Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 946

November 21, 2015

Privacy not included: Federal law lags far behind new tech

This story was co-published with the Washington Post. Jacqueline Stokes spotted the home paternity test at her local drugstore in Florida and knew she had to try it. She had no doubts for her own family, but as a cybersecurity consultant with an interest in genetics, she couldn’t resist the latest advance. At home, she carefully followed the instructions, swabbing inside the mouths of her husband and her daughter, placing the samples in the pouch provided and mailing them to a lab. Days later, Stokes went online to get the results. Part of the lab’s website address caught her attention, and her professional instincts kicked in. By tweaking the URL slightly, a sprawling directory appeared that gave her access to the test results of some 6,000 other people. The site was taken down after Stokescomplained on Twitter. But when she contacted the Department of Health and Human Services about the seemingly obvious violation of patient privacy, she got a surprising response: Officials couldn’t do anything about the breach. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, a landmark 1996 patient-privacy law, only covers patient information kept by health providers, insurers and data clearinghouses, as well as their business partners. At-home paternity tests fall outside the law’s purview. For that matter, so do wearables like Fitbit that measure steps and sleep, testing companies like 23andMe, and online repositories where individuals can store their health records. In several instances, the privacy of people using these newer services has been compromised, causing embarrassment or legal repercussions. In 2011, for instance, an Australian company failed to properly secure details of hundreds of paternity and drug tests, making them accessible through a Google search. The company said that it quickly fixed the problem. That same year, some users of the Fitbit tracker found that data they entered in their online profiles about their sexual activity and its intensity — to help calculate calories burned — was accessible to anyone. Fitbit quickly hid the information. And last year, a publicly accessible genealogy database was used by police to look for possible suspects in a 1996 Idaho murder. After finding a “very good match” with the DNA of semen found at the crime scene, police obtained a search warrant to get the person’s name. After investigating further, authorities got another warrant ordering the man’s son to provide a DNA sample, which cleared him of involvement. The incident spooked genealogy aficionados; AncestryDNA, which ran the online database, pulled it this spring. “When you publicly make available your genetic information, you essentially are signing a waiver to your past and future medical records,” said Erin Murphy, a professor at New York University School of Law. The true extent of the problem is unclear because many companies don’t know when the health information they store has been accessed inappropriately, experts say. A range of potentially sensitive data is at risk, including medical diagnoses, disease markers in a person’s genes and children’s paternity. What is known is that the Office for Civil Rights, the HHS agency that enforces HIPAA, hasn’t taken action on 60 percent of the complaints it has received because they were filed too late or withdrawn or because the agency lacked authority over the entity that’s accused. The latter accounts for a growing proportion of complaints, an OCR spokeswoman said. A 2009 law called on HHS to work with the Federal Trade Commission — which targets unfair business practices and identity theft — and to submit recommendations to Congress within a year on how to deal with entities handling health information that falls outside of HIPAA. Six years later, however, no recommendations have been issued. The report is in “the final legs of being completed,” said Lucia Savage, chief privacy officer of the HHS Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. None of this was useful to the 30-year-old Stokes, a principal consultant at the cybersecurity firm Mandiant. Four months after she filed her complaint with OCR, it suggested she contact the FTC. At that point, she gave up. “It just kind of seems like a Wild West right now,” she said. Protection of Consumer-app Data Varies Advances in technology offer patients ways to monitor their own health that were impossible until recently: Internet-connected scales to track their weight; electrodes attached to their iPhones to monitor heart rhythms; virtual file cabinets to store their medical records. “Consumer-generated health information is proliferating,” FTC Commissioner Julie Brill said at a forum last year. But many users don’t realize that much of it is stored “outside of the HIPAA silo.” HIPAA seeks to facilitate the flow of electronic health information, while ensuring that privacy and security are protected along the way. It only applies to health providers that transmit information electronically; a 2009 law added business partners that handle health information on behalf of these entities. Violators can face fines and even prison time. “If you were trying to draft a privacy law from scratch, this is not the way you would do it,” said Adam Greene, a former OCR official who’s now a private-sector lawyer in Washington. In 2013, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse studied 43 free and paid health and fitness apps. The group found that some did not provide a link to a privacy policy and that many with a policy did not accurately describe how the apps transmitted information. For instance, many apps connected to third-party websites without users’ knowledge and sent data in unencrypted ways that potentially exposed personal information. “Consumers should not assume any of their data is private in the mobile app environment—even health data that they consider sensitive,” the group said. Consider a woman who is wearing a fetal monitor under her clothes that sends alerts to her phone. The device “talks” to her smartphone via wireless Bluetooth technology, and its presence on a network could be detected by others, alerting them to the fact that she’s pregnant or that she may have concerns about her baby’s health. “That is a fact that you may not want to share with others around you—co-workers or family members or strangers in a café,” said David Kotz, a computer science professor at Dartmouth College who is principal investigator of a federally funded project that is developing secure technology for health and wellness. “We’ve seen this in the tech market over and over again,” he added. “What sells devices or applications are the features for the most part, and unless there’s a really strong business reason or consumer push or federal regulation, security and privacy are generally a secondary thought.” ‘Walking Through an Open Door’ In Florida, Stokes is one of those people enamored with emerging health technologies. Several years ago, she rushed to sign up for 23andMe to analyze her genetic profile. And when she was pregnant with her daughter, she purchased a test that said it could predict the sex of the fetus. (It was wrong.) The paternity test kit that piqued her interest earlier this year advertised “accuracy guaranteed” for “1 alleged father and 1 child.” She remembers the kit costing about $80 at a nearby Walgreens. Such tests sell for about $100 online. “It was kind of a nerdy thing that I was interested in doing,” Stokes said. The test was processed in New Mexico by GTLDNA Genetic Testing Laboratories, then a division of General Genetics Corp. Stokes was directed to log into a website and enter a unique code for her results. When they appeared, she noticed an unusual Web address on her screen, and she wondered what would happen if she modified it to remove the ID assigned to her. She tried that and saw a folder containing the results of thousands of other people. She was able to click through and read them. “You wouldn’t call that hacking,” she said. “You would call that walking through an open door.” Stokes downloaded those publicly accessible records so that she would have proof of the lax security. “There were no safeguards,” she said. She complained to the HHS Office for Civil Rights in early February. It answered in June,writing that the office “does not have authority to investigate your complaint, and therefore, is closing this matter.” Bud Thompson, who until last month was the chief executive of General Genetics, initially said he had not heard about Stokes’ discovery. A subsequent email provided an explanation. “There was a coding error in the software that resulted in the person being able to view results of other customers. The person notified the lab, and the website was immediately taken down to solve this problem,” he wrote. “Since this incident, we have sold this line of business and have effectively ceased all operations of the lab.” The DNA testing company 23andMe, which helps people learn about their genetic backgrounds and find relatives based on those profiles, had a highly publicized lab mix-up in which as many as 96 customers were given the wrong DNA test results, sometimes for people of a different gender. A spokeswoman for the California-based company said she was unaware of any privacy or security breaches since that 2010 incident. Kate Black, its privacy officer and corporate counsel, said that 23andMe tries to provide more protection than HIPAA would require. “No matter what, no law is ever going to be narrow enough or specific enough to appropriately protect each and every business model and consumer health company,” she said. California lawmakers have twice considered a measure to prohibit anyone from collecting, analyzing or sharing the genetic information of another person without written permission, with some exceptions. Then-Sen. Alex Padilla, who sponsored the bill, cited a California company that marketed DNA testing, including on samples collected from people without their knowledge. In a recent interview, he said that he was amazed state law did not protect “what’s arguably the most personal of our information and that’s our genetic makeup, our genetic profile.” The legislation failed. And Padilla, now California’s secretary of state, remains concerned: “I don’t think this issue is going away any time soon.” While Stokes was troubled by her experience, she was particularly disheartened by the OCR’s response. “It was shocking to me to get that message back from the government saying this isn’t covered by the current legislation and, as a result, we don’t care about it,” she said. The agency’s deputy director for health information privacy says there is no lack of interest. While it refers certain cases to law enforcement, OCR can barely keep up with those complaints that fall within its jurisdiction. “I wish we had the bandwidth to do so,” Deven McGraw said. “We would love to be able to be a place where people can get personalized assistance on every complaint that comes in the door, but the resources just don’t allow us to do that.” For its part, the FTC has taken action against a few companies for failing to secure patients’ information, including a 2013 settlement with Cbr Systems Inc., a blood bank where parents store the umbilical cord blood of newborns in case it is ever needed to treat subsequent diseases in the children or relatives. That settlement requires Cbr to implement comprehensive security and submit to independent audits every other year for 20 years. It also bars the company from misrepresenting its privacy and security practices. But FTC officials say the number of complaints pursued hardly reflects the scope of the problem. Most consumers are never told when a company sells or otherwise shares their health information without their permission, said Maneesha Mithal, associate director of the FTC’s division of privacy and identity protection. “It may be done behind the scenes, without consumers’ knowledge,” she noted. “Those are the cases where consumers may not even know to complain.”

