Princess Charlotte Makes History

Princess Charlotte (Mirror UK)

Princess Charlotte (Mirror UK)

Everyone with a WiFi connection knows that the Duchess of Cambridge (a.k.a. the former Kate Middleton) had her baby yesterday. The birth of her new son also ensured that her daughter Charlotte has made history.

How? Princess Charlotte is the first princess in the Royal Family’s history not to lose her place in the line of succession to a younger brother.

In 2013, the Succession to the Crown Act was introduced, and allowed girl members of the Royal Family to keep their place in the line of succession even if a younger male member of the family was born. The act was implemented in 2015, and Princess Charlotte is the first royal girl to benefit from it.

Before the Act, female members of the family were frequently bumped down the line of succession in favor of their male brothers, even if the boys were younger. This started with Queen Victoria, whose second child, a boy, replaced her first child, a daughter, in the line of succession. Primogeniture (the official term for it) was very common up until…yesterday.

This is also exciting for another reason. As “The Lily” put it:

The updated law of succession, however, means that a future princess could one day be born to be queen.

!!!

No Shit: 68% of Women Think Trump is a Dick

Donald Trump (Time)

Donald Trump (Time)

It’s no secret that Trump is *not* the popular guy around. But just how unpopular is he?

A new poll conducted by ABC News/Washington Post delves into this. The poll found not only do women see Trump more unfavorably than favorably (shocker), they found woman differ in their opinions by a “44-point margin, 68-24%.” (1K+ people were polled.)

Opinions break down along certain lines: 73% of college-educated white women view Trump unfavorably, and 66% disapprove of his job performance. Incidentally, 65% of women support Robert Mueller’s investigation into hush money paid to women Trump assaulted. (Another shocker!)

I would personally *love* to know how the question about Trump’s favorability (or, more likely, lack thereof) was worded. As much as I doubt it, I’d love it if the question did refer to Trump as a dick or an asshole. A girl can only dream,

 

Women Running for Office: By The Numbers

Women senators of the 113th Congress, 2013 (ABC News)

Women senators of the 113th Congress, 2013 (ABC News)

Do you pay attention to midterm elections? Well, you should this year! This year’s races should be really fascinating to watch because there are a record number of women registered to run for a seat in the House of Representatives.

Let’s take a look at some other numbers surrounding women running for public office:

526 women running for public office in 2018

  • 395 women running for a seat in the House of Representatives in 2018
  • 50 women running for Senate seats in 2018
  • 79 women up for governors’ seats

Here’s what not-so-distant past trends looked like:

  • 20 women sworn in as senators in 2013 (the largest class of women Senators ever!)
  • 298 women ran for public office in 2012 (Side note: this was the previous record.)
  • 34 women ran for governors’ seats in 1994

Let’s hope this year brings a record-breaking number of women elected!!

 

500+ Women Are Running for Office in 2018

US Capitol Building (City Segway Tours)

Are you a woman running for office this year? If so, you’re in good and widespread company. Initial estimates made by the Associated Press indicate that that a record number of women are running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives during this year’s midterm elections.

Overall, 526 women have been counted as running. As of last week, 309 women from both parties had registered to run. The previous record was set in 2012, when 298 women registered to run for office.

#ThrowbackThursday: Alice Dunnigan, Date Unknown

Alice Dunnigan (Columbia Journalism Review Archive)

Alice Dunnigan (Columbia Journalism Review Archive)

Alice Dunnigan should be more well-known. This is not editorializing, this is just a fact. As a journalist WOC, Dunnigan pioneered many firsts. She was the first African-American woman to have press access to the White House, first African-American female member of the Senate and House of Representatives press galleries. Dunnigan was also the first African-American woman to travel with a presidential candidate, when she traveled with Harry S. Truman during the 1948 presidential campaign.

Dunnigan paved the way for other African-American female journalists, among them Gwen Ifill, Nikole Hannah-Jones, and Oprah Winfrey.

Trump Pays His Female Employees Like It’s 1980

Ivanka Trump (CNBC)

Ivanka Trump (CNBC)

The gender pay gap is alive and well in the Trump White House. Shocker! (Except not.) Instead of achieving pay parity with men, the women are losing ground in the fight.

(Incidentally, Ivanka Trump serves in an unpaid role.)

Economist Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute analyzed median wages, and found that the gender pay gap has more than tripled. In other words, the women are getting paid like it’s 1980.

What does this look like in salary terms?

The median female White House employee is drawing a salary of $72,650 in 2017, compared to the median male salary of $115,000. “The typical female staffer in Trump’s White House earns 63.2 cents per $1 earned by a typical male staffer,” Perry writes.

If you need that pay gap in visual form, you’re in luck:

White House gender pay gap graph (The Washington Post/Wonkblog)

White House gender pay gap graph (The Washington Post/Wonkblog)

Damn, that does not look good.

