The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Stellar Colonies]

It is a pity that more people would be subject to the draft if this succeeds, but hopefully it would piss off enough people to try and eliminate it in general instead of maintaining the status quo of only forcing men into it.

Unfortunately, that succeeding would probably strengthen the idea of threatening areas of female privilege to improve male well-being to match the former instead of directly advocating by the merits of the latter though, which really shouldn't be seen as necessary under any contexts in the first place.

The Fiscal Year 22 bill has now passed the House, including the language that would require women to register for the draft (316-113)

I wonder if we'll suddenly see several third wave feminists and social conservatives on the same side against this. After all, politics makes strange bedfellows.

Non-egalitarian feminists and non-egalitarian conservatives overlap in some areas of misandry and misogyny, so wouldn't be surprised.

[Galloism]

So with a problem like mass incarceration, assuming we desire to end the disparity by freeing millions of people of color who have been the victims of unjust conviction and sentencing, in the mean time, which of these two would be better: a million more white people in prison, or the status quo?

people do better at ignoring a problem when they aren't subject to it

There's a certain cruel logic to this post.

I don't like it, but it is true.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Senate Armed Services Committee votes to make women register for the draft

The Fiscal Year 22 bill has now passed the House, including the language that would require women to register for the draft (316-113)

Well hopefully that fails, and maybe we can stop forcing anyone to here drafted at all.. I can't really speak for anyone else but when I say I support women's rights I mean I want them freed from the injustices they face. I do NOT mean I want them subjected to more.

[Stellar Colonies]

The Fiscal Year 22 bill has now passed the House, including the language that would require women to register for the draft (316-113)

Well hopefully that fails, and maybe we can stop forcing anyone to here drafted at all.. I can't really speak for anyone else but when I say I support women's rights I mean I want them freed from the injustices they face. I do NOT mean I want them subjected to more.

It could cause some good, including whipping enough anger over including ! WOMEN ! in the draft to abolish it entirely for everyone, but the most likely outcome we'd get is returning to the status quo of only forcing men into it.

But yeah, the ideal path would be abolishing it for men based solely on respecting male rights instead of either forcing women into it as well out of a twisted sense of equality or making use of higher empathy for women as a tactic for getting rid of the draft.

[Forsher]

From the American politics thread:

New York judges subvert the law to overcrowd jails

Brandon Rodriguez might have been alive today if he’d had about $1,000.

On August 9th, the 25-year-old Rikers detainee had his felony domestic violence charges downgraded to a bundle of violations and misdemeanors. But that didn’t get him out of jail. At a court hearing that day, Judge Ann Thompson imposed a $10,000 bond, 8.6% of which he would have had to come up with to go home.

Paying a bail bonds company such an amount would have been tough for the young man, his family’s attorney said. Rodriguez had struggled to find work, and was about to start a job at FedEx before his arrest.

By then the 25-year-old had already been assaulted multiple times at Rikers Island, New York City’s isolated jail complex in the East River known locally as the “Gladiator School.” In his time there, his family said, he was hospitalized once after another detainee broke his eye socket. After that, The New York Times reported, he clashed with a team of guards.Rodriguez could not have gone to Rikers at a worse time. For months, correction officers have been skipping work in droves, leaving detainees in dozens of unmanned posts without proper food or medical attention for days.

Six days on the island proved to be too much for the young man.

On August 10th, the day after Thompson’s ruling, Rodriguez hung himself inside his intake cell. A correction officer found him with a T-shirt wrapped around his neck.


Judge Thompson did not respond to a request for comment received by her court attorney. But in an email, Lucian Chalfen, a court spokesperson, defended her bail decision, pointing to Rodriguez’s charges and his history of failing to appear in court. Rodriguez was the ninth person incarcerated in a city jail to die in 2021. Since then, the total death count has climbed to 12. The spree of fatalities has prompted prominent elected officials to push the governor and the mayor to close Rikers and empty city jails so that fewer people are subjected to unsanitary conditions, COVID-19, and escalating violence among staff and detainees.

But Governor Kathy Hochul’s powers have, so far, been limited to releasing a couple hundred people detained for technical parole violations and transferring 200 others to state facilities. That, combined with work releases that Mayor Bill de Blasio has thus far refused to grant, would only remove a small portion of Rikers’ swelling population in the near term.