View more on Helen H. Moore's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 21, 2015 08:00

Freedom fries and chicken hawks: The American history mosque-closers and chest-thumpers must learn

We’ve been here before. When terror strikes at the heart of a people, the immediate tendency is to talk tough and demand action. It feels good at first, but as often as not, the commitment leads to unnecessary expenditures and unsatisfactory results, not to mention an uptick in racist stereotyping. We’re not just talking about 9/11, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In reaction to Pearl Harbor, the U.S. established internment camps for Japanese-Americans. When legal instruments are invoked in this manner, we’re not merely talking about a “backlash”; we’re legalizing racism. In fact, there was a time, long gone by now, when the radical threat to American peace and social order and national religious life came from France itself. But as recently as 2003, France became something of a symbol of the sort of Western nation that was soft on terror: its government refused to jump on the bandwagon when the Bush-Cheney administration invaded Iraq. Remember freedom fries? There is more than a little historical irony to report. So, let’s first recall what we owe France. The American War for Independence would have been dead in its tracks had it not received substantial military and economic support from the French, when they could scarcely afford it. Yet barely a decade after the Treaty of Paris secured British recognition of American nationhood, the bloody course of the French Revolution — though it was initially conceived on American principles — drove the U.S. government to turn on its most reliable friend. After 1793, when the deposed King Louis XVI was guillotined, the French were generalized as “cannibals”; radical French ideas were believed so dangerous to America that words on the page would be enough to foment unrest and upset the social order. When Thomas Paine, the spirited propagandist of 1776, defended the French Revolution in his pamphlet “The Rights of Man” (1791), the emerging Federalist Party in America saw the tract as a defense of “mob justice” or “mobocracy.” Paine’s next, “The Age of Reason” (1794) questioned biblical authority and in the starkest terms demeaned organized Christianity. By the mid-1790s, the adjective “French” became virtually synonymous with “anarchist.” The pro-French political party that would shortly be known as Democratic-Republican, led by Madison and Jefferson, were dubbed “Jacobins” by their Federalist opponents, after the short-lived party in France that had brought on “the Terror.” The Federalists talked tough, in large part as a means to label Democratic-Republicans as soft on French extremism. You can see where this is going, right? The most militant critic of Revolutionary France was Alexander Hamilton. For him, honor was everything. Personal honor, national honor — he sometimes conflated the two. During John Adams’s presidency, representatives of the French Foreign Ministry snubbed three American envoys, and hardcore Federalists were convinced that the French government would shortly invade the United States. Hamilton regarded the issue as a matter of honor — the loss of national honor would be, in his precise words, “political suicide.” So, he proposed adding 50,000 men to the U.S. Army (with himself at the head, of course), and the U.S. and France engaged in what became known as the “Quasi-War.” It was a case of extreme overreaction. No French troops ever set foot on American soil; no acts of violence against a passive citizenry occurred because of the alleged French menace. But the Quasi-War raised Hamilton’s profile, which had been sagging somewhat. Nevertheless, French emigrés to America continued to be targeted in 1798-99 by those who feared their influence, those who spread fear, while the power of the military in national life increased. Hamilton wanted non-citizens of French origin to be deported. More tough talk ensued, and Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime, punishable by fine and imprisonment, for an American citizen to write critically of the president or insult an officer of the federal government. Newspaper editors and others were tried, found guilty, and jailed for their “French principles.” National honor was twisted in other ways. The War of 1812 was declared over ostensible British insults to American honor, when merchant vessels were boarded by the Royal Navy and U.S. commerce disrupted. Congress’s reaction was to invade Canada, where British agents sat poised to incite western Indians to launch renewed attacks within the United States. A defensive war to redress grievances and buttress a sense of national pride quickly turned into a war to acquire millions more acres of North America. Though government borrowed heavily, the war was fought to a standstill: no territory was exchanged, and the White House and U.S. Capitol were torched in the process of reclaiming a few grams of lost honor. Okay, that was then, and not every lesson of history is entirely translatable to the present. Orchestrated terror is truly horrific. The French are attacking ISIS from the air in revenge for last week’s tragedy, and because we feel so deeply the Parisians’ pain, we understand and approve — without as yet knowing whether enough of the right bad guys are being blown up to justify the deaths of any innocents who might be caught in the crossfire. Perhaps such compromises of principle are to be expected when a center of civilization is terrorized. Who rightfully gets to pass judgment? But in the U.S., the reaction seems to be the same as it was at the time of the Ebola outbreak: some Syrian refugee, somewhere in the bunch, may be a Manchurian candidate, just ten years away from blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma City. Oh, wait. That was a citizen, a Persian Gulf War veteran, who did that. Anyway, Paris may actually give some greater justification, in fearful minds, to candidate Trump’s ridiculous wall and the related deportation mania. The GOP candidates who fan the flames of intolerance whenever something like Paris occurs are doing nothing more than amplifying the hatred that naturally arises at such moments. Some who listen to these voices will be convinced that shutting down mosques or closing our borders will stop terror. But it won’t, of course, any more than duct-taped windows would have saved anyone from the chemical attack that didn’t happen after 9/11. No one wants to feel unsafe; but that doesn’t mean that the initial impulse at a time of crisis is going to be the optimal solution to a complex, long-term problem. President Obama may be criticized for his penchant for diplomacy and his lack of tough