Government – Page 13 – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

Why Language Matters to Women

by Pam Zuber

United Nations Flag. Source: sanjitbakshi, Creative Commons.

Language matters. So do the rights of people. But in 2019, it looks like representatives of the U.S. government promoted the use of language that may affect, if not imperil, the rights of women. Every year, the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) issues statements called agreed conclusions based on priority themes and recommendations. The CSW is part of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), which itself is one of the platforms of the United Nations (UN). For the sixty-third session from March 11-22, 2019, the CSW’s agreed conclusions were “social protection systems, access to public services and sustainable infrastructure for gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls.”

During the CSW’s 2019 session, representatives of the United States requested changing the language of the commission’s agreed conclusions. They wanted to remove language that referred to “universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights.” Writing in the Washington Post, Ariana Eunjung Cha and Lena H. Sun said that the American representatives felt that this language would promote abortion and juvenile sexual activity. According to Cha and Sun, the representatives also wanted to eliminate the term “gender-responsive” in the agreed conclusions and replace it with the term “family-centered.” But this language denies our ever-evolving concept of family. Families come in all shapes and sizes. Family isn’t just the nuclear family model of a man, a woman, and children. Actually, it never was, because don’t we all know people who were raised by single parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, siblings, or two parents of the same gender? People who lived with foster families and in group homes? People who lived with multiple generations under one roof? Denying multiple concepts of family and gender creates an inaccurate depiction of families. This depiction hurts the many, many people not included in this narrow definition.

When representatives seek to eliminate the word gender, the denial also obviously denies gender and sexual orientation. It implies that gender is binary, that the only two genders are male and female. It doesn’t acknowledge trans people, people who don’t identify with a certain gender, or people with different sexual orientations or no sexual orientation. Not acknowledging people’s existence marginalizes them, which may make it easier for people to ignore or even abuse them.

Finally, the U.S. representatives pushed to add another section to the agreed conclusions. This section stated, “women’s contribution to the home, including through unpaid care and domestic work, which is not adequately recognized, generates human and social capital.” The U.S. representatives did not get their way, but the rest of the commission did. In a document discussing the agreed conclusions, the commission stated that it wanted to “[e]nsure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.” It urged entities to

respond to the needs of women and girls and recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work, enable the mobility of women and girls, strengthen women’s participation in public and political life, as well as their economic opportunities, in particular their full and productive employment and decent work and equal pay for equal work or work of equal value, and strengthen their resilience to shocks.

Although the efforts by the United States representatives were ultimately not successful, they still sent a chilling message that could have repercussions for women in the United States and abroad. After all, while “universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights” can mean abortion, it can also mean so much more. It can mean distributing contraception and information on how to use it. It can mean providing tests and examinations that could diagnose pregnancy or health conditions and provide early and effective treatment.

Such criticism about providing access to reproductive rights sounds similar to criticism leveled at the Planned Parenthood organization. Critics charge that Planned Parenthood performs abortions, which it does, but abortions represent only 3.4 percent of the services it provided in the 2017-18 fiscal year. People are quick to condemn the organization for providing abortions while ignoring that more than 96 percent of its work is not related to abortions but instead relates to contraception, examinations, testing, and other matters relating to health care, especially preventative health care. Reproductive health and women’s rights are at risk with each slight or purposeful alteration to words used in the creation and passage of legislation, the implementation of the laws, and the subsequent treatment of persons who identify as women. Denying such rights treats women as second-class citizens not worthy of vital forms of health care. It perpetuates the belief that women are not able – and should not be able – to make decisions about their bodies and their lives. It denies cis women opportunities. It denies the very existence of trans women and people who have nonbinary identifications. Not being able to make personal decisions may impact women’s physical and mental health. This impact could produce far-reaching consequences.

Women who lack reproductive rights cannot plan their families. They may have more children or children sooner than they intended. This may be physically and mentally draining. It may lead to poor health, lost educational opportunities, financial and career stagnation, and even conditions such as addiction that may need to be treated by addiction treatment professional facilities because women are trying to make sense of their lives or escape the realities of their lives. Women may feel trapped. They may be unable to attain a decent quality of life and achieve upward mobility, all because they lack something as basic as birth control.

A woman cleaning — Source: By Fars News Agency, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=67475239, Creative Commons.

Why Emphasize Domestic Work?

By emphasizing domestic work, the U.S. delegation to the United Nations’ commission is sending a strong message. Again, the U.S. representatives wanted to include language that addressed its belief that “women’s contribution to the home, including through unpaid care and domestic work, which is not adequately recognized, generates human and social capital.” On one hand, the U.S. delegation to the Commission on the Status of Women recognizes that women still perform the bulk of domestic duties in most cultures throughout the world. It acknowledges that most cultures often do not recognize females’ domestic work financially, politically, socially, or emotionally. On the other hand, why is the United States so keen to emphasize domestic work?

Women perform domestic work. But they also perform countless other kinds of work. Around 74.6 women were in the U.S. workforce in 2017, reported the U.S. Department of Labor. These totals amounted to about 47 percent of the United States workforce. Since women already account for about half of the nation’s workers, it’s impossible to ignore their numbers. It’s shortsighted and dangerous to overlook this impact and to deny or downplay women’s contributions. Speaking of contributions, does the U.S. delegates’ proposed language portray their beliefs about what woman should be doing? In this view, women should handle domestic work and men should work outside of the home. Again, this is a very traditional view that was never the case for 100 percent of U.S. families. While stay-at-home wives and mothers may have been more prevalent in the past, many women have always worked outside of the home due to necessity or desire.

What Do Choices Mean for Women?

As an alternative, what about supporting language that acknowledges the many roles that today’s women actually perform? Yes, women perform domestic work and raise families. But they also work outside of the home and pursue educations. They also do many of these things at the same time. Some choose not to marry, live with partners, or have children, or they are partners with other women, or they have multiple partners or participate in other arrangements. They may identify as cis, trans, or nonbinary, or have other identities. They may not live in traditional nuclear families, but their families and their choices are not any less valid – or any more valid. They’re just living their lives. They’re happy, successful people who contribute to society. Ignoring their ideas of family and gender, and ignoring the contributions they make through their work and other efforts, ignores them as a whole. And they shouldn’t be ignored, because non-nuclear families are now more common than nuclear ones. The Pew Research Center reported that only forty-six percent of U.S. children eighteen years old or younger lived with two parents in their first marriage in 2014.