Large reductions in the number of people held in city jails would instead depend on a key set of actors who have so far faced little scrutiny: New York City judges. Around 80% of the city’s jail population is composed of people like Rodriguez, locked up as they wait for trial because judges have decided to detain them or, more frequently, set bails they can’t afford.

“Judges are the gatekeepers of who goes in and out of Rikers Island,” said Jullian Harris-Calvin, director of the Greater Justice New York program at the Vera Institute, a criminal justice research organization. “They have a very central role in putting people into this set of facilities that are torturous and inhumane, where people are dying left and right.”

But rather than working to alleviate crowding within Rikers and other city jails, court data shows judges are detaining an increasing number of people before their trials, and an analysis by Gothamist/WNYC and New York Focus reveals some judges play an outsized role in driving this trend. In 2019, the New York State legislature passed a highly-contentious bail reform law over the vociferous objections of law enforcement groups, among others. The legislation blocked judges from imposing bail for a range of criminal charges, eliminating their ability to hold people in pre-trial detention for most misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies. Judges are still allowed to set bail on most violent felonies, but only if there’s a demonstrable risk that defendants will flee prosecution.

What they can’t take into account is their perception of a person’s risk to the public. Unlike in other states, judges in New York aren’t allowed to set bail on someone, and therefore make it harder to get out of jail, because they think the person might commit another crime. That’s been a hotly debated provision of New York law for fifty years, with critics saying it ignores public safety and defenders arguing it preserves the presumption of innocence.

In practice, judges have long flouted this law in arraignment court by citing flight risk as a reason for imposing high, frequently unaffordable bails, even if their real concern is public safety.

“Look, if a judge wants to lock somebody up, they’re going to lock somebody up. It’s that simple,” said Charles Linehan, a former Manhattan prosecutor.

He used the example of someone with an existing criminal history who’s been charged with knife-point robbery.

“There might be a case where the data doesn’t support this person being a flight risk,” Linehan said. “[But the judge] may be thinking, ‘Well, he used a knife here, what if he goes out and does something horrible to somebody, and the New York Post is shouting how judge so-and-so let this guy out on no bail.’”

Setting aside whether a judge’s reasoning for imposing bail conforms with the law’s narrow confines about the likelihood of a person returning to court, how frequently a judge sets bail is often a function of the political climate.

In early 2020, after the legislature’s landmark bail reforms went into effect, judges’ pre-trial decisions contributed to a sharp reduction in the city's jail population. But as shootings in the city rose—and as tabloids and law enforcement waged a successful battle to partially scale back the bail reform law—court data suggests the judiciary became increasingly unable, or unwilling, to follow the law. Judges routinely made decisions that detained people pre-trial, even when the city’s statistical tool for assessing flight risk indicated they were likely to return to court. (Like other jurisdictions, New York City uses a computer algorithm to help determine who’s likely to show up to court and who’s not.) For example, in the final quarter of 2020, that algorithm recommended judges release 74% of defendants accused of violent felonies without bail or supervision, reflecting the fact that the vast majority of people facing such charges attend all their court dates.

But during that period, judges usually ignored these recommendations, releasing such defendants without conditions only 26% of the time. (Another 16% of those accused of violent felonies were released with mandated check-ins and other supervisory conditions).

Rikers Island and New York City’s other jail sites currently hold roughly 6,000 people in total. A study by the Center for Court Innovation found that if judges simply reverted to their early 2020 practices, city jails would have around 760 fewer detainees on any given day. It also found that if judges followed the recommendations of the city’s bail-risk algorithm, nearly 1,000 fewer people would be locked up in city jails. When judges do impose bail, the law requires them to consider a defendant’s ability to pay. And yet, as was the case for Rodriguez, bail is frequently set out of reach for most people. In 2020, two-thirds of defendants held on bail were still in jail a week later.

In other words, setting bail usually means sending a person to jail.

But judges’ track records are hardly uniform, according to court data released this summer. An analysis by Gothamist/WNYC and New York Focus shows that, in 2020, New York City’s judges held or set bail on 46% of defendants facing charges in which bail could be applied—and some judges went well past this average.

In Manhattan, Judge Lumarie Maldonado-Cruz set bail or remand (holding defendants without the possibility of release) in 77% of bail-eligible cases, the highest rate in the city. The Bronx’s top judge by this metric was Beth Beller, who set bail or remand in 66% of the cases she saw. Brooklyn’s leader was Judge Quynda Santacroce, at 64%.

