry will get enough signatures to get this on the ballot, and when she does, advocates for women's rights, should be ready to fight this one tooth and nail. Unlike many other states with notification and consent laws, Oregon has a law in place that allows teens 15 and over, boys and girls, to receive medical attention without parental notice or consent. This puts us in a uniue position with regard to laws that try to impose consent or notification restrictions on teen girls. If this initiative passes, girls will be discriminately singled out for this one procedure. This will represent an unequal application of Oregon law, where boys will still be able to obtain medical care without parent involvement but girls will not.

On another note, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear two domestic violence cases today. Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana. Both cases will determine if 911 tapes are enough evidence to convict a DV offender when the victim refuses to tesitfy. There are many reasosn why DV victims refuse to testify, chief among them fear of retribution by their abuser. Using evidence based prosecution, prosecutors around the country have been able to use 911 tapes, police reports and other evidence to convict at a much higher rate than before, when victim testimony was necessary. The plaintiffs in these cases contend that this kind of evidence precludes their 6th Amendment right to confront their accuser. However, it is the state that is the accuser in these cases, since the state establishes the statutes that criminalize the acts of domestic violence. The plaintiffs had that right and continue to have the right to confront the state, including 911 operators, police officers and others that represent the state's case. If the court determines that the plaintiffs rights are being violated, women around the country will find themselves unable to find a prosecutor who can get a conviction without thier testimony. Because even with a conviction these men are not put away for long, many victims fear they will face violence that is exponentially worse if they go on the stand and accuse their abuser directly. Studies show this is no baseless fear. If the court rules in favor of these plaintiffs, women will lose again in the legal world. If I get beat up on the street by a strange man, I will not have to testify for the state to get a conviction, but if my partner beats me up I will. Is this equal protection?

Finally, keep your eyes on the news from Washington County. For months now, Washington County judges, including municiple judges, have been handing down verdicts that are anti-woman. Two examples. In Beaverton a judge convicted a woman of false accustion of rape, where she could serve time in jail. The judge accepted that sex had occurred and even though the woman at the time was at an age where statutory rape would apply regardless of consent, he still claims she falsely accused three men of raping her. Her attorneys have appealed. In Hillsboro, a man raped a 14 year old he met on the internet. She claimed she was 18 and so the judge determined that she lied about her age and gave the rapist a leaner sentence. It looks like women and girls, especially the most vulnerable, teen girls, in Washington County are not well protected by the courts.

And then there's South Dakota....