Instead of ignoring women, maybe the U.S. delegation and other representatives should consider promoting inclusive language that acknowledges choice. If women have options, they can better control their destinies. In most societies throughout history, men have had more agency in steering the course of their lives and communities. But how are women supposed to have agency if authorities do not allow them to control any aspect of their lives, including their own bodies? Providing opportunities for women to work, to pursue educations, to choose whether to have families or not, to run for office, all give women control and power. This can create additional control and power, as women will have the knowledge, skills, connections, agency, and confidence to live the lives they want to live and help others do the same. Women will be independent, not dependent. They will not have to rely on husbands, fathers, or brothers but will have the resources to thrive on their own.

Allowing women full access to reproductive care and other types of health care and encouraging them to pursue a wide range of career opportunities enables women to live the fullest lives possible. Using language to deny these opportunities harms women and future generations. When U.S. representatives use certain language and deny other types of language, they threaten freedom, self-determination, and other American ideals. They forget that what’s right for women is what’s right for the United States as a whole.

Pamela Zuber is a writer and an editor who has written about human rights, health and wellness, gender, and business.

Noodles and Poverty

Chef Felipe Rojas Lombardi’s defines a noodle as “a universal food, complimentary to many other foods, and adaptable to many cuisines around the world.”

a photo of various types of pasta — Noodles paste colorful. Source: Pixabay, Creative Commons

Role of noodles

Never underestimate the importance of noodles. According to Lin-Liu, a blogger, the oldest mention of noodles she found was in a Chinese dictionary from the third century A.D. Originally, noodles were made from bread dough. Interesting enough, noodles were found in a sealed ceramic bowl at a burial site from 3^rd millennium B.C. Ultimately, the exact origin of noodles is difficult to pinpoint. However, noodles may have started in a variety of locations such as China and Italy. Regardless of its origin, noodles are a vital part of numerous cultures worldwide. Noodles are not just a dish, but it also embodies the culture, city, and people that make them.

In different cultures, the name of the noodles can be used to commemorate a historical event. For example, there are several pastas that commemorate Italy’s wars in Africa such as the tripoline pasta, which references the Tripoli province of Libya under Italian rule and the bengasini past, inspired after the Benghazi. There are also references made for the House of Savoy, a royal family in Italy, through a noodle named mafaldine after the Princess Mafalda. Furthermore, noodles have been named after emerging machinery like the ruote (wheels) or eliche (propellers). Noodles could also be used to determine the wealth of the person due to the ingredients that were used. In China, certain types of noodles are eaten at certain occasions such as birthdays, marriages, or moving to a new house. In addition to playing a role in beliefs and customs, noodles also have health benefits and have been included in a variety of diets. Some even say that noodles can reduce the number of those in poverty.

Poverty in China

Poverty exists everywhere, in new and old places. Specifically, in China, there are 252 million people who live on their earning of less than $2/day. In fact, 40% of people in China live on less than $5.50/day. Many of these individuals live in rural areas and make their living from farming, forestry, or fishing. There are numerous reasons that explain the causes poverty in China with rural-urban migration being one of the most prominent. China has a majority urban population, meaning there is an influx of people moving into more urban areas in search of better jobs. However, individuals who cannot afford to leave often times stay in rural areas, struggling to survive.

Another reason for poverty in China is the Hukou system’s effect on migrant workers. The Hukou system is a registration program that identifies certain demographics as either rural or urban residents. This system prevents migrant workers from receiving healthcare, education, or pension through the government because Chinese citizens can only receive benefits from their local government. Thus, when people move, they cannot receive the benefits from their new regional government. In Shanghai there were 170,000 students enrolled in high school; however, there were 570,000 migrant children from 15 to 19 who lived in Shanghai but were not permitted to attend the schools. There are reforms and policies in place to try to reduce the effects of poverty in China, such as President Xi Jinping claiming he wants to “eradicate rural poverty by 2020.”, although, poverty remains a salient issue.

Noodle Initiative

“Give a man a bowl of noodles and you feed him for a day; teach a man how to make noodles and you feed him for a lifetime.” – Yuhan Xu (NPR)

As mentioned earlier, noodles are a staple food, especially in China. In northwestern China, there is a province by the name of Gansu that has proposed an idea to eliminate poverty by using their specialty dish of hand-pulled noodles in beef broth – a noodle initiative. This dish costs as low as $1.50. Their goal is to train 15,000 individuals from poor areas how to make these noodles from scratch. so they can pursue gainful employment making noodles or even open their own shops. In order to acquire people’s interest, the government is offering financial incentives to both companies and people to meet their goal of opening 1,500 new noodle shops this year. However, noodle initiatives are not a new concept. In 2018, there was a noodle skills training program in Lanzhou and Beijing where more than 12,000 people participated and 90% of them found jobs related to noodles.

In Lanzhou, the capital of Gansu province, there are approximately 50,000 beef noodle shops and 40,000 noodle-makers; out of those shops, 4,000 of them are in the impoverished areas. The annual noodle shop sales in Gansu makes an estimate of $1.8 billion. In Lanzhou, there is a school named the Vocational and Technical College of Resources and Environment whose goal is to train professionals in making a proper Lanzhou beef noodle. The tradition of the Lanzhou beef noodle is almost 200 years old and does not take a long time to prepare. However, in order to pull the noodles, it takes years of practice, generally a year to learn how to pull noodles but three years to be called a “noodle master”. Furthermore, the school hopes to spread these skills overseas but has been difficult due to visa requirements. Noodle chefs need to fulfill certain educational requirements in order to go overseas. Thus, some schools that have three years of training also award their students with associate college degrees and national vocation qualification certificates. Additionally, in certain countries like Australia or the United Kingdom, there are branches of the Lanzhou beef noodle where students are offered job positions there with a salary of 8,000 to 12,000 yuan and free accommodation.

Everyone has a right not just to work, but to work in a positive environment. In accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the work conditions should be “just and favorable”. The noodle initiative aims to offer individuals an increase in skill, employment, and a better future. The implication of poverty, employment, and human rights are intertwined. Poverty affects aspects of one’s life such as housing, food, and healthcare. At the core, poverty is when someone does not have access to their basic rights. Thus, it hinders people’s quality of living and their freedom while also increasing the possibility of discrimination and health disparities.

Our Rights Under Fire

by Pam Zuber

a photo of a gun store rack — and more guns. Source: Patrick Feller, Creative Commons.