talk, but he proceeds always with eyes open. He may be remembered as an imperfect president, but also a prudent one. General Colin Powell had seen enough of war to want to avoid it in 2003, and was the voice of reason who, as secretary of state, was overruled — and remained loyal to the administration. We forget the rhetoric of democracy’s infectious virtue that drove “manifest destiny” as practiced by President Polk during the war with Mexico; Jeb Bush would prefer that we forget how it was re-engaged by Bush-Cheney in underestimating the scope of an Iraq invasion. But we haven’t yet forgotten General Powell’s prudence either. In the old days, a “Hamiltonian moment,” such as that which took us to war in 1812 and again in 1846, was accompanied by the enlistments of noteworthy political men. Congressmen entered the lists against the enemy they’d identified in their public speeches. George Washington was the first to sign up in 1775, and saw plenty of combat. Former Virginia governor James Monroe ached to put on a uniform during the War of 1812, even in his civilian role as President Madison’s secretary of state. Morgan Lewis had been governor of New York, and Andrew Jackson had been a member of both the House and Senate, prior to becoming generals during that war. Abraham Lincoln’s political mentor, Illinois congressman John J. Hardin, joined the fight in Mexico, and forfeited his life in battle, martyred in a questionable cause. And of course, Theodore Roosevelt, an architect of the Spanish-American War, left his comfortable post in Washington to lead troops up San Juan Hill in Cuba in 1898. Other than John McCain, whose interventionist position may be contested but whose knowledge of war cannot be, the tough talkers who are not war veterans do not possess the resolve of Washington, Monroe, Hardin or Roosevelt, who backed up their aggressive statements with a personal commitment to head for the front. Battlefield courage was never shown by warmongers Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney, nor will it be by tough talkers Cruz, Trump, Rubio, Huckabee et al. Be wary of what arises from tough talk. We also need to be reminded that the justifications given for war have the strong tendency to promote racism. In both the American Revolution and the War of 1812, Native Americans and African-American slaves were made more killable than usual when some of them joined the British side. That’s all it took to ramp up the rhetoric against “inferior” races whose proximity gave white folks pause. It will surprise no one that the racist reaction to perceived instability abroad has its own long history. To return to 1793, and the raging French Revolution, slaves in the colony of Haiti (then called St. Domingue) took seriously “liberté” and “égalité,” rose up and were pronounced free. Amid this confusion, the minority white planters fled the island for America, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson refused to provide government assistance to the refugees because of their past royalist/aristocratic affiliation and the Virginia legislature, fearing the mobility of former slaves, decreed that free blacks could not set foot in the state. Jefferson himself wrote to James Monroe that, with a Caribbean “in the hands of people of color,” America “should foresee the bloody scenes which our children, and possibly ourselves have to wade through.” He literally envisioned a devastating race war in the United States. The succeeding generation, fighting in Mexico in 1846-48, similarly decried the “mongrel” population of brown-skinned people south of the newly reconstituted border, a people tainted by their Catholicism. By incorporating too much of the Southwest, the ensuing racial imbalance would infect real American blood. Why was Texas annexed in 1845? Partly as payback for the insult to American honor symbolized by the well-remembered Alamo assault. On the eve of war with Mexico, former treasury secretary Levi Woodbury was harking back to 1836 when he recalled that “Saxon blood had been humiliated and enslaved to Moors, Indians and mongrels.” At the same time, future president James Buchanan dismissed the “imbecile and indolent Mexican race” when he recommended a war of conquest, and said that no white American should ever be under the thumb of a lesser race. Examples abound that show how fear of what lies in the mind of an unknown person or tribe results in dire assumptions, widespread antagonism and heightened propaganda. Those who held slaves (and many who didn’t) assumed that all dark-skinned people harbored ill intent. Jefferson, ingenious in other ways, could not imagine a different world than one in which racial conflict was a conquering force beyond human agency. These past actors were the victims of a fractured ideology, many unaware that genuine self-defense and cries of national honor are not the same thing. Chest-thumping does nothing to restore injured honor. Hyperbolic language only encourages hate. Yet the old ideology has not been entirely destroyed — it can be resurrected in desperate times. Sadly, today’s GOP is little different from their warmongering predecessors in this regard. Wall out bad Mexicans. Quarantine the asymptomatic who may have been exposed to the African disease Ebola. When the media feasts on grisly sensationalism, it unfortunately redounds to the advantage of a certain breed of politician. To caution against overreaction is not to oppose an appropriate reaction. Fourteen years ago, knowing the location of Osama Bin Laden and his supporters in Afghanistan made the attack on Tora Bora and related military actions a rational response to the 9/11 attacks. There is a time for vengeance. It feels right. But as we have learned since 2001, the full force of the U.S. military is not needed over the long haul (major side effect: it breeds resentment), if the goal is to pinpoint individual terror cells and stop them before it’s too late. In macro-historical terms, the presence of U.S. forces in the Islamic world will never win enough hearts and minds to extinguish the anti-Western idea as intended. We may regard our mission as humane, we may be well-intentioned occupiers; but we are occupiers nonetheless. The resentful point at us as aggressors; those most dominated by an insidious ideology are turned into terrorists. Jeb Bush now says U.S. ground troops should be fighting ISIS in Syria. More tough talk. But how is that to remove the danger to Paris or New York or anywhere else? ISIS is not confined within Syria’s borders. Republican candidates beat the drum of war. It’s what they do. But are they capitalizing on the moment to defeat a defeatable enemy, or capitalizing on fear to appear “stronger” than the deliberative leader in the White House or any other reasoning Democrat?

