August 2009 Archives

During my travels over the weekend I missed a very important front page offering in Sunday's Sioux City Journal by Bret Hayworth, "Wanted: Women Lawmakers." No, there isn't much information in the article that regular EE readers won't already know, but it is always good to see reporters and news outlets outlining and reinforcing the issue. (Note, that statement isn't intended at all to be a slam toward Bret, who has reported on women in politics specifically previously and hit-and-miss in several peripheral news pieces.)

In November, voters will fill three positions on the Sioux City Council, and 11 are seeking the positions.

None of the 11 is a woman.

Women comprise 50.8 percent of the 307 million national population and 50.6 percent of Iowans are female. But 89 years after getting the right to vote -- Women's Equality Day was commemorated Thursday -- it's a man's world in tri-state elective bodies.

Roughly one in five lawmakers in the tri-state legislatures are women, which has been the norm the last decade. In the South Dakota Legislature, 21 of 105 members are women. In the Nebraska Unicameral, 10 of 49 senators are women, although none represent northeast Nebraska. In the Iowa Legislature there are 34 women among the 150 legislators...

Don't miss these tidbits at the bottom of the article:

• None of the five Sioux City Council members is a woman.
• None of the five Dakota County Commission members is a woman.
• None of the five Union County Commission members is a woman.
• One of five Woodbury County supervisors is a woman.
• One of six Sergeant Bluff City Council members is a woman.
• One of the nine South Sioux City Council members is a woman, Mayor Sandra Ehrich.
• Two of the seven Sioux City School Board members are women.
• 10 of 49 Nebraska Unicameral members are women.
• 21 of 105 South Dakota Legislature members are women.
• 34 of 150 Iowa Legislature members are women, 25 in the House and nine in the Senate.
• 24.3 percent of state legislators nationally are women, an all-time high, as 1,791 women serve among the 7,382 seats.

Warning: Readers may find some of these photos disturbing. I debated on the drive home if I would include them and/or edit them, but ultimately decided that readers here deserve an unfettered lens.

People from at least 17 states converged on Bellevue, Neb. on Friday and Saturday, Aug. 28 and 29. Some came to protest a clinic owned by Dr. LeRoy Carhart, a physician whose practice includes abortion services. Others, still emotional over the murder of Kansas-based Dr. George Tiller, came to protect and support Carhart's clinic. (I provided additional information about the build-up and history of the demonstrations in a post I made on Friday.)

While in Nebraska, I interviewed several Iowans who traveled there for the demonstrations. The article with those interviews, as well as additional photos, is being prepared for The Iowa Independent.

Here are some images from Bellevue:

The often radical anti-abortion group Operation Rescue is targeting a Nebraska doctor, one of the few in the nation that still openly provides late abortion services.

Dr. LeRoy Carhart, who was a friend of recently assassinated Dr. George Tiller, performs abortions in his Bellevue clinic -- and plans to do so even as protesters converge on the location today and tomorrow. After Tiller was gunned down in his Kansas church (by a man who claimed he was an Operation Rescue donor and supporter), Carhart not only vowed to continue his practice, but announced that he is considering opening another clinic in Kansas.

After Tiller's death, Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, said the doctor "reaped what he sowed." (As a side note, Terry was ejected from a congressional health care town hall just days ago for, as he put it, a disruption where he would accuse Pres. Barack Obama of "killing Granny and babies." Velvet Revolution has video of the spectacle.)

And, unfortunately, Terry wasn't the only member of the "pro-life" community that appeared to celebrate the murder of Tiller.

An Iowa man who is an extremely active member of the community, Dave Leach, has direct ties the man accused of murdering Tiller and said in the aftermath that he couldn't attack an abortion provider because he doesn't know enough about guns. Leach has had further contact with the accused since his arrest, and has prepared a legal brief in hopes of earning an acquittal in the case.

Two conservative Des Moines radio personalities, Jan Mickelson and Steve Deace, compared the man accused of murdering Tiller to 19th century abolitionist John Brown.

Dan Holman, another activist who runs Missionaries to the Preborn Iowa, told CNN that he "was cheered by" news of Tiller's murder. When asked to clarify the statement, Holman responded that he "believe[s] that what [the shooter] did was justifiable." A slanted 2008 report from World Net Daily regarding Holman's wife being jailed for refusing a court order boasts that Homan "is on record with the Associated Press as praising those who kill abortion providers."

Operation Rescue (West) President Troy Newman, who is at odds with Terry about use of the name and the funds it garners, has vowed the protest will be peaceful, but a Bellevue Police Department captain says law enforcement is prepared for worst-case scenarios. Although the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act remains on the books as a tool for law enforcement to protect those providing and receiving reproductive health services, it has been rarely used. And, if Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning has any say, it will likely not be used in Bellevue.

When Carhart said he would offer late abortions in his Nebraka clinic, Bruning said, "I'm disgusted and I'm saddened, and I hate it that he's here in Nebraska and I hate it that he's in America." 

Local chapters of the National Organization for Women and other like-minded groups are also converging on the area for counter-protests. In fact, on Friday afternoon, organizers reported that the individuals counter-protesting hailed from 16 states.

In addition to announcing his intention to continue offering late abortion services in Kansas, Carhart has further infuriated anti-abortion activists by saying that he has been actively training doctors who come to him to also provide such services. It has long been believed that anti-abortion activists held a goal of making legal challenges a moot point by driving doctors from such practices with violence and fear tactics.

Readers wanting to keep up-to-date on the happenings in Bellevue may wish to keep an eye on #carhart on twitter.

Author's note: I'd like any Iowa groups, formal or otherwise, that are planning to travel to Nebraska on Saturday to please send me an e-mail or connect with me on facebook or twitter.

I have to agree with 64-year-old Raymond Denny who described this question on a Republican National Committee survey as being "beyond the pale."


Images of the full survey, including an introductory letter from Chairman Michael Steele, are available on The Washington Independent.

The following proclamation was signed by Pres. Barack Obama today in honor of Women's Equality Day:

Today, our country renews its commitment to freedom and justice for all our citizens. As we prepare to celebrate this women's day of equality, we reflect on the sacrifices once made to allow women and girls the basic rights and choices we freely exercise today. The future we leave to our daughters and granddaughters will be determined by our willingness to build on the achievements of our past and move forward as one people and one Nation. The fight for women's equality is not a woman's agenda, but an American agenda.