That Maldonado-Cruz had the highest rating in the city came as no surprise to two Manhattan defense attorneys, who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation against their clients.

“When you interview a client, one of the questions they’re always going to ask is, ‘Am I going home?’ And you have to give a different answer depending on the judge. With her, the answer is often much clearer,” one attorney said.

(Image)

Like many judges, Maldonado-Cruz set bail less often in the immediate months after the reforms passed—but then began releasing fewer people in the summer of 2020 amid rising fears over gun crime and as pushback against New York’s bail reforms intensified.

“As soon as she felt comfortable getting away with setting bail again, she started doing it as if nothing had changed,” the attorney said. “And now, lately, for the last five or six months, I’ve just been feeling like... there’s some sort of unofficial agreement on the part of some of these judges to act as if things are as they used to be.”

Maldonado-Cruz did not respond to requests for comment.

The numbers also show a varying picture across the city, pointing to differing courthouse cultures and prosecutorial practices. While Manhattan ranks in the middle among boroughs when it comes to violent crime, its judges are by far the toughest on average. Nine of the top 15 judges for bail and remand rates were from the borough. This game of chance is a given for those caught up in the criminal justice system and their attorneys, said Tiffany Cabán, a former public defender who is now the Democratic nominee for a city council seat in Queens.

“When you’re a defender, you know who those judges are,” she said, describing how she and her former colleagues would try to time some cases to avoid tougher judges and give their clients a better chance at release.

“You look to your colleague and say, ‘Hey, who is the judge coming next? Because maybe we shouldn’t arraign this case. We should wait an hour,’” she said.

For Harris-Calvin at the Vera Institute, the fact that some judges have set bail at such high rates reveals the danger of giving judges too much discretion.

“Whether or not you go to jail—whether or not you have the consequences of losing your child, losing your employment, losing your housing, losing your connection to the community, losing your medical care, your mental health services—depends on who you just happen to be before as a judge. Which makes our system less fair. It makes our system less equitable,” she said.

Linehan, the former prosecutor, said there aren’t easy alternatives.

“The amount of people being held on bail, and therefore the population at Rikers, is being directly impacted by the decisions that individual judges are making, based often on subjective factors,” he said, noting that the algorithms that judges rely on when setting bail can also be biased. “But I don’t know any other way to do it.”
[...]
Proponents of decarceration want to see judges take a different tack—respecting the legal requirement to release people who pose little flight risk, reducing their use of bail, and sending fewer people to Rikers as they await their trials. They note data showing less than 1% of people who are released pre-trial are re-arrested for violent felonies, and that a jail’s harsh environment and the disruption it causes in their lives can actually make them more likely to engage in criminal activity in the future.

“The research overwhelmingly indicates that releasing people reduces recidivism in the long run, and pre-trial detention increases it,” said Michael Rempel, a criminal justice researcher and director of jail reform at the Center for Court Innovation.

“I think that’s where the public is often confused, because it’s intuitive and obvious that detaining people means that they won’t be rearrested while they’re detained,” he said. “But less intuitive is that all of these people are inevitably released… so the complete story is [judges are] actually increasing recidivism, in the long run.”

For cases in which there's a genuine risk of flight, New York’s bail reforms require judges to use the “least restrictive conditions” necessary to ensure their return to court.

Reformers argue that in many of these cases, judges should put defendants on what’s known as “supervised release,” requiring that they check in with authorities and access social services, such as housing and job training programs. Recent research on supervised release in New York City found it’s equally effective as bail in ensuring defendants return to court.

As the number of deaths has mounted at Rikers, the city’s Correction Commissioner, Vincent Schiraldi, has also urged courts to use alternatives to bail.

"Please, please use supervised release," he begged at a Board of Correction meeting earlier this month.

There's a... pattern I noticed here. Does anyone else see it?

[Jello Biafra]

From the American politics thread:

There's a... pattern I noticed here. Does anyone else see it?

The female judges listed in the article are the ones 'tough on crime'.

[Kowani]

In Kenya, the high court rules that the housework and care-work performed by a female spouse entitles her to an equal share of the matrimonial property upon divorce

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

So by way of update on the Katie Hill/Daily Mail/Red State case...