View more on Helen H. Moore's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 21, 2015 07:45

November 20, 2015

Trans resilience is more important to honor than ever — even in the year of Caitlyn Jenner

2015 was a history-making year for transgender people—with Caitlyn Jenner’s interview with Diane Sawyer bringing national visibility to trans lives. But while 20.7 million Americans watched a famous Olympian—known for that iconic Wheaties box—come out to millions of Americans, trans folks were being murdered at gruesome, historic rates. An estimate from Planet Transgender shows that a trans person is killed every 29 hours, and this year, the trans community lost women like Elisha Walker, Candis Capri, and Keyshia Blige, a 33-year-old living in Aurora, Ill., who was misgendered in news reports after being shot to death in a drive-by. These stark dichotomies—increasing acceptance during a time when trans women are the victims of hate crimes at unspeakable rates—is behind the dual meaning of the yearly observation of TDOR, often known as the Transgender Day of Remembrance. Started in 1998 following the death of Rita Hester, who unbelievably survived being stabbed 20 times before suffering a heart attack on the way to the hospital. According to the Daily Beast’s Samantha Allen, her murder was the catalyst “that started a movement.“ In the 17 years since, Hester’s shocking death has too often become the norm for women across the world. As the Advocate’s Sunnivie Brydum reports, 87 trans women have been murdered so far this year (remember, 2015 isn’t over), with disproportionate numbers of reports coming from the United States and Brazil. (Thus, these figures do not account for deaths that go unreported.) These statistics even more harshly affect women of color, who account for two-thirds of hate crimes motivated by gender identity, according to a 2013 survey from the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP). In the face of this high risk of violence, the other meaning of TDOR shines a spotlight on a community that’s both mourning those who have passed and those who are persisting in the face of struggle and hardship: the Trans Day of Resilience. When it comes to the women were horrifically, brutally slaughtered, we should #SayHerName, as black people working for justice did following the death of Sandra Bland. But we should also say the names of the many transgender women and women of color who are alive—women like Janet Mock and Laverne Cox, who are possibility models showing trans folks can not only survive but thrive. Events like the yearly Trans 100 have long argued this by spotlighting community members doing inspiring work across the country. These aren’t just the well-known heroes but the activists and people working behind the scenes to create a better future for trans people everywhere. Co-founded by Jen Richards, creator of the upcoming Her Story webseries, and Antonia D’orsay, executive director of This Is How, the list honors non-profit workers, artists, and educators In 2013, its inductees included names from Matrix director Lana Wachowski and GLAAD’s Jenny Boylan to Andre Perez, the founder of Chicago’s Trans Oral History Project. As BuzzFeed’s Saaed Jones argued at the time, these are important names that every American should know. At that inaugural ceremony, Janet Mock—the host of MSNBC’s So Popular! and best-selling author of Redefining Realness—explained why: “I am here tonight because of the 99 other names on the inaugural Trans 100 list and the unrecognized thousands who are not on this list whose quiet acts are changing lives.” But for trans lives to be of value, transgender folks don’t have to be on the front lines of activism or creating a blockbuster film. Each of us should have the opportunity to say the names of the loved ones or friends who are transgender and inspire us to be more understanding, educated, and inclusive in our own lives. The simple act of visibility itself is important work that doesn’t go recognized enough, the trans people who are working for equality by being themselves in their daily lives—whether that’s riding the subway, going to a grocery store, or coming out to their friends and family. According to 2013 statistics from the Public Research Institute, just 9 percent of Americans say that they know someone who is transgender, but those numbers are changing. And there’s a reason for that: 2015 has faced numerous setbacks—like the failure of Houston’s Non-Discrimination Ordinance (HERO), which allowed for sweeping LGBT protections in public accommodations; the bill voted down over conservative hand-wringing that it would allow “gender-confused men” access to women’s restroom to spy on ladies using the toilet. However, there also continue to be numerous victories. But no matter how many roadblocks trans people face on their long fight for equality, increasing numbers of trans people come out every year, giving people to opportunity to know them. If research from the National Center for Transgender Equality suggested that 12 percent of trans individuals are not out to a single person, that’s a lot of closet doors waiting to be opened. While the world needs more people like Janet Mock and Caitlyn Jenner, we all need heroes in our daily lives—whether that’s showing other trans people it’s OK to come out or modeling what acceptance can look like outside of the trans community. We should say the names of the dead, but we should scream the names of the living right along with them. In a culture where murder and violence is too often the norm, the most important act of resilience is continuing to be yourself.2015 was a history-making year for transgender people—with Caitlyn Jenner’s interview with Diane Sawyer bringing national visibility to trans lives. But while 20.7 million Americans watched a famous Olympian—known for that iconic Wheaties box—come out to millions of Americans, trans folks were being murdered at gruesome, historic rates. An estimate from Planet Transgender shows that a trans person is killed every 29 hours, and this year, the trans community lost women like Elisha Walker, Candis Capri, and Keyshia Blige, a 33-year-old living in Aurora, Ill., who was misgendered in news reports after being shot to death in a drive-by. These stark dichotomies—increasing acceptance during a time when trans women are the victims of hate crimes at unspeakable rates—is behind the dual meaning of the yearly observation of TDOR, often known as the Transgender Day of Remembrance. Started in 1998 following the death of Rita Hester, who unbelievably survived being stabbed 20 times before suffering a heart attack on the way to the hospital. According to the Daily Beast’s Samantha Allen, her murder was the catalyst “that started a movement.“ In the 17 years since, Hester’s shocking death has too often become the norm for women across the world. As the Advocate’s Sunnivie Brydum reports, 87 trans women have been murdered so far this year (remember, 2015 isn’t over), with disproportionate numbers of reports coming from the United States and Brazil. (Thus, these figures do not account for deaths that go unreported.) These statistics even more harshly affect women of color, who account for two-thirds of hate crimes motivated by gender identity, according to a 2013 survey from the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP). In the face of this high risk of violence, the other meaning of TDOR shines a spotlight on a community that’s both mourning those who have passed and those who are persisting in the face of struggle and hardship: the Trans Day of Resilience. When it comes to the women were horrifically, brutally slaughtered, we should #SayHerName, as black people working for justice did following the death of Sandra Bland. But we should also say the names of the many transgender women and women of color who are alive—women like Janet Mock and Laverne Cox, who are possibility models showing trans folks can not only survive but thrive. Events like the yearly Trans 100 have long argued this by spotlighting community members doing inspiring work across the country. These aren’t just the well-known heroes but the activists and people working behind the scenes to create a better future for trans people everywhere. Co-founded by Jen Richards, creator of the upcoming Her Story webseries, and Antonia D’orsay, executive director of This Is How, the list honors non-profit workers, artists, and educators In 2013, its inductees included names from Matrix director Lana Wachowski and GLAAD’s Jenny Boylan to Andre Perez, the founder of Chicago’s Trans Oral History Project. As BuzzFeed’s Saaed Jones argued at the time, these are important names that every American should know. At that inaugural ceremony, Janet Mock—the host of MSNBC’s So Popular! and best-selling author of Redefining Realness—explained why: “I am here tonight because of the 99 other names on the inaugural Trans 100 list and the unrecognized thousands who are not on this list whose quiet acts are changing lives.” But for trans lives to be of value, transgender folks don’t have to be on the front lines of activism or creating a blockbuster film. Each of us should have the opportunity to say the names of the loved ones or friends who are transgender and inspire us to be more understanding, educated, and inclusive in our own lives. The simple act of visibility itself is important work that doesn’t go recognized enough, the trans people who are working for equality by being themselves in their daily lives—whether that’s riding the subway, going to a grocery store, or coming out to their friends and family. According to 2013 statistics from the Public Research Institute, just 9 percent of Americans say that they know someone who is transgender, but those numbers are changing. And there’s a reason for that: 2015 has faced numerous setbacks—like the failure of Houston’s Non-Discrimination Ordinance (HERO), which allowed for sweeping LGBT protections in public accommodations; the bill voted down over conservative hand-wringing that it would allow “gender-confused men” access to women’s restroom to spy on ladies using the toilet. However, there also continue to be numerous victories. But no matter how many roadblocks trans people face on their long fight for equality, increasing numbers of trans people come out every year, giving people to opportunity to know them. If research from the National Center for Transgender Equality suggested that 12 percent of trans individuals are not out to a single person, that’s a lot of closet doors waiting to be opened. While the world needs more people like Janet Mock and Caitlyn Jenner, we all need heroes in our daily lives—whether that’s showing other trans people it’s OK to come out or modeling what acceptance can look like outside of the trans community. We should say the names of the dead, but we should scream the names of the living right along with them. In a culture where murder and violence is too often the norm, the most important act of resilience is continuing to be yourself.