We honor the resilience, accomplishments, and history of all women in the United States. We celebrate the courageous women who fought to uphold a fundamental principle within our Constitution the right to vote and in so doing, protected the cornerstone of our vibrant democracy. These visionaries of the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848 sought to ensure that our country lived up to its founding ideals. Although only one, Charlotte Woodward, at the age of 81, had the opportunity to exercise her newfound right, the struggle reminds us that no righteous cause is a lost one. We also commemorate women like Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, a poet and lecturer who formed the National Association of Colored Women; Antonia Pantoja, a tireless advocate of education equality within the Latino community; Sarah Winnemucca, a voice for peace within the Native American community; and Patsy Mink, author of Title IX and the first woman of color and Asian American woman elected to the United States Congress. These women's talents, and the contributions of countless others, built upon the framework of 1848 and forged paths for future generations.

Our Nation has come a long way since that ground-breaking convention in New York. Women have occupied some of the most significant positions in government. They have delivered justice from the bench of our highest court, fought for our country in foreign lands, discovered cures to diseases, and joined the ranks of the greatest business leaders of our time. Female college graduates now outnumber their male counterparts. Women have sought equality through government, demonstrated by the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, and the establishment of the White House Council on Women and Girls. They have sought equality through advocacy, exemplified by the efforts of thousands of women's organizations. America has made significant progress toward becoming the fair and just society the suffragists once envisioned.

Yet, today, our work remains unfinished. Far too many adult women remain mired in poverty. Women are still subject to pervasive discrimination at school and harassing conduct in the workplace. Women make, on average, only 78 cents for every dollar paid to men. Underrepresented in many facets of our economic and public life, from government to boardrooms to the sciences, women have yet to eradicate all barriers to professional development.

We stand at a moment of unparalleled change and a time for reflection and hope. We cannot allow the vibrant energy and passionate commitment of our trailblazing women to fade, and we can never forget the responsibility we bear to the ideals of liberty and equality for all. Each generation of successful women serves as a catalyst to empower, enlighten, and educate the next generation of girls and boys, and we must devote ourselves to promoting this catalyst for change now and in the future.

On this Women's Equality Day, we resolve to continue the important work of our Nation's foremothers and their successors, and turn their vision of a more equal America into our reality.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim August 26, 2009, as Women's Equality Day. I call upon the people of the United States to celebrate the achievements of women and recommit themselves to the goal of true gender equality in this country.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fifth day of August, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

BARACK OBAMA

I wrote a post yesterday that was scheduled to publish today in honor of Women's Equality Day. But, upon waking up this morning to the news that U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy had lost his battle with cancer, I knew what I'd written wasn't nearly enough.

By all rights I should not have been touched by the Kennedys. They were of my parents' generation or, at best, people who impacted my older brothers and sisters. Both Pres. Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy were gunned down before my memories began, and, by the time I became interested in politics, Sen. Ted Kennedy was an elderly statesman who held no more interest to me than any of the other number of elder statesmen throughout the nation.

Throughout my early lifetime, I always believed the Kennedy family was the past -- people from whom we could learn, but people who really made little difference in the here and now. That changed in the 1980s when I was given opportunity to speak to a young Oklahoma congressman named Mike Synar.

Synar, who was likely the last true liberal politician to be elected from Oklahoma, took on a host of special interests, championed campaign finance reform and, later in his career, issued a constitutional challenge to the Gramm-Rudman Act, which resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the law. (It is also forever my dismay that Oklahomans, presented with billboards that read "Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Synar," chose a little known former high school principal in a 1994 Democratic primary, which paved the way for the current U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn -- a man who pales in comparison to Synar both professionally and personally.)

Synar, like most politicians, was served more than his fair share of nastiness. While I was interested in politics even at that age -- I had already spent a great deal of time phone banking and door knocking while helping a close family friend with a local mayoral campaign -- I was still bewildered as to why anyone in their right mind would subject themselves to the nastiness that comes with the job. When I posed the question to Synar, he looked me straight in the eye and answered with a question of his own, inquiring if I played sports or participated in band and chorus.

I nodded that I did. He then asked if I planned to register to vote when I turned 18. I nodded again, adding that my parents would likely stand over my shoulder while I filled out my voter registration form.

While I don't remember Synar's exact words, he explained that those things were made possible for all Americans -- but especially for women -- because certain politicians fought for and won them on our behalf. I later learned that Ted Kennedy was instrumental in both pieces of legislation and a wealth of others, and my understanding of what politics could be and how the past intersects with the current was forever changed.

Just two short years after Synar was defeated in the Democratic primary, he died from a brain tumor. My first thought at the time was not for the loss of the man, who I admired beyond measure, but for the loss of the champion and for all the work that remained to be done.

Those are my thoughts again this morning upon hearing the news that Ted Kennedy lost his battle with brain cancer. So much has been accomplished, but so much more remains to be done.

Women who battle daily for equality in all manners of life have lost yet another champion. As we sit on the sidelines debating whether our starting line should be comprised of feminists 1.0 or feminists 2.0, grass is growing under our feet and opportunities are being missed.

Never was the divide more prominent than in January 2008 when the New York National Organization for Women blasted Kennedy for supporting then-Sen. Barack Obama in the Democratic nomination for president. Instead of offering praise to Kennedy for support of legislation that advanced women, Marcia Pappas, the organization's president, chose instead to label Kennedy as a "Johnny Come Lately" on women's issues. His support for Title IX, the Equal Rights Amendment and the Family Medical Leave Act, according to the press release, came too late to be considered as "real" support of women's equality.

The press release also noted Kennedy's support of the George W. Bush-designed No Child Left Behind, but failed to also note Kennedy's frustration and work to repair the unfunded mandates set forth in the bill.

As I stated above, I've learned a great deal about politics since my first conversation with Synar. Chief among my experiences are to not bite the hand that feeds you and to offer praise to politicians of any gender and ilk who advance your issues. Women seem to have forgotten that just as we marched and battled and shouted for equality, we were joined by millions of men who also believed that the female of the species is worthy.

Today is a day set aside for women to celebrate the passage of the 19th Amendment, which affirmed women have a right to vote, and also for women to be reminded of the work that remains.

Each year we spout the names of Lydia Chapin, Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth and Elizabeth Cady Stanton as champions of the women suffrage movements and as people we should strive to emulate in our every day lives. What we need to remember -- always remember -- that it does no disservice to the women who fought and clawed their way into the American conscience to also remember that the 19th Amendment was approved by the U.S. House and U.S. Senate in 1919 and signed by the President -- all of whom were men, and many of whom who were not immediate and staunch supporters of the movement.