The grim timeline:

On December 14, 2012, a gunman entered Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. He killed twenty children, six adults, and then himself. The gunman also killed his mother earlier in the day.
On March 15, 2019, another gunman traveled to two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand and opened fire. As of April 2019, he killed fifty people and wounded fifty more.
On March 21, 2019, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced that her country would ban sales of assault rifles beginning April 11, 2019, and reimburse people for returning rifles that they already owned. The country has also reclassified guns to make them more difficult to purchase.
On April 11, 2019, the United States still did not have substantial legislation against many types of weapons, even assault weapons that were once banned but were now legal.

Two countries, two tragic events, two very different approaches to gun ownership and legislation. What do the differences say about the two countries? What do the differences say about human rights? The shootings represent an egregious attack on human rights. Many victims in the Newtown attack were children. Many victims in the Christchurch attack were refugees and members of a religious minority. The attacks targeted some of the most vulnerable members of society. The shootings were also attacks on the greater society charged with protecting these vulnerable members.

Both shootings occurred in what should be safe spaces: schools and religious buildings. Advocates of gun ownership say that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution supports their stance. It states: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” One can argue, though, that the Christchurch and Newtown victims experienced violations of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The mosque worshippers in Christchurch were expressing their religion, a First Amendment right. The children and adults in Newtown were exercising the “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” according to the words of the First Amendment.

While the dead and wounded people in New Zealand were not obviously U.S. citizens, they definitely experienced a violation of their human rights, if not technically a Constitutional one. Could the banning of assault-type weapons in that country help protect the rights of future New Zealanders? If the United States government does not issue such bans, is it violating its own citizens’ rights? Maybe. After all, commentators often cite that the National Rifle Association (NRA) is one of the major reasons why U.S. legislators cannot or will not pass major legislation against guns. The NRA is a U.S. organization that finances the campaigns of many U.S. politicians who oppose gun control. The NRA also encourages voters to vote for such candidates, making it a well-organized effort that exerts consistent pressure in favor of gun rights.

Wouldn’t it be better to divert our resources elsewhere? Money and time that the NRA and other organizations spend on campaigns to support gun ownership would arguably be better spent on mental health screening, treatment for drug and alcohol abuse, and other forms of preventative health care. Time and money that could be better spent on law enforcement efforts that look for potential trouble instead of reacting to it after it occurs. This is not to say that all shooters struggle with their mental health and that governments should track our every move. But, “weaknesses and lapses in the educational and healthcare systems’ response and untreated mental illness” contributed to the “deterioration” of the shooter in the Newtown attack, according to the Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate. The shooter in the Christchurch attack live streamed the attacks and may have posted his intentions on social media before he carried out his plans.

a photo of a large gun — gun. Source: skyandsea876, Creative Commons

New Zealand’s new laws are in line with regulations in other countries. Well-known for not participating in armed international conflicts, Switzerland also has strict rules about gun ownership. The country requires its male citizens to serve in its military. Sometimes Swiss men keep their weapons after their service, but this number has been declining. Swiss laws do not allow people to own firearms if they are struggling with drug or alcohol abuse or have been convicted of a crime. The country has laws that require people to obtain gun permits and typically only grant concealed weapon permits for police or security officers. Authorities in Swiss regions known as cantons determine if people are fit to own guns. They may talk with psychiatrists or authorities in other cantons to make such decisions. They also keep records of who owns guns in their cantons, although some semiautomatic long guns and hunting rifles are exempt from such records.

Switzerland had a population of approximately 8.5 million people and twenty-six cantons in a country of about 16,000 square miles in March 2019. The United States had a population of approximately 329 million people and fifty states in a country of about 3.8 million square miles in March 2019. It also has a federal district and various territories. Gun laws already vary widely in the fifty U.S. states, territories, and the federal district. Given the large population and geographic size of the United States, delegating the states to create and implement new gun laws may not be possible. Federal legislation would be more feasible to regulate weapons in the United States.

Another country, New Zealand’s neighbor Australia, may be a good example of federal weapon legislation. After a gunman killed thirty-five people in the Australian island state of Tasmania in 1996, the federal and state governments of Australia implemented a number of weapons ban from 1996-98. Under the Australian laws

Licenses and registrations are required to own weapons.
Police must determine whether people have satisfactory reasons for owning weapons.
Private firearm sales are prohibited.
People may not own weapons for self-defense and very few may own handguns.
Semiautomatic weapons are banned. Like New Zealand, the Australian government bought such weapons from private owners.

Australia’s gun control laws have produced dramatic results. While there were thirteen mass shootings in Australia from 1979 to 1996, there were none from 1996 to 2006. In 1979 to 1996, Australia witnessed an average of 627.7 firearm deaths every year. From 1996 to about 2003, Australia witnessed 332.6 firearm deaths annually. The country also experienced declines in firearm suicides, firearm homicides, and unintentional firearm deaths after the passage of the laws.

Limiting semiautomatic and assault weapons and passing stricter gun control legislation may mean fewer deaths. Australia and Switzerland know this. New Zealand may learn this. Given the reluctance of U.S. authorities to take such measures, it doesn’t look like the United States will learn this any time soon. If it doesn’t, more senseless firearm tragedies like Newtown (and Parkland, Las Vegas, Orlando, Christchurch, and so many other places) may occur. Until the United States limits and legislates guns, its citizens’ rights to peace and safety are in peril.

About the author: Pamela Zuber is a writer and an editor who has written about human rights, health and wellness, business, and gender.

Dr. Robert Bullard: Health Equity through Environmental, Economic and Racial Justice

Dr. Robert Bullard has been fighting alongside the citizens of various cities for their right to a clean environment. He positions himself as a dot-connector who utilizes the central theme of fairness, justice, and equity. He is a seeker of just equity. His fight began with the demand of his wife, Linda, in 1979 after she filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas and BFI, a national company seeking to dump waste in a Black community. Bean vs Southwestern Waste Management Corp. was the first lawsuit to challenge the notion of environmental justice using civil rights law. Bean found that while Blacks made up 25% of the population of Houston during the years prior to 1978, the communities in which they resided became the ‘new residences’ of 82% of the city’s waste. Environmental justice (EJ) reveals the disparate impact of the embedded disrespect White supremacy has for marginalized communities, specifically poor communities of color in the South. It exposes the interdependent relationship among pollution, corruption, and racism. oil containing PCBs dumping travesty in Warren County, North Carolina in 1982, initiated the launch of EJ on the national level. Young Black activists put their lives on the line in protests. In 1983 a study found that 75% of waste sites were in Black communities in seven (7) of eight (8) Southern states. Bullard advocates for community-based participatory research projects.