View more on Helen H. Moore's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 20, 2015 13:45

After Paris terror attacks, an amped up round of security state vitriol is directed at Edward Snowden

Current and former top officials in the United States surveillance command have come out with their sights curiously set on Edward Snowden following last Friday's terror attacks in Paris. Only three days after at least eight radicalized European nationals stormed the city of Paris in a series of terror attacks linked to ISIL, current CIA director John Brennan blamed the former federal contractor's leaks for allowing terrorist to practice more "operational security," making them harder to monitor -- although the CIA chief avoided explicitly mentioning Snowden by name:

In the past several years, because of a number of unauthorized disclosures and a lot of handwringing over the government’s role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists, there have been some policy and legal and other actions that make our ability collectively, internationally to find these terrorists much more challenging.

Michael Morell, the former deputy director of the CIA, said Snowden's leaks helped contribute to the rise of ISIL and said that if Snowden hadn't leaked classified information on the United State's massive surveillance apparatus, the West would have had a "fighting chance" to prevent the Paris attacks. “We’ve had a public debate. That debate was defined by Edward Snowden, right, and the concern about privacy,” Morell said Sunday on “Face the Nation.” “I think we're now going to have another debate about that. It's going to be defined by what happened in Paris.” The fresh new round of Snowden bashing wasn't just reserved for the intelligence community either. Fox's Dana Perino was out pointing the finger at Snowden only hours after the attacks: https://twitter.com/DanaPerino/status... London's Mayor Boris Johnson said that Snowden had effectively taught terrorists “how to avoid being caught”:

To some people the whistleblower Edward Snowden is a hero; not to me. It is pretty clear that his bean-spilling has taught some of the nastiest people on the planet how to avoid being caught; and when the story of the Paris massacre is explained, I would like a better understanding of how so many operatives were able to conspire, and attack multiple locations, without some of their electronic chatter reaching the ears of the police.

Taking the fresh round of Snowden bashing to a shameful new low, former CIA director under Bill Clinton, James Woolsey, told CNN’s Brooke Baldwin on Thursday that Snowden deserved to be "hanged by the neck until he’s dead, rather than merely electrocuted.” “I think the blood of a lot of these French young people is on his hands,” the former spy chief said. But as the New York Times Editorial board wrote, denouncing the intelligence community's ugly scapegoating of Snowden for the Paris attacks, despite the leaks, "intelligence authorities are still able to do most of what they did before — only now with a little more oversight by the courts and the public":

Most of the men who carried out the Paris attacks were already on the radar of intelligence officials in France and Belgium, where several of the attackers lived only hundreds of yards from the main police station, in a neighborhood known as a haven for extremists. As one French counterterrorism expert and former defense official said, this shows that “our intelligence is actually pretty good, but our ability to act on it is limited by the sheer numbers.” In other words, the problem in this case was not a lack of data, but a failure to act on information authorities already had.

In the past several years, because of a number of unauthorized disclosures and a lot of handwringing over the government’s role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists, there have been some policy and legal and other actions that make our ability collectively, internationally to find these terrorists much more challenging.

To some people the whistleblower Edward Snowden is a hero; not to me. It is pretty clear that his bean-spilling has taught some of the nastiest people on the planet how to avoid being caught; and when the story of the Paris massacre is explained, I would like a better understanding of how so many operatives were able to conspire, and attack multiple locations, without some of their electronic chatter reaching the ears of the police.

Most of the men who carried out the Paris attacks were already on the radar of intelligence officials in France and Belgium, where several of the attackers lived only hundreds of yards from the main police station, in a neighborhood known as a haven for extremists. As one French counterterrorism expert and former defense official said, this shows that “our intelligence is actually pretty good, but our ability to act on it is limited by the sheer numbers.” In other words, the problem in this case was not a lack of data, but a failure to act on information authorities already had.

In the past several years, because of a number of unauthorized disclosures and a lot of handwringing over the government’s role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists, there have been some policy and legal and other actions that make our ability collectively, internationally to find these terrorists much more challenging.

To some people the whistleblower Edward Snowden is a hero; not to me. It is pretty clear that his bean-spilling has taught some of the nastiest people on the planet how to avoid being caught; and when the story of the Paris massacre is explained, I would like a better understanding of how so many operatives were able to conspire, and attack multiple locations, without some of their electronic chatter reaching the ears of the police.

Most of the men who carried out the Paris attacks were already on the radar of intelligence officials in France and Belgium, where several of the attackers lived only hundreds of yards from the main police station, in a neighborhood known as a haven for extremists. As one French counterterrorism expert and former defense official said, this shows that “our intelligence is actually pretty good, but our ability to act on it is limited by the sheer numbers.” In other words, the problem in this case was not a lack of data, but a failure to act on information authorities already had.