It doesn't matter when a person comes to the realization that women deserve equality. What matters is that a person acknowledges and fights for women's equality.   

Today I discovered an absolutely fascinating article that focuses on the intersection of two of my personal interests: Rural living and women's rights. The article focuses on the Convention of the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), adopted by the United Nations in 1979. As such, it is worth noting at the outset of this post that, as of this month, 185 countries have ratified CEDAW. The United States joins the ranks of Iran and Sudan as the small minority of countries that have rejected the treaty, which is known worldwide as a "Bill of Rights" for women. The U.S. has the dubious distinction of being the only country in the Western Hemisphere and the only industrialized democracy that has not ratified the treaty, a process which requires a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate.

If you would like more information on why the U.S. has not ratified the treaty, read the "Fear vs. Fact" primer compiled by the American Bar Association. For an even greater understanding, read the interview I did in September 2007 with Cedar Rapids resident Alice Dahle.

Lisa Pruitt, a professor of law at the University of California-Davis, wrote the essay titled, "Migration, Development and the Promise of CEDAW for Rural Women," which was presented at the Michigan Journal of International Law's "Territory without Boundaries" symposium. In particular, Pruitt focuses on Article 14 of CEDAW and how its goals can be achieved in a world that is increasingly becoming more urban.

An understanding of rural-to-urban migration dynamics illuminates the way in which migration alters the circumstances of those left behind. It also invites consideration of the role law might more constructively play for those who are essentially the rural remnant--many of them women--in the developing world.

The essay, while not something likely to be considered as "light" reading, lays out the scenarios facing the women who remain rural, by choice and by circumstance.

Agriculture is a sector in which globalization has had a pronounced impact on rural women. Women producers, among others, struggle to compete in the face of trade liberalization that allows the import of subsidized agricultural products. At the same time, local biases against women producers and the micro-enterprise sector may make it difficult for them to enter into new economic opportunities generated by globalization.

The high levels of debt acquired by many less developed countries impact rural livelihoods in other ways, too. Such debt severely hinders these countries' ability to serve their citizenry, including their typically large rural populations. Further, rising debt severely limits state spending on education, health care and other services. Women and children, often the beneficiaries of such spending, thus frequently bear the brunt of debt's consequences. Finally, the limited resources available increasingly target urban areas, further disadvantaging rural women and children.

The desertification of farm land, whether through natural consequences or exploitation, also adds to the problem, she explains, by forcing the migration of males from rural areas and into urban settings. When the men leave, women and children are often left behind to run already terribly challenged farming operations, with little or no potential of monetary success.

Not only does desertification drive male migration and thus result in rural female-headed households, it creates hardships for all rural households. Rural women are usually responsible for activities such as collecting water and firewood for the family. As resources decline, women devote more time to these tasks, leaving them less time to cultivate food for subsistence or as a source of income. Compounding the problem, women left behind must also assume tasks that were previously the responsibility of men.

Pruitt notes that in some ways the migration of men from rural communities -- especially when such migration is seasonal and temporary -- has resulted in newfound roles and experiences for women. For instance, men traveling to other parts of a country can bring back to rural areas information related to laws, agricultural techniques and other knowledge.

Worldwide, however, many rural households are headed solely by women who have been left behind by permanent migration of males from rural areas. As Pruitt notes, the Food and Agriculture Organization's date shows that women produce half of the world's food for direct consumption and 428 million women work in the agricultural sector.

According to the Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook, when both self-employment and wage labor are considered, women provide more labor in agriculture than men in Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, North Africa, and some Caribbean and Central American countries. The FAO reports that two-thirds of women in the labor force of less developed regions engage in agricultural activities. Yet globally women own less than 2 percent of the land worldwide, and they receive less than 10 percent of the available credit.

Ironically enough, rural women worldwide are much more apt to be dealing with food insecurity than their urban counterparts. Such women, when they do generate income by selling their agricultural products, are more likely to spend their money on life necessities -- food, shelter, health care. Because of this, many local governments do not provide monies to rural areas, which are seen as having much less of an overall economic impact.

Pruitt also takes on those who wish to impose a "U.S. model of agriculture" throughout the world.

That model assumes men to be the productive workers, while relegating women to near invisibility. Women's programs have been limited to "health, family planning, nutrition, child care, and home economics ... For women, the consequences of development include increased workloads, loss of existing employment, changes in the reward structures for their work, and loss of control of land." Indeed, throughout the 1970s, women featured in international rural development policies only in relation to pregnancy, lactation, feeding children, procuring clean water, handling children's diseases, and cultivating home gardens to supplement the family diet.139 This focus on "agriculture for men and home economics for women" cabins and undervalues rural women>

Clearly, rural women should be involved in development efforts--be it in agricultural or other forms. Yet abundant evidence suggests that women are not consistently included. Even when women have access to land, they often do not also have access to credit, technology, and extension services.

The exclusion of women in planning and development remained evident when Pruitt examined the responses of four countries -- China, Ghana, India and South Africa -- to Article 14 of CEDAW, the only human rights treaty that addresses the circumstances of rural women. Although each of the countries have set about to uphold the mission and principles of CEDAW as set out in Article 14, Pruitt's research finds each lacking in the areas of education and inclusion. She also notes that despite lofty goals for the advancement of rural women, CEDAW not only lacks the ability to enforce, but has been ineffective at bringing its message to rural women globally.

Because law is so distant or absent in rural parts of the developing world, women there may not know that national law--let alone an international convention--confers on them particular rights and entitlements. They may be unaware of authorities other than those that are strictly local. Indeed, rural women are not only less likely to be aware of rights that originate at higher scales (that is, national or international) they are also less likely to have access to mechanisms for enforcing them locally. They may be unable to get the attention of legal actors for purposes of initiating strategic litigation or other efforts at enforcement.365 Until rural women are educated about their rights and have access to legal actors and institutions by which they may enforce these rights, international law as reflected in CEDAW and complementary national laws may be irrelevant, or at least of limited influence.

For anyone who has ever had the misfortune of attempting the I-80/I-380 interchange, this is good news:

The Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) will hold a location design public hearing Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2009, in Iowa City to discuss the proposed improvement of the Interstate 80/Interstate 380/U.S. 218/Iowa 27 interchange in Johnson County. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the environmental assessment (EA) completed for this project, the two alternatives, the build and no-build, carried forward for further review and their anticipated impacts. The public is invited to attend the hearing anytime between 5 and 7 p.m. at Iowa City West High School, 2901 Melrose Ave.