Using a variety of maps and graphs, Bullard located the roots of environmental injustice to the division of the country during enslavement. The data shows that racism can make people sick. “Your zip code is the most powerful predictor of health and well-being.” A 1994 Clinton executive order reinforced Title IX of the Civil Rights Act and by 1999, the Institute of Medicine found that persons of color were more impacted by pollution and contract more diseases than affluent White communities. The highest concentration of environmental injustices occurs in Southern Black communities, including North Birmingham and Emelle, Alabama. Emelle houses the largest chemical waste management site in the nation. This site receives waste from the lower 48 states and 12 international countries; however, this tiny town is in the heart of the Black Belt, 95% Black, and in a county that borders the AL/MS state line.

EJ is not simply about the release of pollutants into the atmosphere. It is also about the lack of accessibility in neighborhoods and the decreasing proximal distance between vehicles and pedestrians. Health connects to everything. We must redefine the environment, our understanding of it, and our relationship to it. Bullard argues that the environment, though it should be neutral and equally accessible for all, is not when the entitlement of equal protection is not applicable to some members of society. Health equity brings together all the segments which merge into intersections. EJ advocates and activists must call out the normalization of whitewashing in both the history and the present injustices plaguing marginalized communities. We need more equal partnership—with universities and communities, and among the marginalized. Marginalized communities must have a reclamation of space—free from the influence and presence of Whites—for the unshackling of all the ‘isms’ from their narratives to unify their voices and their messages. Whites must make room for, stand aside, and equally distribute finances and resources when confronted with the reality of EJ like Flint and the southern Black Belt. The erasure of history makes people ignorant but the failure to invite and listen to the voices of those most affected by EJ continues the perpetuation of the injustices.

Bullard concludes that justice has not been served in places like Flint because not only does the issue remain, the families are still poisoned, and the government officials have not received justice. For 40 years, Bullard has steadfastly shown that a commitment to EJ specifically, and justice broadly, is lifelong and intergenerational. It also requires an alliance with Whites longing to learn and build relationships. The process of mutual learning, regardless of race or age, must be met with clear expectations and a desire to focus on that which may seem ‘unsexy and unattractive’ because that is where the real need for attention lies. Community health is not just about the treatment of the sick; it is the exacting of liberty and justice for all.

The Power of Technology

Movies such as Blade Runner, IRobot, or the Matrix portray a futuristic ambiance in regard to artificial intelligence overpowering humanity. At first glance, these movies can seem unrealistic and a bit absurd. However, in recent years, it appears to be less ridiculous as it hints at a bit of truth. There is no doubt that technology has advanced at a rapid speed in the last ten years. As each year passes, it seems there is a new device or software that can somehow make your life easier. Technology is used in every aspect of our life – from our homes to our work to the stores we visit. Often times, it can seem inescapable. If you turn your attention to your surroundings, you are likely to see people on their phones or computers – whether they are searching the Internet, looking through Instagram, or sending a text.

It is alarming to consider how technology affects every aspect of our lives. It even influences human rights such as the right to privacy or freedom of expression. There are numerous concerns that people have about the role and impact of artificial intelligence. People are concerned about the rise of “machine autonomy” and how gradually it can diminish “the status of humans”. Furthermore, there are concerns on the use of artificial intelligence in terms of “unjust and unequal political, military, economic and social contexts.”

For example, the U.S. seems to be moving towards an artificial arms race by using, killer robots, or lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS ). People concerned about giving these killer robots the power to decide whether someone lives or dies with little to no human control. Google created a military program called Project Maven, where a machine is used to analyze the drone surveillance footage which can be used for extrajudicial killings, meaning people could be killed without any legal processing. There have been aimed at Google urging them to reconsider what the data is used for. Google has since then declined to renew their contract.

Google is not the only company that has dealt with controversy in terms of technology and how it affects people’s human rights. A data firm by the name of Cambridge Analytica was caught using data from Facebook in order to build voter profiles. Employees acquired private Facebook data of millions of users, then they sold the information to political campaigns.

Freedom of Expression. Source: Flickr, Creative Commons

Another rising controversy with technology is how artificial intelligence (AI) systems have fostered “discriminatory practices”. The University of Cambridge published a study on the Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence which details how “terrorists, criminals, and rogue states could potentially use AI’s with an intent to harm people”. It foreshadows an increase in cybercrime, misuse of drones and manipulation of elections. While the report is seen as a warning, it provides a series of recommendations: policy-makers and technical researchers working together, being mindful and proactive about the possibility of AI misuse, and expanding the stakeholders in regards to preventing and reducing the risk of malicious use of AI. The goal of their report was to grab the attention of governments, organizations, and individuals. However, we need more than a call-to-action such as effective and enforceable legislative control. We cannot deny the entanglement between our everyday lives and technology and must confront the difficulty in deciding where to draw the line between beneficial and malicious use of technology.

A Rwanda’s Minister for Justice and Attorney General, Johnston Busingye about the country-wide DNA database. In order to make this proposal work, scientists will collect DNA samples from all 12 million citizens in Rwanda, giving them access to personal medical and genetic information. Their reasoning for implementing this program is to decrease the number of crimes. There has been backlash from human rights campaigners because they believe the data could be misused by the government and violate international human rights laws. However, Busingye made a statement assuring the people that their end goal, using the data to determine who is responsible for the crimes, is genuine. The proposal has still not officially been approved but are waiting for the budget and the proper legislation to be passed in order to make it legal.

Rwanda is not alone in attempting to create a mandated DNA program whereas countries, such as China and Kuwait, have already set this program in motion.. People are concerned about how Muslim Uighur minority. Researchers believe the Uighur minority is “systematical detained in re-education camps”. In response, China denies all these claims. Similarly, four years ago, Kuwait passed a law that required their citizens and visitors to give their DNA samples; however, the law was revoked because it violated articles 30 and 31 of Kuwait’s Constitution in regards to personal liberty and privacy.