View more on Helen H. Moore's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 20, 2015 13:32

Happy 20th Anniversary Salon

The first edition of Salon went live twenty years ago, an early milestone in the now booming world of digital publishing. As one of the earliest online news sites, Salon’s approach to sparking dialogue by blending quality journalism with cutting-edge technology was truly pioneering. We continue that tradition today thanks to the dedication of our employees and our commitment to supporting an array of strong, progressive voices, whose uniqueness and courage vocalize important perspectives. Our amazing lineage of writers—past and present—contributed much to today’s political, cultural and media landscape. Salon’s revelations surrounding the Clinton impeachment scandals, the 2000 election debacle in Florida—or more recently, its agenda-setting discussion on racism in the United States, Charlie Hebdo, and the state of the Democratic Party—have driven the national conversation. Our Life section authors helped shape the memoir culture, while our "Mothers Who Think" series launched the myriad of "mommy" sites and blogs that are synonymous with the conversation surrounding motherhood in the twenty-first century. This is just the tip of the iceberg; today our writers continue to challenge conventional wisdom and dominant media paradigms. They bring insightful arguments to the table and encourage the public to engage, covering an array of topics from the intersection of politics and media, the Black Lives Matter movement, the Uber-ization of modern life, and so much more. Our peers recognize the continued excellence of Salon. In the past year, Heather "Digby" Parton was awarded the Hillman Prize for Opinion and Analysis writing and Salon won a Folio Award for General Consumer Website “design and uncompromising journalism,” recent additions to Salon’s long list of accolades over the years. Salon enhanced its storytelling and launched original editorial video this year, a terrific complement to our brand of journalistic excellence and one that will grow. Our inventive sales team has forged new paths with their creative, bespoke ad solutions, and our tech and product teams constantly push new frontiers. Today, over half of our audience use and interact with Salon on their mobile devices, an important development, and we constantly work to improve our mobile technology. Salon was one of the apps available at the launch of the Apple Watch last April, underscoring our commitment to innovate on both a technological and editorial level to explore new trends in online content. Going forward, we’re thinking how to best harness the Internet of Things to broaden the Salon experience. Salon took its name from the Enlightenment-era salons where people with different points of view congregated to discuss changing opinions about society, politics, culture, science, innovation, and more. The salon culture of the eighteenth century’s intellectual revolution—informed and influenced by the scientific revolution—helped spread ideas and provoked re-examination of previously held norms. This inspiration shaped our earliest content, and continues to inform Salon’s fearless, award-winning journalism that cracks open a broader discussion and provides a high-profile platform for diverse voices that are often ignored by the mainstream media. Salon remains at the forefront thanks to its dedication to quality journalism, making the conversation smarter, and exploring emerging technology platforms to be where our readers are. We have come a long way from the tiny online media startup begun by David Talbot in November 1995—and we could not do it without the help and support of our terrific alumni, present-day staff and readers. I’m truly thankful for Salon, what it contributes to the world, and the opportunity to work every day with terrific, intelligent, and engaged colleagues. We will mark the anniversary year in several ways in the upcoming months. Stay tuned for further details closer to those events. In the meantime, we invite you to go back to the beginning and explore Salon’s first edition via the Internet Archive. Wishing you all a wonderful Thanksgiving as we head into our twentieth anniversary.The first edition of Salon went live twenty years ago, an early milestone in the now booming world of digital publishing. As one of the earliest online news sites, Salon’s approach to sparking dialogue by blending quality journalism with cutting-edge technology was truly pioneering. We continue that tradition today thanks to the dedication of our employees and our commitment to supporting an array of strong, progressive voices, whose uniqueness and courage vocalize important perspectives. Our amazing lineage of writers—past and present—contributed much to today’s political, cultural and media landscape. Salon’s revelations surrounding the Clinton impeachment scandals, the 2000 election debacle in Florida—or more recently, its agenda-setting discussion on racism in the United States, Charlie Hebdo, and the state of the Democratic Party—have driven the national conversation. Our Life section authors helped shape the memoir culture, while our "Mothers Who Think" series launched the myriad of "mommy" sites and blogs that are synonymous with the conversation surrounding motherhood in the twenty-first century. This is just the tip of the iceberg; today our writers continue to challenge conventional wisdom and dominant media paradigms. They bring insightful arguments to the table and encourage the public to engage, covering an array of topics from the intersection of politics and media, the Black Lives Matter movement, the Uber-ization of modern life, and so much more. Our peers recognize the continued excellence of Salon. In the past year, Heather "Digby" Parton was awarded the Hillman Prize for Opinion and Analysis writing and Salon won a Folio Award for General Consumer Website “design and uncompromising journalism,” recent additions to Salon’s long list of accolades over the years. Salon enhanced its storytelling and launched original editorial video this year, a terrific complement to our brand of journalistic excellence and one that will grow. Our inventive sales team has forged new paths with their creative, bespoke ad solutions, and our tech and product teams constantly push new frontiers. Today, over half of our audience use and interact with Salon on their mobile devices, an important development, and we constantly work to improve our mobile technology. Salon was one of the apps available at the launch of the Apple Watch last April, underscoring our commitment to innovate on both a technological and editorial level to explore new trends in online content. Going forward, we’re thinking how to best harness the Internet of Things to broaden the Salon experience. Salon took its name from the Enlightenment-era salons where people with different points of view congregated to discuss changing opinions about society, politics, culture, science, innovation, and more. The salon culture of the eighteenth century’s intellectual revolution—informed and influenced by the scientific revolution—helped spread ideas and provoked re-examination of previously held norms. This inspiration shaped our earliest content, and continues to inform Salon’s fearless, award-winning journalism that cracks open a broader discussion and provides a high-profile platform for diverse voices that are often ignored by the mainstream media. Salon remains at the forefront thanks to its dedication to quality journalism, making the conversation smarter, and exploring emerging technology platforms to be where our readers are. We have come a long way from the tiny online media startup begun by David Talbot in November 1995—and we could not do it without the help and support of our terrific alumni, present-day staff and readers. I’m truly thankful for Salon, what it contributes to the world, and the opportunity to work every day with terrific, intelligent, and engaged colleagues. We will mark the anniversary year in several ways in the upcoming months. Stay tuned for further details closer to those events. In the meantime, we invite you to go back to the beginning and explore Salon’s first edition via the Internet Archive. Wishing you all a wonderful Thanksgiving as we head into our twentieth anniversary.