The build alternative provides for replacing the four loops in the interchange with directional ramps; widening I-80 to eight lanes from the Ireland Avenue interchange, two miles west of I-380, east to near the Coral Ridge/Iowa 965 interchange and widening I-380/U.S. 218/Iowa 27 to six lanes from north of the Melrose Avenue interchange north approximately four miles to just south of the Forevergreen Road overpass. I-80 mainline widening would provide four 12-foot wide travel lanes in each direction, 12-foot inside and outside shoulders and a closed median with barrier. The I-380/U.S. 218/Iowa 27 roadway would provide three 12-foot wide travel lanes in each direction with 12-foot wide inside and outside shoulders and a grass median. Access rights were previously acquired for I-80, I-380 and U.S. 218/Iowa 27. Jasper and Kansas avenues would be modified to accommodate the improvement. A new bridge would be constructed on Jasper Avenue over I-80. Kansas Avenue Southwest would be relocated to the west and south and would provide access to residences from the south instead of the north.

Because of funding constraints, it may be necessary to construct the build alternative in two or more construction phases. If adequate funds are available, the improvement could be constructed without staging.

The no-build alternative would be the continuation of the highway system as it exists. It would not address the safety needs, increasing traffic volumes and substandard geometrics of the roadway within the project corridor. This alternative would not satisfy the project purpose and need requirements. However, it is carried forward to serve as a baseline for comparison with the build alternative.

Coralville Creekside Park, a Section 4(f) resource, is within the proposed project limits and is subject to protection as a public park/recreation area. Interested citizens will have an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed de minimis effect of the system interchange project on portions of Coralville Creekside Park. De minimis impacts on publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges are defined as those that do not "adversely affect the activities, features and attributes" pursuant to Section 4(f) United States Code, Title 49, section 303.

This public hearing will be conducted utilizing an open forum format. No formal presentation will be made. Iowa DOT staff members will be present with plans, displays and related information to discuss the project informally. Interested individuals are encouraged to attend the hearing to express their views and ask questions about the proposed improvement and the EA.

Details of the proposed improvement can be found at iowadot.gov.

Oral and written statements will be accepted at the hearing. In addition, written statements and related exhibits may be submitted to the Office of Location and Environment, Iowa DOT, 800 Lincoln Way, Ames, Iowa 50010. All written material received by Oct. 12, 2009, will be included in the hearing transcript and considered when making project related decisions.

The EA for this project is available for public review and comment. A copy will be available for inspection at the hearing. The EA documents the purpose and need of the project and the anticipated impacts to the natural and human environment. Copies are available for viewing at the following two locations in the area.

• Coralville Public Library, 1401 Fifth St., Coralville
• Springmier Community Library, 311 W. Marengo Road, Tiffin

Individual copies can be requested by contacting James Rost at the contact information above or telephone 515-239-1798 or Lubin Quinones, division administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Iowa Division Office, 105 Sixth St., Ames, Iowa 50010, or telephone 515-233-7300.

A review deadline of Oct. 12, 2009, has been set for receipt of comments on the EA. All comments received on the EA will be considered in the evaluation of the environmental impacts of the project. Comments on the EA should be submitted to James Rost at the contact information above.

For general information regarding the proposed improvement or the public hearing, contact Catherine Cutler, District 6 planner, District 6 Office, Iowa DOT, P.O. Box 3150, 430 16th Ave. S.W., Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52406-3150, telephone 319-364-0235, e-mail catherine.cutler@dot.iowa.gov.

All persons interested in the project are invited to attend this hearing. The meeting room is accessible for persons with disabilities. If you require special accommodations at the hearing, please notify Ms. Cutler by Sept. 9, 2009, so arrangements can be made.

I can't count the number of times I've almost been involved in or witnessed horrible accidents at this interchange. I will say, however, that the makeshift improvements -- the access lane when coming off of I-380 south to I-80 toward Coralville, for instance -- have made the exchange better. Still, there is much room for improvement.

Public awareness of outrage over any given topic can be best gauged by spoofs. That's right, when Jon Stewart or, say, The Onion picks up on the fact that a significant group of people are feeling slighted (and that the public is sufficiently tuned in as to understand humor on the subject) then you know your cause has arrived.

Advocacy Group Decries PETA's Inhumane Treatment Of Women

Didn't know that women are unhappy with PETA's marketing campaign? Check out this, this, this and this for more info.

A study in the latest issue of Economics & Human Biology (abstract available online) notes that women -- especially Caucasian women -- who receive government assistance for food tend to weigh more than women who do not.

The study, conducted by Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University and Patricia Smith of the University of Michigan-Dearborn, used data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which has questioned the same group of Americans since 1979.

Results suggest that the typical female food stamp participant's BMI (Body Mass Index) is indeed more than 1 unit higher than someone with the same socioeconomic characteristics who is not in the program. For the average American woman, who is 5 ft 4 in. (1.63 m) tall, this means an increase in weight of 5.8 pounds (2.6 kg). While this association does not prove that the Food Stamp Program causes weight gain, it does suggest that program changes to encourage the consumption of high-nutrient, low-calorie foods should be considered.

Interestingly enough, men who receive such government assistance do not tend to have a greater BMI than men who did no receive such assistance. In addition, while women of color who receive assistance tend to carry more weight than those who do not, the difference between those who do and don't is smaller among that group than it is for Caucasian women. Across the board, however, people who received government assistance to purchase food saw their BMI increase at an increased rate when compared to those who did not.

Researchers can't draw a direct link between the use of food stamps, which are now provided in the form of a debit card, but they did speculate as to why the relationship exists. For instance, the average amount provided to those studied was under $100 per month, an amount that would likely not be enough to purchase high-quality foods for a month. In order to stretch that amount as far as possible, it is theorized that many selected "junk foods."

There was also concern about the fact that monies were placed on the food stamp debit cards for disbursement only once per month. Researchers believed this could lead to binge eating/dieting -- consuming large amounts of food at one point during the month and eating much less prior to the next scheduled disbursement.

The study recommends that those provided government assistance for food be provided incentives for purchasing higher quality foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables. In addition, the researchers recommend that such assistance be provided in conjunction with classes or training sessions on nutrition. 

A research article published Tuesday indicates that more than half of female sex workers in Canada are subject to gender-based violence, and that it could be decreased by decriminalizing the activity.

Kate Shannon, of the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and lead author on the research, reports that 57 percent of the 237 sex workers she and her team studied had experienced gender-based violence over an 18-month period. The team was interested in this study because, as the introduction notes, "gender-based violence and gender inequity have increasingly been cited as important determinants of a woman's risk of HIV infection."