Human Rights China. Source: Wikimedia, Creative Commons

As the debate for technology and AI continues, the Human Rights Watch aims to ban developing and using these killer robots. However this technology is nothing new – the focus is on how, when, and why individuals should or should not use them. Furthermore, the question of human intervention arises. While using DNA collection in certain circumstances, such as finding criminals, can be beneficial, there poses a question of how people use the date and if it infringes on our human rights. The numerous databases worldwide have no common structure among themselves. Thus, there are concerns on how countries obtain the data and whom they share the information with. The DNA database can trace anyone through “biological tagging”, even those who innocent or have no relation in regards to the crime in question. Other possible challenges could include how the information is kept and used. For example, when determining whether or not an individual is a good fit for a job the hiring company could access the data and that affects the individual’s rights. Furthermore, the data could be used by criminal organizations. Both killer robots and DNA collection have benefits such as solving more crimes and military advances; however, it ultimately challenges the principle of privacy.

The First Step Act: A Step Towards Criminal Justice Reform

A slightly open jail cell door. — Untitled. Source: Neil Conway, Creative Commons

On December 21 of 2018, Donald Trump signed the First Step Act into law. This piece of legislation has been marked by some as a massive breakthrough in criminal justice reform. The bill is intended to “ensure people are prepared to come home from prison job-ready and have major incentives to pursue the life-changing classes that will help them succeed on the outside” and includes changes that will potentially lower the cost of upkeep for correctional facilities.

Improving Experiences of Time in Prison and Their Outcomes

Many of the aspects of the First Step Act are geared towards decreasing recidivism (people returning to criminal behavior after being released from prison) through opportunities and resources that help prepare people for their lives after incarceration. For example, the bill creates strong incentives to encourage prisoners to participate in preparative programs that are available to them. For every 30 days of “successful participation,” individuals can receive 10 days of prerelease custody, where they are transferred to halfway houses or home confinement. Incentives can also include increased phone and visitation privileges, access to email, increased commissary spending, and other requested incentives.

The bill also designates $250 million to be used over five years by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to expand and develop skill-building classes and vocational training opportunities. It also allows the BOP to work with outside organizations that can provide such classes. According to the First Step Act, prisoners who are at a medium or high risk of recidivism are to be prioritized for receiving these opportunities, as well as counseling and treatment. Before leaving federal prison, all are to receive their ID, allowing people to re-enter society more quickly and avoid “collateral consequences of incarceration.”

In order to make it less difficult for families to visit, the bill states that people should not be placed in prisons that are more than “500 driving miles” away from their families. This improves their ability to maintain ties with their relatives, which can improve their quality of life while incarcerated and make the process of reintegration into society easier afterwards. With the help of a strong support system and the tools needed to find work, released prisoners have a better chance of finding their place in their communities and not being reincarcerated later.

Decreasing the Population Actually in Prison

There are some aspects of the First Step Act that help to decrease the population of people in prison. Increases the number of days of good time credit, which is earned through good behavior, from 47 to 54 days per year. This change also applies to everyone in federal prisons who has already earned good time credit. It is estimated that this change will save $40 million in the first year. Additionally, the bill required the BOP to transfer prisoners that are considered low/minimum risk to prerelease custody and expanded compassion release. Eligibility for the elderly offender program of compassion release now starts at age 60 instead of 65, the minimum portion of one’s sentence that must be served has been decreased from 75% to 66.7%, and the program is now available in all prisons.

Views of the Purpose of Prison

One’s understanding of the importance of legislation like the First Step Act can be significantly impacted by their perspective on the purposes of prisons. Some people believe that prisons should be used to achieve retributive justice, where the main purpose is to punish criminals for their wrong-doings and to have them suffer for their action. For someone who believes in retributive justice, the changes made by the First Step Act may not seem so important.

Alternatively, other people believe that the incarceration system should be used to rehabilitate prisoners and prepare them to re-enter society as individuals who can make more positive contributions to their community and avoid taking actions that would lead them back to imprisonment. When you look at the First Step Act from this point of view, it is easy to see why the bill’s intended impacts are so significant. It gives people a chance to learn from their mistakes and helps them become more productive members of society.

Three prison windows. — p1000578.jpg. Source: David Johnson, Creative Commons

Why It Matters

As of 2016, there were 2.2 million people incarcerated in the United States. That year, $57.7 billion were spent in state expenses for the upkeep of correctional facilities.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “Chronic illnesses go untreated, emergencies are ignored, and patients with serious mental illness fail to receive necessary care,” which, in some cases, has led to the deaths of incarcerated individuals. This violates Article 25 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which states that everyone has the right to a living standard that is sufficient to support their health and well-being and specifically includes things like medical care and vital social services. Prison authorities are legally responsible for providing prisoners with their medical needs, based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Estelle v. Gamble. The ruling recognizes the potential of ignoring these needs to “amount to cruel and unusual punishment” due to the pain and suffering they can cause. However, overcrowding in prisons and a lack in resources makes giving prisoners the care they need a challenge.

The intended outcomes of the First Step Act can improve the access to human rights of people who have been incarcerated. As it is said in the UN’s Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, prisoners are entitled to all the rights that are declared in the UDHR and other human rights documents and should have access to resources that can aid their ability to successfully rejoin society. Decreasing rates of recidivism, as the actions of the First Step Act hopefully will, helps to lower the number of people in prison overall. This allows for a change in the allocation of funds to take better care of people living in prisons, giving them greater access to their human rights. People living in prisons are human beings just like everyone else and should not be treated as anything less.

Climate Change and Refugees

Climate Change Refugees. Source: Flickr, Creative Commons

Climate Refugees

The ongoing debate about climate change never seems to become resolved because there are certain people who believe in it and others who refuse to believe it. However, both sides often forget about climate refugees, a fairly new term that has no formal definition or protection under international law. As of 2008, millions of people lose their homes to weather disasters. Other aspects such as desert expansion and sea levels rising also affect people in terms of where and how they live. Scientists say the three most endangered regions are sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin Americ a while a World Bank report estimates that by 2050, those three endangered regions will consist of 143 million people who are displaced.

Climate Change and its effects

According to scientists, climate refugees consist of “people who must leave their homes and communities because of the effects of climate change and global warming.” Climate change pertains to the change of a climate in a region, while global warming is how the average temperature of the Earth is rising. As a result, global warming is leading to climate change. Rising temperatures due to global warming can cause glaciers to melt which can lead to flooding and the rising of sea levels. Furthermore, it can lead to droughts and desertification. These results of global warming can make the land people live on uninhabitable and make it difficult for people to survive.

In Bangladesh, thousands of people are affected by flooding each year, especially in Dhaka. In West Africa, Lake Chad is almost completely gone due to desertification. These problems are not just limited to the developing world. In the United States, approximately 2,300 Puerto Rican families who were displaced due to Hurricane Maria are looking for permanent housing. Additionally, small coastal communities in areas like Alaska and Louisiana are fading into oblivion due to rising sea levels.