View more on Helen H. Moore's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 20, 2015 13:20

Top Clinton donor and “Koch Brother of Israel” supports profiling and “intense” interrogation of refugees

"Profiling, listening in on anyone and everybody who looks suspicious, or interviewing Muslims in a more intense way than interviewing Christian refugees is all acceptable," according to top Hillary Clinton donor and prominent pro-Israel activist Haim Saban. The billionaire entertainment executive and media mogul, who is among the 500 richest people in the world, made these remarks in an interview with The Wrap. "I’m not suggesting we put Muslims through some kind of a torture room to get them to admit that they are or they’re not terrorists," Saban added. "But I am saying we should have more scrutiny." After this article was published, Saban's spokesperson contacted Salon with an updated statement, clarifying that Saban misspoke and actually defended harsher vetting practices for Syrian refugees, not all Muslims. "I misspoke. I believe that all refugees coming from Syria -- a war-torn country that ISIS calls home – regardless of religion require additional scrutiny before entering the United States," Saban said. "I regret making a religious distinction as opposed to a geographical one: it's about scrutinizing every single individual coming from a country with ISIS strongholds." Saban -- whom Clinton calls "a very good friend, supporter, and adviser" -- and his wife Cheryl have given $2 million to Clinton's Super PAC, Priorities USA Action. In May, he hosted a fundraiser for Clinton, earning her $2 million more. Those who hoped to dine with the Democratic presidential candidate at the event paid a minimum of $2,700 per person just to get in. The November 13 ISIS attacks on Paris, Saban argued in the interview, will help Hillary Clinton in her presidential campaign. Clinton "has been in the trenches her whole life," Saban said. "She's also made of steel. She's absolutely made of steel and she will take no baloney from no ISIS." He described the Paris attacks as "a wake-up call," adding "I fully believe we're in a different kind of World War III." In the updated statement, Saban said that, "while in contradiction to our country's principles in time of peace, I'm comfortable with the government taking additional measures, including increased surveillance of individuals they deem suspicious." He also took several jabs at fellow Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, criticizing the self-declared democratic socialist for his much less hawkish positions. Saban maintained that Hillary Clinton's support for the illegal Iraq War, which Sanders and most of the American Left strongly opposed, "was the right vote." "She apologized, but I don't think she should have," Saban continued. "But that's easy for me to say. I'm sitting in Beverly Park," he added, referring to the gated Los Angeles neighborhood Forbes describes as "Beverly Hills' mansion-packed billionaire community." "Koch Brother of Israel" Haim Saban is known for his diehard pro-Israel stance, and for putting his money where is mouth is. He and leading GOP funder Sheldon Adelson have been described by former AIPAC official M.J. Rosenberg as the Koch Brothers of Israel. Saban said the breakdown of negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians moved him "very far to the right," adding he is "sometimes to the right of [Avigdor] Lieberman," a far-right Israeli politician who called for the beheading of "disloyal" Palestinian citizens of Israel. Despite his extreme right-wing views, Saban is a leading supporter of the Democratic Party. He has donated many millions of dollars to the Clintons, in particular. In the 2008 presidential election, he also publicly supported Hillary, for whom he raised large sums of money and held fundraisers. The billionaire has founded several pro-Israel think tanks and organizations. "I'm a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel," he told the New York Times. Clinton wrote a letter to Saban in July, in which she smeared and vilified Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS), a nonviolent global grassroots movement called for by Palestinian civil society that seeks to pressure Israel, through peaceful economic measures, to comply with international law and end its illegal occupation and oppression of the indigenous Palestinian people. Clinton asked the billionaire for advice on how to undermine the BDS movement, emphasizing "how crucial it is for America to defend Israel at every turn." In her letter to Saban, Clinton also referred to U.N. resolutions calling on Israel to abide by international law and cease its illegal activity as "anti-Israel resolutions." Salon has exposed how, under Clinton's leadership, the U.S. State Department, in its own words, "deferred" U.N. action on Israeli war crimes, in hopes of "reframing the debate" about the atrocities and "moving away from the U.N." In an interview with the right-wing Israeli publication the Jerusalem Post, Saban characterized Clinton as the ideal U.S. presidential candidate for Israel.

View more on Helen H. Moore's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 20, 2015 12:54

8 of the nuttiest things Jenny McCarthy has ever said (in public)

Jenny McCarthy's recent comment about Charlie Sheen's HIV diagnosis showed just how clueless she can be — but it wasn't the first time an absurd comment thrust her into the spotlight. Watch 8 of the nuttiest things she has ever said — in public that is: [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2015/11/JennyM..." image="http://media.salon.com/2015/11/jenny_... McCarthy's recent comment about Charlie Sheen's HIV diagnosis showed just how clueless she can be — but it wasn't the first time an absurd comment thrust her into the spotlight. Watch 8 of the nuttiest things she has ever said — in public that is: [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2015/11/JennyM..." image="http://media.salon.com/2015/11/jenny_...]

View more on Helen H. Moore's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 20, 2015 12:50

Stop talking about who’s “had work done”: “Modern Family” star shares heartbreaking cosmetic surgery stories

Earlier this week, "Modern Family" actress Ariel Winter boldly spoke out — not for the first time — about body image issues, using her Instagram feed as a chance to talk about how young women are sexualized and demeaned over the looks. After slamming the body shamers, she reminded her fans that "YOU ARE BEAUTIFUL." Now, a costar is also speaking up about the pressures to be perfect — but this time, it's from the male perspective. Writing in a brave and candid essay for Huffington Post, actor Reid Ewing -- who has played Sarah Hyland's on again-off again boyfriend Dylan since the show's first episode in 2009 -- shares his journey through body dysmorphic disorder. "In 2008, when I was 19 years old, I made my first appointment to meet with a cosmetic surgeon," he writes. "I genuinely believed if I had one procedure I would suddenly look like Brad Pitt." Unsurprisingly, given Ewing's chosen industry, his doctor "quickly determined that large cheek implants would address the issues I had with my face, and a few weeks later I was on the operating table." When the results went poorly, he found an "even less qualified" surgeon who suggested a chin implant — and then botched that as well. As he writes, "For the next couple of years, I would get several more procedures with two other doctors," procedures that led to a spiral of complications and corrections. Finally, he says, in 2012 he decided he had to make a change, and vowed to stop getting cosmetic surgery -- in spite of his insecurity. He notes that "Of the four doctors who worked on me, not one had mental health screenings in place for their patients, except for asking if I had a history of depression, which I said I did, and that was that. My history with eating disorders and the cases of obsessive compulsive disorder in my family never came up. None of the doctors suggested I consult a psychologist for what was clearly a psychological issue rather than a cosmetic one or warn me about the potential for addiction." And he observes that what he went though is "a problem that is rarely taken seriously because of the public shaming of those who have had work done." The pressure on women — especially those in the public eye — to conform to incredibly narrow and unrealistic physical ideals is a topic that makes for seemingly daily headlines. Fortunately, in the past few years, more women have been coming forward and speaking out about it. Just as 17 year-old Ariel Winter was calling out the "mean things people bravely say behind their computer screens" this week, Anna Paquin was similarly hitting back at her online critics after a recent carpet event, announcing on Twitter, "Fun fact: Wearing a dress that is not skintight=Pregnant/invites people 2 call u fat. I'm neither so thanks 4 that… dear mother nature, people who bravely hide behind computers and pass judgement have informed me my pale skin and dark hair=old/ugly/harsh." But as women are becoming more vocal, there's increasing pressure on men as well — you don't have to search too far, including on HuffPo itself — for a mocking headline about a male celebrity who "doesn't look like this any more." And just as eating disorders and body dysmorphia have traditionally been the province of females, men are, unfortunately, increasingly at risk as well. Russell Brand has been open about his past struggles with bulimia. Billy Bob Thornton has said that for a period when he was trying to lose weight for an early role, "Frankly, for a while there, I think I had a little mental problem. I got anorexic; of course, I denied it to my girlfriend [Laura Dern] and everyone else who said I had an eating disorder." In 2008, Kings of Leon's Caleb Followill admitted he'd suffered through anorexia as a teen, saying, "I always thought I wasn't good enough." And in a 2013 interview with Australia’s Sunday Style, Robert Pattison reportedly said that before red carpet events, "I get a ton of anxiety, right up until the second I get out of the car to the event, when suddenly it completely dissipates. But up until that moment I’m a nut case. Body dysmorphia, overall tremendous anxiety. I suppose it’s because of these tremendous insecurities that I never found a way to become egotistical." But speaking with the Telegraph in 2013, 19 year-old Danny Bowman, who has been treated for body dysmorphia disorder, emphasized, "I want people to understand that this is not an 'LA disorder.' It affects people from all walks of life. I’m from a small town in Northern England after all." In a culture in which anybody's selfie can be up for public ridicule, it's understandable that males would become increasingly vulnerable to body image disorders. But with his honesty, Ewing is shining a light not just on his condition but the doctors who prey on patients struggling with it. And as Johns Hopkins School of Medicine plastic surgeon Lisa Ishii told Nature recently, these people "don’t need cosmetic surgery. They need psychiatric care."