Our findings document an extremely high prevalence of both sexual and physical violence against female sex workers that persists because of large scale structural inequities. This research provides important empirical evidence demonstrating the adverse public health effects of enforcement based policing approaches to sex work and drug use, and supports global calls to remove criminal sanctions targeting sex workers. Furthermore, our findings suggest that evidence based structural interventions that promote improved access to housing and increased availability of drug treatment will be crucial to stemming the epidemic of violence against street based female sex workers.

Busy today, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to give a quick link to the Geek Feminist Blog's excellent post on "Ten Tips for Getting More Women Speakers."

While the advice is geared toward technological conferences, there is a great deal of information that can be cross-fitted into any seminar/conference/lecture series that is being planned.

If you are putting together a conference in Iowa, be sure to check with the Iowa Commission on the Status of Women for not only their expertise, but their networking ability. They can direct you to amazing women in all walks of life.

Never forget: It is important for young people considering a field of study or career to be presented with positive role models of both genders.

I have written previously about my brother, Jimmy Lee Campbell, who was drafted into the Army during the Vietnam War and died of wounds he received in battle there.

Just last weekend my children and I had opportunity to visit the Moving Wall, a traveling half-size replica of the Vietnam Memorial, when it was on display near the Hoover Museum in West Branch. Since I've never had opportunity to visit either the memorial in Washington, D.C., and have often purposefully not visited the traveling memorial, I was very apprehensive as to how I would react when confronted by yet more tangible evidence that my family suffered such a loss.

My brother died on Feb. 11, 1970. I had not quite yet reached my second birthday and, because of that, I have no direct memories of him. What I do remember very well, however, is growing up within a family stricken with the grief of his loss. The bits of memorabilia that parents pass on to their sons and daughters as they age and move out on their own never needed to leave our home. Senior pictures, letterman jackets and sweaters, various electronics and school yearbooks just sat around us. They weren't often touched or used, but kept as memorials of sorts for him and his memory.

I guess the easiest way to explain the emotions I carry about my brother's death is to say that I have "grief by proxy." I carry the stories my mother and father have told. I carry the pieces I've picked up from my brothers, sisters and other extended family members. I also carry the few things that have been told to me by the men who served with my brother in Vietnam. None of these are quite my own, but they are all I have to explain why, when my family laughs at reunions, we are all keenly aware that something is missing.

I didn't feel apprehensive about visiting the Moving Wall because of it being a tombstone of sorts for all those who had died. I grew up traveling from cemetery to cemetery at least once a month as my mother and father placed flower arrangements on relatives' markers. We not only held our family history in high regard, but, being rural people, we were provided daily understanding of the circle of life.

When I was younger, I think I felt an uneasy mix of both pride and frustration. On one hand, I understood the incredible gift my family provided to the armed services. On the other hand, my entire life was tinged by something I neither understood nor had any control over. In many ways, the entire situation was as much unfair as it was unfathomable. Why should I have to be the kid who had parents with pieces missing? Why did our family celebrations always have to be done in the shadow of such a terrific loss?

For all of these reasons and more (that I won't bore you with here), whenever there was an opportunity for me to visit the traveling memorial, I found reasons not to go. I kept telling myself that the first time I saw the memorial that I should see the "real thing," and that the smaller version couldn't and wouldn't be as powerful.

I was wrong.

We first approached the wall on our way to restrooms at the other end of the park. I knew once I was before the wall, I wouldn't enjoy being interrupted for a potty break, so I took the children there first.

As we walked quickly by for that first time, the blackness and length of the structure were my first impressions. The names, slight on each end and building in the middle, resembled a huge dash -- something a writer would use to signify text that isn't necessary to convey a message. It got me thinking how many times I had quoted someone and used '...' or '--' to leave out segments. Most often this is done due to space requirements, and, most often, it is those statements replaced by a dash that are the ones that stick with me as a journalist.

I knew basically where my brother's name would be -- on panel 14, although I wasn't sure if it was on the west or east side. We passed roses on the ground, small American flags, notes and poetry left by others who had already visited as we made our way to panel 14 east. I was fairly sure this was not the right section, so we passed more displays as we moved further down the wall to 14 west.

Ironically enough, my brother's name didn't pop out to me. Instead, the first name I spotted was that of a cousin who had died just shortly before Jimmy. I also don't have any direct memories of Eddie, just the sadness that was left behind when he died. Each time I set flowers at my brother's grave, however, I (just like my mother and father) always bring flowers for Eddie's grave too. Their headstones, military-issued I believe, each feature photos of them wearing their uniforms. I often wonder if those pictures are accurate representations of who they were and what they really looked like. They both look so serious and grim in those photographs that it sort of makes me sad to know that they are likely all future generations will have to remember them.

Although we searched up and down the panel, we couldn't locate Jimmy's name. Because I knew the children were getting restless, I enlisted the help of the veterans under a nearby tent to help me find his name on the wall.

One moment I was walking across soft grass with a slip of paper, and the next I was staring at one small area of a massive wall. Just one tiny wound among all the death blows. Without my realizing it, my eyes filled with tears as a quick slideshow of my parents' grief bounced in front of me.

Mom and dad holding one another next to Jimmy's grave.

Mom cleaning out the cedar chest and unexpectedly finding one of Jimmy's things she had saved.

Veterans, their own eyes filled with tears, mussing my hair at memorial events too numerous to count.

How my mother cried and fumed when she discovered that I had gone with friends to see the movie "Good Morning, Vietnam." (War movies of any type were strictly forbidden in our household.)

As we walked away to investigate the booths around the museum that had been set up for Hooverball festival, I recalled some of my borrowed memories so that my oldest daughter could add them to her own vision of life within our family. She stopped me in the middle of one and placed a hand on my arm, "Are you alright?"

"Yeah, I'll be fine. I just didn't expect the emotions."

"Well, he was your brother after all."

She's right, you know. The fact that I have no direct memories of me with him doesn't and won't ever change the fact that I know deep within that someone is missing. There should have been birthday parties. There should have been family reunions. There should have been nieces and nephews for my children to play with and learn from. There should have been so much more than white letters on a glossy black background.

When we left West Branch and drove back roads toward home, I faintly heard a familiar tune on the radio. When I turned it up I recognized the Simon and Garfunkle song, "Cecilia."

My brother's sweetheart before he was drafted into Vietnam was a girl named Cecilia. As family history goes, I supposedly sang that song to her when I was a little girl. The memory made me smile, but it was also painful, so I switched the station.