In regard to droughts and desertification, individuals are not able to grow crops where they live. Thus, with no food, they are forced to move elsewhere. In China, the Gobi Desert is expanding more than 1,390 square miles every year. Farmers and merchants who live near the Gobi Desert migrate to more urban areas because the grasslands are turning into deserts. Droughts and desertification are a global problem. Also, in Morocco, Tunisia, and Libya more than 386 square miles of productive land are lost to desertification.

Desertification. Source: Wikimedia, Creative Commons

Climate Change and its ambiguity

In Europe, a journal estimated that if global temperature trends continue, applications for asylum to the European Union would increase by 28% by the year 2100. Additionally, many climate refugees live in rural or coastal communities and are forced to migrate to urban areas. Their skills, such as farming, are not beneficial in urban areas. Thus, finding a job can be difficult. Climate refugees who leave their country can face struggles when adjusting to new laws, languages, or cultures.

According to the development expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Yayboke, the biggest problem that arises is there are millions of people who are considered a climate refugee, but there is no consensus as to what we can do about them. There are currently no international laws that protect climate refugees and they can be sent back to their homelands or forced into refugee camps. The reason that the term climate change is ambiguous is due to “the effectiveness of rights and legal certainty”. Since it is not covered by the law, there are no guaranteed international protections. Another source of ambiguity arises when you need to determine why those individuals were displaced. Was it actually due to climate change or was it because of another reason? For example, say there is a drought and a farmer moves to another area in order to find other work. Did the farmer move due to climate change or because the economy has no alternatives for employment? The term “climate refugee” tends to be associated with a variety of factors and not simply just climate change. Thus, an absolute definition is hard to define.

In 2016, the UN General assembly introduced the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. In this declaration, it discussed the development of two global compacts: In 2018, climate refugees became recognized in the Global Compact on Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration. The purpose of this compact is to protect the rights of those who displaced and to determine the economic, environmental, and social factors that individuals who are forced to leave their homes face. Unfortunately, the compact does not focus on trying to control the man-made forces behind global mass migration.

Another major problem is how climate refugees are not covered by the 1951 Convention in regard to the Global Compact of Refugees. Their definition of refugees has nothing to do with individuals who are displaced due to environmental factors. Thus, the term ‘climate refugee’ does not fall under the score of the 1951 Refugee Convention and their protocol. Therefore, individuals who are displaced cannot be classified as refugees and cannot appeal for resettlement and are “trapped in worsening environmental conditions”. However, a counterargument is that those who are displaced due to the environment could rely on the protection of their national government, whereas the traditional refugee cannot rely on the national government because they tend to be the source of persecution.

Hope for the future

In 2009, the EU decided to place a greater focus on climate change as a cause of migratory flows, in terms of security. From 2011-2013, a strategy paper was created for a European Commission project whose goal included working with developing countries in regard to migration and asylum. Additionally, the paper states focusing on climate change and migration. In 2013, the Commission published a paper on internal displacement. In 2015, Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission President stated “Climate change is one of the root causes of a new migration phenomenon. Climate refugees will become a new challenge – if we do not act swiftly”. However, EU Member States still have not created a category for climate refugees.

Climate refugees is a vague term that is hard to define. However, the economic, social, and political consequences are apparent and need to be addressed. Based on the global compact on migration and the international climate, one of the most salient ways to address this burgeoning human rights issue is for there to be numerous regional agreements that influence the creation of international law for climate refugees.

Women in Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is in the Middle East and occupies about “four-fifths of the Arabian Peninsula”. It is home to Islam’s two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina. When thinking of Saudi Arabia, most people associate it with religion, petroleum wealth, and tribalism. Although, throughout the years, Saudi Arabia has become more urban while experiencing vast technological, educational, social, and economic changes. However, in terms of women’s rights, Saudi Arabia has received much backlash.

Women’s Rights Timeline in Saudi Arabia

In 1955, Saudi Arabia’s first school for girls was created and, in 1970, the first university for women opened its doors. In 2001, women were allowed to get personal identification cards as long as they had permission from their guardian. Furthermore, it was issued to the guardian, not the women. Until 2005, it was cultural practice for women to be forced into marriages even though it was considered illegal. Four years later, in 2009, the first female government minister, Noura al-Fayez, was appointed. In 2012, women were allowed to compete in the Olympics on the national team for the first time. Before the 2012 Olympic Games, there was a possibility that Saudi Arabia could be banned due to gender discrimination. A year later, women could ride bicycles and motorcycles in recreational areas but only if they wear the full Islamic body covering and have a male relative present. That same year, 30 women were sworn into the consultative council, the Shura. In 2015, women could run for office for the first time, which resulted in 20 women being elected to municipal roles in the absolute monarchy. Beginning just last year, women can now go to the sports stadiums and drive. Furthermore, in order for women to get their driver license, they do not need permission from a male guardian and can drive by themselves. Finally, in 2019, there a new law established where women would receive a text message if they got divorced, whereas in the past, their marriage could end without their knowledge. Additionally, they can check their marital status online or in court, but only if she has her husband’s approval or if he has harmed her. Many of these policy reforms still include male supervision. While persecution is a high risk, women are willing to fight for their freedom.

Their Stories

Rahaf Mohammad al-Qunun fled from Saudi Arabia to Canada; she was seeking a place where she can be free. Even though she left her family behind, now she can make her own decisions. She said, “I don’t have any contact with my family, but I think that’s good for me and for them. I feel like this is my home now. It’s better here.” Two girls, Reem and Rawan, escaped from Saudi Arabia to Hong Kong. Reem claims, “Our rooms were the prison cell and our fathers and brothers were the prison keepers. Saudi Arabia is one big prison.” However, they cannot stay in Hong Kong for long because they are at risk of being possibly removed or prosecuted. If they are forced to return to Saudi Arabia, the outcome could result in imprisonment or death. Cases similar to Reem and Rawn’s tend to often be covered up.

Why Women Run

One of the most common reasons women flee Saudi Arabia is due to the restrictions placed on where women can travel. Women are not given the right to leave the country without their male guardian’s permission. Furthermore, a woman’s ability to choose her marriage partner is solely dependent on the permission of their male guardian. In January 2019, the country set the minimum age of marriage at 18, but girls aged 15-18 can still become married without the court’s approval. Other reasons include but are not limited to domestic violence, discrimination in employment and healthcare, and inequality in divorce, child custody, and inheritance.