View more on Helen H. Moore's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 20, 2015 12:48

The Donald’s crossed the line: Even Bill Maher is appalled by Trump’s latest Islamophobic low

Bill Maher has described Islamic beliefs as "barbaric,” repeatedly deriding the faith as the "one culture that has been been blowing shit up over and over again,” for the last 30 years. But when Donald Trump endorsed the idea of a federal registry for Muslim Americans this week, the comedian and HBO host had no problem denouncing the wholly unconstitutional suggestion as "outrageous." He'll no doubt have more to say about this on tonight's episode of "Real Time":

As someone with the credentials of always keeping it real about Islam, let me say #Trump's idea about registering Muslims is outrageous. Posted by Bill Maher on Thursday, November 19, 2015

View more on Helen H. Moore's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 20, 2015 12:37

This is the GOP’s war on sex: Widespread popularity of sex without making babies is no obstacle to fundamentalist fanatics

It's heartening to see a show as popular as "Scandal" tackle the issues of abortion and the increasing right-wing attempts to stigmatize not just abortion but all reproductive health care through their relentless abuse of Planned Parenthood. But it's also depressing, because it seems that the widespread popularity of being able to have sex without making babies is no obstacle to the fundamentalist fanatics who want us all to live by their abstain-or-suffer morality. This week, the Republicans won another battle in the war on Planned Parenthood, which is the right's shining symbol of the evils of sexual liberation, when Ohio Republicans barring Planned Parenthood from accessing a set of federal grants. There was, as there usually is, a bunch of high-minded faux outrage about abortion from Republicans trying to justify these cuts, but readers who have been following this will not be surprised to find out that the funds in question do not go to abortion services. They don't even go to contraception services, because, as Molly Redden of the Guardian reports, Ohio already cut contraception funding in 2013. No, the funds that were cut were from two major programs: A grant program for STI testing (including HIV testing) and another program to reduce infant mortality. Hopefully, this will wipe out any remaining doubt that the attacks on Planned Parenthood are about anything but punishing people for having sex. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, "pro-life" about voting for policies that will lead to more people getting HIV and more babies dying. Nothing. The only consistent thread here is anger and hatred towards sexually active people, especially those who are low income, and seeking ways to make it likelier that people who dare have sex fall on hard times, from denying the contraception to denying them abortion to making it easier for them to get sick to even, and this is how low the "pro-life" movement has sunk, making it likely they will lose a baby in childbirth. Even though it's nakedly obvious what's going on here, Ohio Republicans want to keep propping up the illusion that this is about "life" and not what it is clearly about, which is cutting necessary services to sexually active people to punish them for their private choices. They are justifying the cuts by saying people can just go somewhere else besides Planned Parenthood for things like STI tests and prenatal care. To bolster this claim, they passed around a list of what they claimed were "alternate" providers---a list that included food banks and dentists. All of which adds an extra layer of sadism to the whole thing, if you think about it. Here are Republicans, telling you that services are available if you need a low cost OB-GYN to help you through a wanted pregnancy, but when you actually get pregnant and seek those services, ha ha! Just kidding. But you can get your teeth cleaned, I guess. At least until they pass a law requiring a virginity check before you're cleared for dental services. As Redden reports, in two counties, Planned Parenthood has been running the prenatal program for two decades now, and that will be shuttered completely. Even in places that have clinics that could theoretically provide those services, it's going to be a disaster. Clinics in Columbus are already overbooked, with women waiting 6 weeks to see an OB-GYN and start prenatal care. This is just going to make it worse. But anti-choice activists and politicians don't care, because this was never about babies. Back in October, Monica Miller of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, which organizes the nationwide protests against Planned Parenthood and is instrumental in keeping the pressure on Republicans to make cuts like this, explained that the goal here is dismantling a society where people have sex for fun instead of procreation. "I say even if Planned Parenthood didn’t perform one single abortion, just the mere fact that its sexual ethic is corrupted means right there, should be the reason right there, that they should not receive any federal money," she told Ave Maria Radio in October. "The kind of sexual ethic that Planned Parenthood promotes is sex for recreation, sex for mere pleasure.” Obviously, Republicans who push these policies are a bunch of hypocrites who feel perfectly entitled to have all the sex they want while slashing contraception, STI testing and even prenatal services. But such is the nature of conservative prescriptive morality: They expect, even demand, that working class people live by their strict moral rules, while making exceptions for themselves. That's how every lazy congressman who lives on the golf course can still muster the enthusiasm for arguing that people who work two jobs to get by are clearly too lazy to deserve food stamps. It's easy to be "moral" when it's other people who have to live by the rules you write. But of course we all end up paying the price for this foolishness. STI rates across the country are rising. That might be a coincidence, but it's hard to imagine that it's being helped by the rush across the country to shutter Planned Parenthood clinics. One of the major reasons STI outbreaks happen is that people delay getting tested. The longer you don't know, the longer it takes to get treatment, the more chances you have to expose someone else. And then that happens to the next person and so on and so forth. Getting services to people is one of the best ways to break that chain. But it might mean fewer people are "punished" for sex, and we can't have that, can we?