She's been ordered to pay Daily Mail and Red State attorney's fees under California's anti-SLAPP law

There's more to the article, but to post the relevant part:

But Judge Yolanda Orozco tossed Hill’s claims against Van Laar and The Daily Mail on anti-SLAPP grounds this past April. Orozco found The Daily Mail’s duty to its readers is to question Hill’s character and qualifications as a member of Congress and that is a matter of public concern. That includes allegations of extramarital affairs with a paid campaign staff member, illegal drug use and whether Hill has a tattoo similar to the symbols formerly used by white supremacists as detailed in the story.

On Wednesday, Orozco ordered Hill to pay the Daily Mail nearly $105,000 in attorney fees and other costs incurred to defend against the lawsuit. In her tentative order which she adopted, Orozco found the fees reasonable.

Hill argued that awarding The Daily Mail attorney fees would condone the publication of her nude photos and the court should consider she has her own legal fees to pay. Hill said the defendants should not be awarded more than 12.5 hours of fees for their work on the instant motion she filed.

Orozco disagreed with that assessment, given Hill had argued she was a victim of revenge porn and cited a media company in her lawsuit.

“Here, it cannot be reasonably argued that the time spent by defendant was excessive when plaintiff necessitated counsel’s work,” Orozco wrote. “Plaintiff herself concedes that the instant suit presents novel issues with far-reaching ramifications. Accordingly, the instant action was one that necessitated extensive research and strategy.”

Those novel issues included application of case law and California’s revenge porn law and how that would apply to a media company, Orozco found.

“The time defendant claims counsel spent researching and drafting its anti-SLAPP papers, as well as the time spent preparing for oral argument, are entirely reasonable even without the detailed billing records provided here,” she wrote.

Last week, Orozco ordered Hill to pay Van Laar nearly $84,000 in attorney fees for having to defend against her lawsuit.

Heslep remains the sole defendant in the civil lawsuit.

I won't lie, this case hits a couple of conflicting priorities on things, and I'm not really happy that this went down. The fact that she has white supremacist symbology tattooed on her body as a member of congress seems like a public concern as it might indicate something about her views, but publishing nude photos of a person - even in that case where it's necessary to expose the white supremacist tattoo - seems extremely invasive.

The other parts (drug usage, violating a staffer) could have been published sans the pictures for sure, and that was not necessary to publish their findings.

I don't think that she should be forced to pay attorney's fees because they have attorneys on staff just for this sort of thing, so it's not likely to have cost them any "extra" money, but money they were already spending. I'm sure the law agrees with the judge, but I'm not in agreement with the law (or, at least, the application of the law in this case).

Anyway. There we have it. Katie Hill sued over having her nude photos published, and wound up having to pay the attorney's fees of the people she sued.

Anti SLAPP law lmao

[Fahran]

There's a... pattern I noticed here. Does anyone else see it?

Violence is bad? And should be regulated better and not allowed to fester, inside or outside of prison? Honestly, it sounds like they need to get the prison situation under control and not allow violent inmates as many opportunities to act like violent inmates, though I suppose one could do that while generally improving standards of living behind bars. In fact, removing serial violent offenders from the general population and improving standards across the board could likely do quite a lot to reduce levels of violence.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable giving domestic abusers easy access to bail. I really think they should get a month or two for minor offenses and years for more serious ones. You can't go around beating up your partner or spouse just because you're angry or not in control of a situation. It's far from a victimless crime. Also, if and when parole is granted, obtaining anger management counselling and couples counselling should be mandatory to remain out on parole.

[Kowani]

There's a... pattern I noticed here. Does anyone else see it?

Violence is bad? And should be regulated better and not allowed to fester, inside or outside of prison? Honestly, it sounds like they need to get the prison situation under control and not allow violent inmates as many opportunities to act like violent inmates, though I suppose one could do that while generally improving standards of living behind bars. In fact, removing serial violent offenders from the general population and improving standards across the board could likely do quite a lot to reduce levels of violence.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable giving domestic abusers easy access to bail. I really think they should get a month or two for minor offenses and years for more serious ones. You can't go around beating up your partner or spouse just because you're angry or not in control of a situation. It's far from a victimless crime. Also, if and when parole is granted, obtaining anger management counselling and couples counselling should be mandatory to remain out on parole.

bail has no effect of the length of the sentencing
it's exclusively for pretrial detention

...also the case here is that bail became (in theory) less applicable for more crimes?
like this is totally incoherent

[Fahran]

bail has no effect of the length of the sentencing
it's exclusively for pretrial detention

...also the case here is that bail became (in theory) less applicable for more crimes?
like this is totally incoherent

I know.