Technology and its Effect on Women’s Rights

With every technological advances comes benefits and drawbacks. The benefits can include a platform where people are given a voice to share their thoughts and an accessible platform from anywhere in the world. However, the drawbacks comprise of undesired scrutiny which can make one an easy target. As a result, one of the biggest questions now is “whether it is the responsibility of technology companies to make sure their platforms are not used by governments to repress their citizens.”

In Saudi Arabia, there is an app called Absher, which the government can access. The purpose of the app is for men to approve or deny women to go abroad. As mentioned earlier, some women have tried fleeing the country and must do this secretly due to not having permission from their male guardian. In this case, technology is detrimental for women’s rights because it places a limitation on their freedom. Technological advancement makes it easier for men to have power over women by “policing” the women’s movement. Whenever a woman wants to go to the airport, she cannot leave without the government and her guardian knowing because they receive a text alert; people have gotten around this system. For example, Salwa left Saudi Arabia by getting her father’s phone and replacing his information with her information. Thus, she was able to make consent for her sister and herself, although risking legal consequences. People believe that these apps are causing discrimination to become more normalized. Unfortunately, even though the companies are aware of the circumstances, removing the app would not solve women’s issues in Saudi Arabia. The government in Saudi Arabia has a website that comprises of the same functionality as the app does.

Free. Source: Max Pixel, Creative Commons.

The Future

During a session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, leaders of Saudi Arabia discussed their goal of developing the country by increasing participation from women. In fact, the number of female diplomats has expanded steadily over the years. While the future for Saudi Arabia’s women is unknown, there is “cautious optimism” in regards to women having a bigger role in society and politics.

Addressing Menstruation and Birth Control, Improving Women’s Lives

by Pam Zuber

Menstruation and birth control.

Discussing these topics sometimes makes people uncomfortable. Why? Society sometimes says that we’re not supposed to talk about what happens down there, that they’re just not proper topics for everyday conversation. Could this discomfort be due to the fact that men have often traditionally served as political leaders, media gatekeepers, and educational instructors? Women’s power, voices, and advancement opportunities have been limited. So have their concerns, even if they’re everyday issues that women have faced since the dawn of time.

Such concerns are extremely important to the survival of our species. Menstruation and birth control are crucial parts of life. Without menstruation and everything that accompanies it, we wouldn’t be here. Depending if people have access to it, birth control is also a factor that can greatly improve or hinder a woman’s quality of life. But, these topics are often taboo. People don’t want to talk about them. People often can’t talk about them or do anything about them. Or, if people talk or act on these topics, they may face stigmas and punishments. Living normally during menstruation and controlling one’s reproductive destiny should be vital human rights everywhere. They’re often not, which has created inconveniences, obstacles, and even tragedy. Luckily, individuals and groups are shedding light on menstruation and birth control and how they impact women and the greater culture.

Menstruation discrimination

Although banned by law, menstruation huts are still a reality in some rural areas of Nepal. They’re part of traditions stating that menstruating women or women who have just given birth are impure or the bearers of bad luck. These beliefs have led people to banish menstruating women to live in huts or cattle sheds, prevent them from touching farm animals, and forbid them from eating certain foods.

Known as chhaupadi, this practice of separating women from the general population puts women at risk. Many of the huts lack heat or bathroom facilities or are far removed from the rest of society. In 2019, a woman and her two children died after they inhaled smoke from a fire inside of this type of hut. A teenager died in 2017 from a snakebite she received while staying in a hut. People who live in such huts may have to travel miles to use toilets, wash, and gather supplies. They cannot attend school and their employment opportunities may be limited.

Under chhaupadi, disadvantaged women face even more obstacles that prevent them from overcoming their disadvantages and improving their lives. They do not have the full measure of human rights that males enjoy, simply because they are menstruating. Similar fears about female impurity have long banned women of menstruating age from the Hindu Sabarimala temple complex in India. As part of a number of protests, two women defied this ban and entered the temple in 2019. Their actions sparked further protests for and against women’s rights in the region and ignited international debate.

Positive period news

In a positive period-related development, access to feminine hygiene products is increasing for many. The states of Illinois, California, and New York provide free sanitary products for their public school students. Educational institutions such as the University of Washington also offer such products and other schools are considering it. These efforts are global. The government of Scotland provides free sanitary products to students who attend schools, colleges, and universities as well as to people who visit leisure centers and libraries. Several states in the United States have also removed the sales tax for such products (the tampon tax) or are considering doing so.

Period. End of Sentence is an Academy Award-winning short documentary that also testifies to the power of proper period care. Directed by Rayka Zehtabchi and produced by Melissa Berton, the film depicts efforts in India to provide sanitary products, end stigma about menstruation, and improve the lives of women and girls. “I can’t believe a film about menstruation just won an Oscar!” said Zehtabchi. The filmmakers acknowledged that Indian initiatives can help girls pursue schooling. “A period should end a sentence, not a girl’s education,” said Berton. Girls in India missed school 20 percent of the time because of menstruation, according to a report by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Females who lack sanitary products might use hay, old fabric, rags, or other products during menstruation, which can lead to unsanitary conditions and infections. It could make menstruation more visible and thus subject to scrutiny and stigma, eroding girls’ self-esteem and confidence in their abilities.

Others question whether menstruation really causes girls to leave school but acknowledge that taboos surrounding menstruation do indeed exist. Supporting girls and women is vital. “Providing girls with a product can only get you so far if you don’t have the enabling environment in the school, supportive teachers, and information about what’s happening to your body,” said Columbia University professor Marni Sommer on a National Public Radio interview. Proper period care “is a human right,” noted Sommer. “We shouldn’t have to justify that girls are deserving of an environment where they can just meet their basic bodily needs.”

Destigmatizing menstruation and providing access to menstruation products may create more equality. If women and girls face discrimination and lack essential hygiene products, they may stay home from work, school, civic engagements, and social events. They cannot fully participate in their lives and the lives of others. People who lack sanitary products live lives similar to women who live under the practice of chhaupadi. Just because they menstruate, women and girls affected by both cannot fully engage with the outside world. People are working to highlight and change this.

the movie poster for Period. End of Sentence. — Source: Creative Commons

The cost of unintended pregnancies

Access to birth control is also an important driver of human rights. Like sanitary products, effective and accessible birth control products provide physical and mental health benefits. Both can be valuable tools for improving and sustaining human rights. Physically, birth control helps women prevent pregnancies. This sounds obvious, but it means so much. Pregnancy and labor take tremendous physical tolls on women. Even after childbirth, breastfeeding mothers’ bodies are not entirely their own, and mothers face the physical and mental strain of raising children and running households.

