Topless Activist Secures Settlement in Fight for the Right to Bare her Boobies

As a follow-up to one of my earlier posts, one Woman in New York City, who was repeatedly arrested and detained for not wearing a shirt, finally sued the city for her multiple wrongful arrests and detentions because, as she pointed out, toplessness is not a crime. Not in New York City anyway. And that is true. But police officers there apparently still arrest and detain women for it, despite being repeatedly reminded of the laws, at which point the charges are presumably dismissed as nonexistent. Well, this lady finally settled her lawsuit against the city for $40,000 because, as she acknowledged, she would not play well to a judge or jury . . . not without a shirt (assuming she would also show up shirtless to court).

Topless Activist Wins $40,000 Settlement From City for Boob Freedom - nymag.com

Earlier information about the legality of toplessness in New York:

Cops Reminded Repeatedly That Exposed Boobs Are Not a Crime - nymag.com

Hold Onto Your Ovaries Before You Get Behind That Wheel! Holy Ovaries, These Women Want to Drive Cars!

This is hilarious. But I think the title of the article conveys that pretty well already. Note that this man is NOT a doctor of any kind and of course has absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for his claim that women in Saudi Arabia will damage their ovaries if they start driving cars. WHAT?! Uh . . . mm-kay. He is a cleric--as in, member of the church. I wonder whether, under this theory he has seemingly pulled out of his you-know-what, opening bank accounts, traveling, working, or getting an education without express permission from one's male guardian (all of which are also still outlawed for women in Saudi Arabia), will also cause damage to the ovaries?? And I wonder whether all of this ovarian damage is occurring to women engaging in these activities all over the world, or whether it is something specific to Saudi ovaries?? I wish we knew about this riveting (NOT) theory.

Saudi Cleric Warns Driving Could Damage Women's Ovaries - CNN

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Unanimously Votes Against Autocam Corp. in Obamacare Case

There is another "Obamacare"-and-women's-health-care case going on right now in the Sixth Circuit. In that case, like the Hobby Lobby and Hercules cases in the Tenth Circuit, Autocam Corporation has sued the federal government claiming that The Affordance Health Care Act's new mandate that employers must cover women's health care services as part of their employer-sponsored health insurance plans infringes upon the *corporation's* religious freedom under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

Under the RFRA, *persons* are entitled to worship a religion freely without undue interference by the government. Autocam apparently believes certain reproductive health care services for women (birth control, family planning, pills) are A SIN and against its religion. But one threshold question in all of these 70 or so cases recently filed in federal courts around the country has been: How on Earth is a *corporation* considered a *person* that could actually hold religious beliefs? Well, recently, the 10th Circuit, in the Hobby Lobby and Hercules cases, has answered that question in the affirmative.

UNLIKE the 10th Circuit, however, the 6th Circuit last week UNANIMOUSLY answered that question in the negative. So in the 10th Circuit now, corporations are people for purposes of religious freedom, but in the 6th Circuit, they are NOT. How interesting that two different appellate courts could reach such a different result on the same question around the same time. Here is a copy of the 6th Circuit's opinion:

Autocam Corp. v. United States - 6th Circuit Court of Appeals

More Info on the issue: A Second Federal Appeals Court Rules Against For-Profit in Fight Over Contraception Coverage - RH Reality Check

The 3rd Circuit has also recently sided with the 6th Circuit in holding that corporations are not people and they must provide insurance plans with birth control, and so far the 10th Circuit is officially alone. This is very likely going to be a question for the United States Supreme Court.

A Call for More Women Judges (in the Context of the Health Care Cases)

Here's an articulate plea out of Denver for more women judges. The piece draws some intriguing parallels between "Obamacare" and women's rights. Currently, about 30% of federal judges nationwide are women (thanks in part to Obama, who has appointed far more women judges to the federal bench than any other President in U.S. history, despite Congress's refusal to approve many of them), and in Colorado it's 27%. And in the U.S. Court of Appeals (10th Circuit, which includes Colorado), it's only 10%.

There are two cases currently pending, one in federal district court in Colorado, and the other in the 10th Circuit, which deal with "Obamacare's" requirement that businesses cover reproductive health care services for women as part of their health care plans. The intent of this requirement was to eliminate the gender discrimination inherent in excluding certain health services for women, as such exclusions have an obviously disparate impact on women. Two companies, Hobby Lobby and Hercules Industries, are challenging this requirement as unconstitutional because it goes against their religious beliefs (presumably the belief that reproductive health care is evil or a sin, presuming that a corporation is a "person" who can actually hold religious beliefs (?)) and they should therefore not be required to pay for this type of health care. Interesting issues.

According to this writer, if there were more women on the federal bench deciding these types of cases, maybe those judges would be more likely to rule in favor of women's rights because they understand the importance of these services. Not sure if I agree that a judge would be more likely to rule one way or the other on a constitutional issue just because she is a woman, but still, it's something to think about.

We Need More Female Judges - Denver Post

For the law geeks, here is the recent appellate opinion on the injunction issues in the Hobby Lobby case which concludes that for-profit corporations are indeed "persons" who can hold religious beliefs (pages 25-35 of the opinion):

Hobby Lobby v. United States - 10th Circuit Court of Appeals

Is Toplessness Everyone's Constitutional Right?

Here is a very interesting piece out of Michigan about the double standard of toplessness in America. According to this writer (Bill Schroer), many women believe that the fact that it is socially acceptable in the U.S. for a man to be topless but is NOT acceptable for women . . . is gender discrimination. Well, interestingly, some courts in Ohio, New York, and Canada agree and have declared laws against toplessness for women to be unconstitutional!

Perhaps this goes back to our notion of the female breast (and lactation? reproduction?) as something dirty, or something of which we should all be ashamed. But interestingly, this was NOT the case in America before the 1930's, when toplessness was forbidden for everyone, men and women alike. But then men rebelled (and, presumably, women kept quiet), so men fought for their right to flaunt it--and won!

In Europe, as this writer points out, this topless double standard doesn't really exist and many women are free to go topless without incident. This Past Week was National Go Topless Day. I did not even know this was a holiday! (Now I will know for next year . . . .)

Bill Schroer: Women's Rights to Choose is About Gender Equality - Battle Creek Enquirer