I'm just not really comfortable with letting violent offenders out before trial when there's a decent likelihood they might engage in more violence in the meantime, which seemed to be the thrust of the argument there - that bail would have kept this person alive. I mean... the jail/prison not being a cesspit would have done that without releasing a violent offender back onto the streets before his trial.

But, really, a lot of the problem is built into the legal system and our inability to really ensure adequate due process and speedy trials.

[Kowani]

bail has no effect of the length of the sentencing
it's exclusively for pretrial detention

...also the case here is that bail became (in theory) less applicable for more crimes?
like this is totally incoherent

I know.

I'm just not really comfortable with letting violent offenders out before trial when there's a decent likelihood they might engage in more violence in the meantime, which seemed to be the thrust of the argument there - that bail would have kept this person alive. I mean... the jail/prison not being a cesspit would have done that without releasing a violent offender back onto the streets before his trial.

But, really, a lot of the problem is built into the legal system and our inability to really ensure adequate due process and speedy trials.

i mean the other part of the argument is that judges (certain judges specifically) are flouting the data on an individual's risk to throw them in jail (the article attributes this to fear of tabloids but i think that gives them cover for attitudes they don't hold)

but in addition, the argument isn't "setting bail would have kept X alive"
it's a critique of bail-at least how it's being used, not an endorsement

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

World record holder freediver Fatma Uruk said on her social media account, "I am subject to psychological violence and discrimination by the federation in my national team camp." Şahin Özen, President of the Turkish Underwater Sports Federation, wanted to reveal the pictures of the national athlete Fatma Uruk while drinking beer. As feminists, we stand by the National Freediver Fatma Uruk and consider every attack against her as an attack on the women of the Republic.

[Kowani]

Justice Department reviewing decision not to charge FBI agents accused of improperly investigating Larry Nassar's sexual abuse of the United States gymnastics team

[Kowani]

Bolsonaro vetoes free tampon distribution for low-income students, homeless people or others in "situations of extreme vulnerability"

[Kowani]

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signs into law a prohibition on removing a condom during sex without consent, making it a civil sexual battery offense

[Fahran]

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signs into law a prohibition on removing a condom during sex without consent, making it a civil sexual battery offense

Honestly, good. I think he should consider bumping it up to an actual criminal charge. Maybe he can re-increase the criminal penalty for not telling your partner you have a serious STI as well.

[Fahran]

Bolsonaro vetoes free tampon distribution for low-income students, homeless people or others in "situations of extreme vulnerability"

Oof.

[Fahran]

World record holder freediver Fatma Uruk said on her social media account, "I am subject to psychological violence and discrimination by the federation in my national team camp." Şahin Özen, President of the Turkish Underwater Sports Federation, wanted to reveal the pictures of the national athlete Fatma Uruk while drinking beer. As feminists, we stand by the National Freediver Fatma Uruk and consider every attack against her as an attack on the women of the Republic.

(Image)

Don't lots of Turks drink alcohol?

[Kowani]

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signs into law a bill that will require all public schools and colleges in the state to stock restrooms with free menstrual products

The new law requires schools to provide free menstrual products in at least half of their restrooms, including in all women's restrooms, in all-gender restrooms, and in at least one men's restroom. The cost of the products to schools would be reimbursed by the state, according to the legislation. [...] The California legislation requires free menstrual products to be provided in the bathrooms of students in grades 6 through 12, in community colleges, at California State University, and at all University of California systems beginning in the 2022-23 school year, the AP first reported.

While the law does not require private institutions to do the same, it encourages them to do so.

[Stellar Colonies]

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signs into law a bill that will require all public schools and colleges in the state to stock restrooms with free menstrual products

The new law requires schools to provide free menstrual products in at least half of their restrooms, including in all women's restrooms, in all-gender restrooms, and in at least one men's restroom. The cost of the products to schools would be reimbursed by the state, according to the legislation. [...] The California legislation requires free menstrual products to be provided in the bathrooms of students in grades 6 through 12, in community colleges, at California State University, and at all University of California systems beginning in the 2022-23 school year, the AP first reported.