My ears were then greeted with a Garth Brooks' song, "Callin' Baton Rouge," which we often refer to as "Samantha's song." I sang it to my daughter before (and since) she was born, especially the line that goes: "Hello, Samantha dear, I hope you're feeling fine. It won't be long until I'm with you all the time."

Samantha, my now-9-year-old daughter, was born on Feb. 11, 2000 -- exactly thirty years to the day from when my brother Jimmy died in Vietnam. Because she was our first child after three horrific losses, she was an immediate healing force within our family. The day I realized the significance of her birthdate in relation to my brother was when she was about two years old and snuggling into my chest as I visited Jimmy's grave in Oklahoma. I felt an immense peace that day, and I felt the same while I hummed along with Garth Brooks in the car.  

Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court by the U.S. Senate in a 68 to 31 vote. She will be the third woman and the first Latina to serve in this capacity.

Harkin's statement:

"Mr. President, I am proud to support the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

"Judge Sotomayor's story is proof of the central American promise: That any person, by sheer force of their talent, can rise from the humblest background to one of the highest offices in this country. Born to a Puerto Rican family, Judge Sotomayor grew up in public housing in the South Bronx. Her father, a tool-and-die worker with a third grade education, died when she was nine years old. Due to her mother's struggle and sacrifice, and Judge Sotomayor's tremendous ability and perseverance, she graduated valedictorian of her high school in New York, then graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University.

"She went on to earn her law degree from Yale Law School, where she was editor of the Yale Law Journal. After law school, Judge Sotomayor served as an Assistant District Attorney in New York County for five years and then entered private practice as a corporate litigator. For the past 17 years, she has served as a Federal district and appellate court judge.

"Given her experiences and career, there is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor is immensely qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. What is clear from her 17-year judicial career, from my meeting with her, and from her confirmation hearing is that she is an unbiased, mainstream judge with a deep commitment to the rule of law and constitutional values. She has an exemplary record during her tenure on the bench, and every independent analysis has made clear that she is a judge who faithfully applies the law.

"Given her record, I am saddened that many Republicans have chosen to grossly distort her record, and have spent so much time focusing on a few out-of-context quotes and less than a handful of decisions. Putting rhetoric aside, she has participated in nearly 3,000 decisions and authored approximately 400 opinions. Her 17-year record overwhelmingly demonstrates that she is anything but a "judicial activist."

"Considering her outstanding intellect, credentials and judicial record, there simply is no doubt Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed. However, for me, there is another, equally important, consideration. I also firmly believe that Judge Sotomayor will be an important and needed voice on the Court to ensure proper effect is given to our most important statutes, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Civil Rights Act, and the Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA), so all Americans receive the fullest protections of the law.

"This is illustrated in an area of the law that I care deeply about - disabilities rights. Unfortunately, as many in Congress know, the Rehnquist Court repeatedly misread the ADA, ignored the intent of Congress and narrowed the scope of individuals deemed eligible for protection under the ADA. The result of these decisions was to eliminate protection for countless thousands of Americans with disabilities. These flawed, harmful decisions were reversed last year when Congress unanimously enacted the ADA Amendments Act.

"The contrast between the Rehnquist Court and Judge Sotomoyer is stark. In Bartlett v. New York State Board of Bar Examiners, Marilyn Bartlett had a PhD in educational administration and a law degree from Vermont Law School. She was also diagnosed with a disability that affected her reading speed and fluency. After completing law school, Ms. Bartlett worked as an associate and received excellent reviews. However, when she took the bar exam, she was denied accommodation for her reading impairment, such as extra time and permission to record her essays on tape. She failed the exam. The bar claimed that she did not have a disability because the examiners did not believe she was limited in the major life activities of reading or working.

"Judge Sotomoyer, however, ruled for Ms. Bartlett, holding that a student with learning disabilities was entitled to an accommodation while taking the bar exam. Understanding the true purposes of the ADA, she noted:

"For those of us for whom words sing, sentences paint pictures, and paragraphs create panoramic views of the world, the inability to identify and process words with ease would be crippling. Plaintiff, an obviously intelligent, highly articulate individual reads slowly, haltingly, and laboriously. She simply does not read in the manner of an average person. I reject the basic premise of defendants' experts that a learning disability in reading can be identified solely by a person's inability to decode, i.e., identify words, as measured by standardized tests, and I accept instead the basic premise of plaintiff's experts that a learning disability in reading has to be identified in the context of an individual's total processing difficulties."

"As the Congressional Research Service noted, "She anticipated the legislative discussions surrounding the ADA Amendments Act by finding the use of self accommodations did not mean that the plaintiff was not an individual with a disability."

"The contrast between Judge Sotomayor's approach to judging - with her respect for congressional intent and for long-standing precedent - and the current Court's activism is likewise illustrated by their respective treatment of so called "mixed motive" discrimination cases.

"In June of this year, the Supreme Court decided Gross v. FBL Financial, Inc. In a case involving an Iowan, Jack Gross, the Court made it harder for those with legitimate age discrimination claims to prevail under the ADEA. In doing so, it reversed a well established, 20- year-old standard, consistent with that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, that a plaintiff need only show that membership in a protected class was a "motivating factor" in an employer's action. Instead, the Court held that a plaintiff alleging age discrimination must prove that an employment action would not have been taken against him or her "but for" age. In other words, the plaintiff must now prove that age discrimination was not a cause or a motivating factor, but must prove that it was the exclusive cause of an adverse employment action. Proving "but for" cause is extremely difficult and will greatly limit potentially meritorious suits involving discrimination Congress sought to prevent.

"In doing so, the Court did not even address the question it granted certiorari on. As Justice Stevens noted in dissent, "I disagree not only with the Court's interpretation of the statute, but also with its decision to engage in unnecessary lawmaking. The Court is unconcerned that the question it chooses to answer has not been briefed by the parties or uninterested amici curie. Its failure to consider the views of the United States, which represents the agency charged with administering the [Age Discrimination Employment Act], is especially irresponsible."

"The contrast with Judge Sotomayor is telling. In Parker v. Columbia Pictures, she addressed the very same question in the disabilities context - whether a plaintiff need show discrimination was a "motivating factor" or "but-for" cause under the ADA. In contrast to Justice Thomas's opinion in Gross, she carefully analyzed the statutory language, intent of Congress and precedents and noted that "Congress intended the statute . . . to cover situations in which discrimination on the basis of disability is one factor, but not the only factor, motivating an adverse employment action."

"Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has transformed the legal landscape regarding the ability of Congress to protect our most vulnerable citizens. In fact, since 1995, the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have struck down 38 acts of Congress. Until then, the Court had struck down an average of one statute every two years.

"For example, in University of Alabama v. Garrett, a case I personally attended, the Court limited the rights of people with disabilities. In doing so, it ignored numerous congressional hearings and a task force which collected evidence through 63 public forums around the country attended by more than 7,000 persons. In United States v. Morrison and Kimel v. Flordia Board of Regents, the Court completely ignored extensive Congressional fact-finding and struck down parts of the Violence Against Women's Act and Age Discrimination Employment Act, respectively. In June, in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder, the Court suggested it was poised to strike down the Voting Rights Act, disregarding expansive congressional fact-finding, including 21 hearings and 16,000 pages of testimony.

"Given the current Court's repeated disregard for Congress and for our efforts to expansively protect American citizens from discrimination, I believe it is imperative that the next justice be someone who respects precedent, strives to apply congressional intent and purpose, and understands the importance of this nation's landmark civil rights protections. Based on her long judicial record, I am confident Judge Sotomayor is precisely that type of jurist.

"Mr. President, confirmation of Judge Sotomayor will be historic. She clearly has the intellect, experience and judgment to be an outstanding Justice. I am proud to support her nomination."

Grassley's statement:

Mr. President, I wanted to voice my opposition to the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice. I cannot support her nomination because I'm not persuaded that she has the right judicial philosophy for the Supreme Court. I've already spoken at the Judiciary Committee and on the floor at some length about my reasons for opposing Judge Sotomayor, but I just wanted to reiterate some of those reasons before we vote on her nomination in a few hours. It is the Senate's constitutional responsibility to thoroughly review the qualifications of the President's judicial nominations. This "advise and consent" process is especially important when we consider nominees to the Supreme Court, the highest court of the land.

Both Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions did an admirable job in conducting a fair, but rigorous, examination of Judge Sotomayor's record. The nominee was asked tough questions, but she was also treated fairly and with respect, as is appropriate of all judicial nominees.

We want to make sure that judicial nominees have a number of qualities. But superior intelligence, academic excellence, distinguished legal background, personal integrity, and proper judicial demeanor and temperament are not the only qualities we must consider in a judicial nominee. Judges, and in particular Supreme Court nominees, must have a true understanding of the proper role of a Justice as envisioned by the Constitution, as well as an ability to faithfully interpret the law and Constitution without personal bias or prejudice. Since becoming a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1981, I've used this standard to vote to confirm both Republican and Democrat Presidents' picks for the Supreme Court.

Because Supreme Court Justices have the last say with respect to the law and have the ability to make precedent, they don't have the same kind of constraints that lower court judges have. So we need to be convinced that these nominees will have judicial restraint - the self restraint to resist interpreting the Constitution to satisfy their personal beliefs and preferences. We need to be persuaded that these nominees will be impartial in their judging, and bound by the words of the Constitution and legal precedent. We need to be certain that these nominees won't overstep their bounds and encroach upon the duties of the legislative and executive branches. Our American legal tradition demands that judges not take on the role of policy makers, but that they check their biases, personal preferences and politics at the door of the courthouse. The preservation of our individual freedoms depends on limiting policy-making to legislatures, rather than unelected judges who have life-time appointments.

When then-Senator Obama voted against now-Chief Justice Roberts, he talked about how a judge needed to have "empathy" to decide the hard cases. He said, "That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy. . . . in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart." In another speech, President Obama further elaborated on this "empathy" standard for judges: "in those five percent of cases, what you've got to look at is - what is in the Justice's heart. What's their broader vision of what America should be. . . . We need somebody who's got the heart - the empathy - to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old - and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges." And when the President nominated Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, he did that with the belief that she meets his "empathy" standard.

President Obama's "empathy" standard has been widely criticized as contrary to the proper role of a judge. That's because an "empathy" standard necessarily connotes a standard of impartiality. This is a radical departure from our American tradition of blind, impartial justice. In fact, even Judge Sotomayor repudiated President Obama's "empathy" standard at her confirmation hearing.

A judge's impartiality is so critical to his or her duty as an officer in an independent judiciary that it is mentioned three times in the oath of office for federal judges. Every judge swears to "administer justice without respect to persons," to "do equal right to the poor and to the rich," and to "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all [his] duties..." Therefore, empathetic judges who choose to embrace their personal biases cannot uphold their sworn oaths. If we are to have a government of laws and not of men and women, then our judges must not favor any party or class over another, whether they be historically privileged or disadvantaged. Our judges must decide the cases before them as the law requires, even if the law compels a result that is at odds with the judge's personal, deeply held feelings.

The fact that we have an independent judiciary means that it is not a political body. In exchange for remaining unchecked by the will of the people, the judicial branch is required to maintain its impartiality. This country was founded on the principle that justice is the same for everyone. No one is entitled to special treatment, whether by fate or by fortune, because no man or woman is above the law.

No matter what you call it - empathy, compassion, personal bias, or favoritism - it can have no place in the decision-making process of a judge, and especially not a Supreme Court Justice. While justice is not an automated or mechanical process, it also isn't a process that permits a patchwork of cases where the outcome is determined not by the law, but by a judge's personal predilections. Judges may differ on what the law says, but they should never reach a conclusion because of a difference in ideology or because of their empathy for one of the parties. An empathy standard for judging would betray the very cause of equality that it purports to champion by creating classes among our citizens in the eyes of the law. That's what is so dangerous about President Obama's standard, and why we should be cautious in deferring to his choices for the judicial bench. That's why we should continue to assess judicial nominees based on their fidelity to the rule of law, and not on some well-intentioned hope or belief that the personal biases they will rely on in their judging will be the "right" ones.

Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor's speeches and writings over the years reveal a judicial philosophy that highlights the importance of personal preferences and beliefs in her judicial method. Her speeches and writings reveal her views of a judge and judicial decision-making process that is contrary to what our American tradition demands of the judiciary and our system of justice.

Let me cite just a few troubling statements she has made over the years. Judge Sotomayor questioned "whether achieving the goal of impartiality is possible at all in even most cases," and "whether by ignoring our differences as women, men, or people of color we do a disservice to both the law and society." She promoted identity politics where she openly admitted that "[my experiences] will affect the facts I choose to see and that "I willingly accept that ... judge[s] must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage." She claimed that the court of appeals is where "policy is made." She said that a "wise Latina would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male." She disagreed with a statement by Justice O'Connor that "a wise old woman and a wise old man would eventually reach the same conclusion in a case." She said that "unless American courts are more open to discussing the ideas raised by foreign cases, and by international cases, that we are going to lose influence in the world." She urged judges to look to foreign law so they can get their "creative juices" flowing.