To put this further in perspective, the national pay gap is 17%. The Trump administration pay gap sits at 37%, more than double the national rate.

Something to note: using the median, and not averages, is the best way to determine pay parity. This is because averages include the outliers, both on the low and high ends of the scale.

Another note: The pay gap in Trump’s White House is higher than the pay gap in any White House since 2003. And

California Public Schools Will Now Require Teaching LGBT History

Second National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights, 1987 (The Washington Post)

Second National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights, 1987 (The Washington Post)

California has long been one of the most progressive states in the union, fearlessly blazing a trail where other states dare not tread.

OK, maybe I’m biased because I live here.

But California is about to do something (else) no other state has done: require teaching LGBT history in public schools.

Granted, this isn’t a complete shock. Last year, the state voted to pass a new curriculum for history and social studies where children will learn about LGBT history at various points during K-12 schooling. Topics will range from learning about diverse families in elementary school to historical nuts-and-bolts in high school.

(Side note: A public forum was held in 2015 regarding the new curriculum. While there were disagreements over how some religious groups were portrayed, “no one protested the inclusion of the history of LGBT rights.” Progress!)

This measure comes after the Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful Act (FAIR) Education Act was passed in 2012. This act bolstered the inclusion of minority groups (including the LGBT community) in public education on history. The deadline to include this new information in textbooks was this year.

With California leading the way, I hope other states will follow suit in teaching inclusive history to their students.

 

The Philippines Might Get Access to Free Birth Control

Birth control pills (Salon)

Birth control pills (Salon)

Women in the Philippines might soon get access to free birth control.

The Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte signed an executive order for women of the country to receive free birth control, as well as access to further reproductive health services.

The order implements the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health (RPRH) Act of 2012, which promotes family planning with the support of the state. It was signed into law that year. The order took 13 years to be signed into law (so it was introduced in 1999…yikes).

It’s estimated that there are currently 6M women without birth control within the country, with 2M women classified as poor. There are 24 live births per every 1K people, giving the country the 66th highest birth rate in the world. Considering that abortion is illegal, the need for some form of birth control is high:

More than half of all pregnancies in the Philippines are unintended, according to the Guttmacher Institute, and more than 90 percent of unintended pregnancies occurred in the absence of modern contraceptive methods.

Duterte’s goal is to completely eradicate any “unmet family planning needs” by 2018.

Trump Bans Funding for International Organizations that “Promote” Abortion

Trump signs international abortion ban (Lifesite)

Trump signs international abortion ban (Lifesite)

Well, that was quick.

On his third day in office, Trump showed his hand on female reproductive rights (not like we didnt already know…) He moved to block U.S. aid for organizations that “promote” abortion. In this case, “promoting” abortion means presenting it as a viable option and/or providing abortion counseling.

Similar rules have been in place since 1984, when President Ronald Reagan instituted the first rule known as the Mexico City policy. (The policy was named for the location in which Reagan announced it.) Depending on which party is in office, the bill has been repealed (by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) and reinstated (by George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush).

Despite the fact that the policy has been around for over 30 years, it’s unclear whether it’s actually working:

Health experts say the policy has not led to a decline in abortions in the affected countries. Some research suggests that it has had the opposite effect: increasing abortion rates by forcing health clinics to close or to restrict contraceptive supplies because of lack of funding. Others say the restriction only heightens the risk of illegal and often unsafe abortions.

A study completed by the Stanford University School of Medicine in 2011 found that the Mexico City policy was “linked to increases in abortion rates in sub-Saharan African countries.” But the study also found that it was difficult to link a country’s abortion rates back to the policy.

 

Ohio Bans Abortions After 20 Weeks

Ultrasound of fetus at 20 weeks (The Times in Plain English)

Ultrasound of fetus at 20 weeks (The Times in Plain English)

Another blow for women’s health: Ohio Governor John Kasich (yes, the former Republican presidential hopeful) signed a bill to approve banning abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. (To put this in context, most pregnancies are around 40 weeks long.)

The Senate Bill 127, signed December 2016, does not allow for exceptions in rape and incest cases. Supporters of the bill claim that the fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. (I’m curious how they know this; did they ask the fetus through the ultrasound?) The only exception will be for women whose pregnancy puts their health at risk.

Providers caught performing abortions after 20 weeks will charged with a “fourth-degree felony.”

Earlier that month, Kasich tried to sign a “heartbeat” bill, which would ban abortion after six weeks. A heartbeat pulse can generally be found around that time, though women may not know they’re pregnant. He eventually vetoed it due to overwhelming public pressure.

Around 1% of abortions occur after 20 weeks. The new law takes effect Mar. 14, 2017.