Mental strain can be considerable for mothers. They are charged with taking care of themselves and their children and completing other tasks, such as working various jobs, helping their families, and fulfilling other responsibilities, not to mention trying to find time to pursue various interests. It can be difficult enough to do those things when they’re deliberate choices when women plan the size of their families. Not having access to birth control makes this precarious juggling act even more difficult. Becoming pregnant unintentionally may impact women’s health since they’re gaining weight, dealing with hormone fluctuations, and experiencing other intense physical changes related to pregnancy. Mentally, they may be facing the stress, anxiety, and depression of unwanted pregnancies and the profound life changes they may create.

Unintentional pregnancies can also burden women and their families financially. Women may take unpaid maternity leaves, turn down promotions or specific positions, or quit their jobs to raise children. They may have to allocate a considerable part of their incomes to pay for childcare. Mothers who re-enter the workplace may not earn the same incomes, have access to the same opportunities, or achieve the same advancements as colleagues who never left the paid workforce. Health and financial issues, unintended pregnancies, and other types of stress can strain women’s relationships with their partners. It could cause women to feel unfulfilled with their lives and feel that they’re not doing all that they want to do because they must fulfill the various responsibilities in their lives.

The worth of birth control

Birth control may shift this balance, helping women do what they want to do instead of what they feel they must do. Access to birth control gives women agency. There are mixed messages about this agency. Just as some higher education institutions are providing sanitary products, some are providing birth control access to their students. Arguably, they’re not providing full access. For example, institutions such as the University of Oregon operate health centers that employ pharmacists who prescribe birth control pills and other forms of contraception. They do so without appointments and charge $15.00 per visit. Not requiring appointments may make it easier for students to visit in spite of busy schedules. Charging $15.00 might make it easier for students for affording such visits. On the other hand, the university isn’t paying for birth control itself. Students must use health insurance or pay out-of-pocket to cover the costs of birth control. This means that people may go without much-needed birth control because they can’t afford it. They may not be able to pay for the $15.00 pharmacist visitation fee or other costs as well.

Sanitary napkins, tampons, birth control pills, and other forms of contraception often aren’t expensive, but the lack of them are. Women who don’t have them may face much more expensive financial, emotional, and physical costs in the future. Providing assistance and access to such items can change an individual woman’s life and transform society as a whole.

About the author: Pamela Zuber is a writer and editor who has written about human rights, health and wellness, business, and gender.

International Women’s Day: Continuing the Fight while Celebrating the Victories

a picture of Peruvian women in front of a mountain range — Peru. Women in the Colca valley. Source: Pedro Szekely, Creative Commons

Today is International Women’s Day. This year’s theme is “Think Equal, Build Smart, Innovate for Change.” In her context statement about the theme, UN Women Executive Director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka states that the changing world continues to shape the lives of people and “we have to be intentional about its use to positively impact the lives of women and girls. [The theme] puts innovation at the centre of efforts to reflect the needs and viewpoints of women and girls and to resolve barriers to public services and opportunities.” Innovation highlights the game-changers and activists willing to “accelerate progress for gender equality, encourage investment in gender-responsive social systems, and build services and infrastructure that meet the needs of women and girls.” The goal of today is to celebrate the incredible achievements of women and girls who seek to overcome their marginalized status in their communities, level the representation across various academic disciplines and professional fields and undo the cycles of intersectional injustices to bring about a more equitable world.

History

What started as a response to a women’s labor strike in New York 1909 became an international movement to honor the rights of women and to garner support for universal women’s suffrage. In 1913-14, International Women’s Day was a tactic to protest World War I as a part of the peace movement. The UN adopted 8 March as the official date in 1975 during the International Year of Women. Gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls is Sustainable Development Goal #5 in 2015.

Celebrating some game-changers and activists

The list below is not extensive. Its purpose is to assist you in your search to discover and know what women are doing and have done around the world.

Kiara Nirghin: Won Google Science Fair for creating an orange and avocado peel mixture to fight against drought conditions around the world. She will join Secretary-General António Guterres.

Elizabeth Hausler: Founder of BuildChange.org, an organization that trains builders, homeowners, and governments to build disaster-resistant homes in nations often affected by earthquakes and typhoons.

Jaha Dujureh: Founder of SafeHandsforGirls.org, an organization fighting to end child marriage and female genital mutilation (FGM).

BlackGirlsCode.com: A San Francisco based organization seeking to increase the number of girls from marginalized communities in STEM fields by 2040.

Shakhodat Teshebayeva: When the water crisis threatened her livelihood, she organized and mobilized a women’s group to advocate for a place for women at the discussion table regarding equal access to water.

Mila Rodriguez: Cultivates safe spaces for young people to use music to promote peace in Colombia.

Wangari Maathai: late Nobel Peace Prize Laureate from Kenya who initiated the GreenBeltMovement.org by planting trees for the cultivation of sustainable development and peace.

Next Einstein Forum: Continental STEM forum in Africa

Una Mulale: the only pediatric critical care doctor in Botswana who works to combine medicine and art to bring healing to the body and the soul.

The Ladypad Project

This coming week, Dr. Tina Kempin Reuter and Dr. Stacy Moak will take 12 UAB students to the Maasai Mara in Kenya. The team, in collaboration with the I See Maasai Development Initiative, will fund education on women’s health rights and provide 1500 girls with materials, including underwear and reusable pads, for menstrual hygiene management. The project was awarded a grant through Birmingham’s Independent Presbyterian Church Foundation.

Continuing the Fight

International Women’s Day is not only about celebrating the accomplishments of women and girls, but it is also about shining a light on the continuing injustices faced by more than half of the world’s population. From femicide and early marriage to FGM and sexual violence and exclusion from peace talks, gender inequity discounts the contribution of women and girls to the overall value of humanity. Kofi Annan, the late UN Secretary-General, posited that the empowerment of women proves more effective than any other tool for development. Noeleen Heyzer concludes that although there are women’s issues and rights still to be raised and respected, including those outlined in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, there are many that we must continue to protect. March is Women’s History Month and our contributors will write about issues that continue to impact the lives of women and girls around the world.