At her confirmation hearing, Judge Sotomayor attempted to distance herself from these statements and explain them away, most likely recognizing that they were controversial and out of the mainstream. However, in my mind, she was not very successful. Even the Washington Post said that Judge Sotomayor's testimony about some of her statements before the Judiciary Committee was "less than candid" and "uncomfortably close to disingenuous." I wasn't the only one who had problems reconciling what Judge Sotomayor said at the hearing with the statements she has repeated over and over again throughout the years. That's because the statements made at the hearing and those made in speeches and law review articles outside the hearing are polar opposites of each other. Some of her explanations were contrived or far-fetched. In my opinion, these statements in her writings and speeches cannot be reconciled with her testimony.

I'm not sure which Judge Sotomayor I'm to believe. She appears to be Justice Ginsburg in her speeches and writings, but made statements like Chief Justice Roberts in her confirmation hearing. So I think the Washington Post's conclusions are worth repeating: "Judge Sotomayor's attempts to explain away and distance herself from that [wise Latina] statement were unconvincing and at times uncomfortably close to disingenuous, especially when she argued that her reason for raising questions about gender or race was to warn against injecting personal biases into the judicial process. Her repeated and lengthy speeches on the matter do not support that interpretation."

I'm not only troubled with the speeches and writings Judge Sotomayor produced during her time as a sitting judge on the Second Circuit and her contradictory testimony before the Judiciary Committee. I also have concerns with cases that Judge Sotomayor decided when she sat on the Second Circuit. Some cases raise serious concerns about whether Judge Sotomayor will adequately protect the Second Amendment's right to bear arms and Fifth Amendment property rights. Statements she made at the hearing raise concerns that she will inappropriately create or expand rights under the Constitution. Other cases raise concerns about whether she will impose her personal policy decisions instead of those of the legislative or executive branch. In addition, Judge Sotomayor's track record on the Supreme Court is not a particularly good one - she has been reversed 8 out of 10 times, and was criticized in another of the 10 cases.

At the hearing, Judge Sotomayor was asked about her understanding of rights under the Constitution - including the Second and Fifth Amendments and the right to privacy. She was asked about her legal analysis in certain cases, like the Ricci, Maloney and Didden cases. She was also asked about how she views precedent and applies it in cases before her. Ultimately, I wasn't satisfied with her responses, nor was I reassured that Judge Sotomayor would disregard her strong personal sympathies and prejudices when ruling on hard cases dealing with important Constitutional rights.

With respect to the Ricci case, I wasn't persuaded by Judge Sotomayor's claims that she followed precedent, nor her explanation as to why she could dismiss such a significant case in summary fashion. The only reason this case found its way to the Supreme Court was because her Second Circuit colleague read about it in the newspaper, recognized its importance, and asked to have it reconsidered. When the Supreme Court reversed Judge Sotomayor's decision, it held that there was no "strong basis in evidence" to support her opinion. In fact, her legal reasoning in Ricci was so flawed, all nine Justices rejected it.

With respect to the Maloney case, I was concerned with Judge Sotomayor's explanation of her decision holding that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is not "fundamental," as well as her claims that she was simply following Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit precedent. I was also concerned with her refusal at the hearing to affirm that Americans have a right of self-defense. If Maloney is upheld by the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment will not apply against state and local governments, thus permitting potentially unrestricted limitations on this important Constitutional right.

With respect to the Didden case, I was troubled with Judge Sotomayor's failure to understand that her decision dramatically and inappropriately expands the ability of state local and federal governments to seize private property under the Constitution. In fact, based on the Didden holding, it's not clear whether there are any limits to the ability of state local and federal governments to take private property. I also was concerned with Judge Sotomayor's mischaracterization of the Supreme Court's holding in Kelo. And I wasn't satisfied with her explanation about why she summarily dismissed the property owner's claims based on the statute of limitations. I don't think these concerns are off the mark - the Didden case has been described as "probably the most extreme anti-property rights ruling by any federal court since Kelo."

So Judge Sotomayor's discussion of landmark Supreme Court cases and her own Second Circuit decisions raise questions in my mind about whether she understands the rights given to Americans under the Constitution. I question whether she will refrain from expanding or restricting those rights based on her personal preferences.

Almost two decades ago, then-Judge Souter during his confirmation hearing spoke about courts "filling vacuums" in the law. That discussion struck me as odd and troubled me, because clearly it is not the role of a court to fill voids in the law left by Congress. Although Judge Souter backtracked on his courts "filling vacuums" statement when I pressed him about it, I believe that his decisions on the Supreme Court actually reveal that he does believe courts can and do fill vacuums in the law. It's no secret that I regret my vote to confirm him. And because of that, I've asked several Supreme Court nominees about the propriety of judges "filling vacuums" in the law at their confirmation hearings. So this question shouldn't have come as a surprise to Judge Sotomayor when I asked her about it at her confirmation hearing. Unfortunately, I wasn't satisfied with her lukewarm answers to my question. In fact, it just reinforced the concerns I had with her hearing testimony, cases, speeches and writings.

Judge Sotomayor has overcome many obstacles to get to where she is today. There's no doubt that Judge Sotomayor is an engaging, talented, intelligent woman. She has tremendous legal experience and many other good qualities. I very much enjoyed meeting with her and getting to know her personally. But I can't just base my decision on these things. I have to look at her judicial philosophy and determine whether I believe it is one that is appropriate for the Supreme Court. That's my constitutional responsibility. And based on her answers at the hearing and her decisions, writings and speeches, I'm not comfortable with what I understand to be Judge Sotomayor's judicial philosophy. I'm not persuaded that she'll protect important Constitutional rights, and I'm not convinced that she'll refrain from creating new rights under the Constitution. I'm not persuaded that she won't allow her own personal biases and prejudices to seep into her decision-making process and dictate the outcome of cases before her. So it is with regret that I must oppose her nomination to the Supreme Court.

I said this in the Judiciary Committee, and I repeat it now on the floor. Only time will tell which Judge Sotomayor will sit on the Supreme Court. Is it the judge who proclaimed that the court of appeals is where "policy is made," or is it the nominee who pledged "fidelity to the law?" Is it the judge who disagreed with Justice O'Connor's statement that a wise woman and a wise man will ultimately reach the same decision, or is it the nominee who rejected President Obama's empathy standard? Only time will tell.