While the law does not require private institutions to do the same, it encourages them to do so.

Our local library has already stocked menstrual products for years in both the male & female bathrooms.

High school and community college doesn't in male bathrooms, not sure about female.

[Fahran]

i mean the other part of the argument is that judges (certain judges specifically) are flouting the data on an individual's risk to throw them in jail (the article attributes this to fear of tabloids but i think that gives them cover for attitudes they don't hold)

Yes, and that shouldn't happen when the legislature and judicial system have set up a system where that is illegal. With that being said, I do think it's prudent for the judicial system to assess the risk that a person who commits a violent felony may commit another violent felony while awaiting trial. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that someone with that was a felony charge for domestic violence shouldn't even be eligible for bail unless there's some suggestion of self-defense. I have no idea how this guy got a felony charge for it though. Usually, folks, both men and women, get slapped on the wrist. Did he put someone in the hospital? Why was it a felony?

but in addition, the argument isn't "setting bail would have kept X alive"
it's a critique of bail-at least how it's being used, not an endorsement

I mean... the implication is that we should grant more people bail and, in this case, a violent criminal. At one point, the article even brings up demands that the jail be shut down and emptied out. Which... does nothing to address the problem that violent inmates often engage in violence behind bars. You're either releasing people who engage in serious violence or moving them somewhere else. It's not a solution to the problem in the long-term. We should discuss reform rather than abolition since we do still need to incarcerate people who insist on hitting people or stabbing people to solve problems.

[Kowani]

i mean the other part of the argument is that judges (certain judges specifically) are flouting the data on an individual's risk to throw them in jail (the article attributes this to fear of tabloids but i think that gives them cover for attitudes they don't hold)

Yes, and that shouldn't happen when the legislature and judicial system have set up a system where that is illegal. With that being said, I do think it's prudent for the judicial system to assess the risk that a person who commits a violent felony may commit another violent felony while awaiting trial. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that someone with that was a felony charge for domestic violence shouldn't even be eligible for bail unless there's some suggestion of self-defense. I have no idea how this guy got a felony charge for it though. Usually, folks, both men and women, get slapped on the wrist. Did he put someone in the hospital? Why was it a felony?

but in addition, the argument isn't "setting bail would have kept X alive"
it's a critique of bail-at least how it's being used, not an endorsement

I mean... the implication is that we should grant more people bail and, in this case, a violent criminal. At one point, the article even brings up demands that the jail be shut down and emptied out. Which... does nothing to address the problem that violent inmates often engage in violence behind bars. You're either releasing people who engage in serious violence or moving them somewhere else. It's not a solution to the problem in the long-term. We should discuss reform rather than abolition since we do still need to incarcerate people who insist on hitting people or stabbing people to solve problems.

"article talking abou how bail practices are leading to a prison overcrowding catastrophe at one of the state's most infamous prisons"
"this is actually arguing for more bail"
????

[Fahran]

"article talking abou how bail practices are leading to a prison overcrowding catastrophe at one of the state's most infamous prisons"
"this is actually arguing for more bail"
????

I question the efficacy of an argument against the over-crowding of jails that begins by emphasizing violent criminals who didn't receive bail because there were fears they'd commit more violent crimes. It's an example that raises an eyebrow, even if the man took his own life due to the violence present in the jail. In my mind, the solution to over-crowding is to release nonviolent alleged offenders, such as people who didn't physically assault family members or romantic partners, and to build more facilities to house those charged with violent crimes.

If you make jail inmates safer at the cost of making other people notably less safe, you haven't actually achieved good public policy. Beyond that, I think you may have misinterpreted what I meant when I said the article's author wanted bail granted more often and at lower costs.

[Isles of Eamhna]

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signs into law a bill that will require all public schools and colleges in the state to stock restrooms with free menstrual products

The new law requires schools to provide free menstrual products in at least half of their restrooms, including in all women's restrooms, in all-gender restrooms, and in at least one men's restroom. The cost of the products to schools would be reimbursed by the state, according to the legislation. [...] The California legislation requires free menstrual products to be provided in the bathrooms of students in grades 6 through 12, in community colleges, at California State University, and at all University of California systems beginning in the 2022-23 school year, the AP first reported.

While the law does not require private institutions to do the same, it encourages them to do so.

ayyyyy let's make this a thing everywhere