Thoughts from a pro-choice pregnant woman

I’ve been thinking a lot about the Texas abortion ban, the impending Supreme Court review of Mississippi's ban, and how much I’ve learned about reproductive health since having a miscarriage and now, a healthy pregnancy. And one thing that’s clear is that the ban doesn’t take into account health, science, or personal autonomy. The law bans and criminalizes abortion at 6 weeks, even though the absolute earliest you can find out you are pregnant is at 4 weeks, and according to the APA, most people find out between 4-7 weeks. Before 10 weeks, the “baby” isn’t even a fetus-- it’s still technically an embryo. And at the 6 weeks when Texas bans abortion, the embryo is a mass of cells the size of a grain of rice (see photo below). Furthermore, a fetus isn’t even considered viable (meaning that it can live outside the womb) until 21 weeks, and that is with heavy medical intervention. But that said, many people don’t find out until 20 weeks at the anatomy scan that there may be a life-threatening problem with their baby and may need an abortion (or otherwise carry an unviable baby for another 20 painful weeks). In the words of the Supreme Court, how can anything before 21 weeks, whether an embryo or fetus, be considered life then?

Illustration of an embryo at 6 weeks (enlarged)

I worry that people in similar situations won’t be able to access that life-saving “abortion” medication in Texas that I did in Virginia. When I experienced a miscarriage due to a chromosomal abnormality, I actually had a missed miscarriage. At my 10 week appointment, the doctor discovered that the baby had stopped growing at 8 weeks. I could either wait additional weeks to miscarry naturally-- risking infection-- or take misoprostol (“the abortion pill”). I also see the hypocrisy of considering my miscarriage a life; I couldn’t ride HOV-2 when pregnant, didn’t get health insurance or a child tax credit, didn't give it a name or know its sex, and we didn’t have a funeral. None of that changes the fact that the miscarriage was physically and emotionally excruciating. But, for this reason, most pregnant people are told not to share their pregnancy before 12 weeks anyway because of the large risk of miscarriage (1 in 4-5 pregnancies). I also worry that women who have natural miscarriages/ stillbirth will wrongly charged with abortion (as has happened).

Pregnancy isn’t easy or without consequences. Both of my pregnancies have been extremely hard. I’ve lost weight due to extreme nausea and experienced fatigue that forced me to take PTO so I could take hour-long naps during the day. I’ve cancelled travel, gigs, and social events because I’ve been so miserable, which left me depressed and lonely. That’s not to mention other symptoms like sciatic pain, “lightning crotch,” constipation, insomnia, the mental health toll, and yes, there’s more! Pregnant people shouldn’t have to suffer because someone in Texas arbitrarily decided that life begins at 6 weeks, when most scientists and the Supreme Court believes that life begins, at the absolute earliest, at 21 weeks.

Photo by William Murphy via Flickr

There are so many other reasons why pregnancy should be a choice, but having a very wanted and loved pregnancy only has made me more pro-choice. And if you haven’t been pregnant or had an unwanted pregnancy, you shouldn’t force someone else to give birth because of your own hypothetical beliefs. 

In Defense of the Women's March on Washington

Being a part of the Women's March on Washington was one of the most empowering moments of my life, and it will likely go down in the history books as well. The feeling of being surrounded by hundreds of thousands of people who were also committed to equality, diversity, and democracy was reenergizing in the wake of an election that shocked and divided our country.

Yet, my high from the march was crushed the following day when I woke up to comments by friends, family, and trolls on the Internet dismissing the marchers. Some on the right thought that American women have no reason to complain or that the march was disrespectful. Others on the left thought the march was the epitome of non-intersectional feminism. There have been plenty of think pieces dedicated to the Women's March, but I want to add my voice, hoping it will reach those in my network who have kept a closed mind.

Why we marched

While women have made large strides in the past few decades and have the illusion of equality, we still face many barriers that men don't.

Some glass ceilings have shattered, yet women still aren't respected in the workplace: women don't get the same pay for equal work, are discriminated against in fields ranging from STEM to music, and are absent from leadership roles in corporate world, nonprofit world, and government. In and outside the workplace, women are subjected to a culture which tells women that they should be beautiful and not smart, that being a stay at home mom, working mom, or no mom at all is each a unique betrayal to womanhood, that being assertive is "bossy," etc, etc, etc ad infinitum. This culminates in rape culture, through which men harass women on the streets, at home, and on campuses with little or no consequence. Corporations even turn around and use these sexist fantasies to market products. That doesn't even get into the male lawmakers who deny women their constitutional right to abortion and reproduction freedom.

Think globally, act locally

Do women in other parts of the world have it worse? Absolutely, but women in some countries also have it better than American women do. As an American citizen, however, I have a civic duty to stand up for my values in my own community. Marching in the streets is not disrespectful to women in sexist countries; it is an act of solidarity. Marching in the streets is not disrespectful to Mr. Trump either; it is a patriotic embrace of my right to freedom of speech and assembly. Do you know what is disrespectful? Mr. Trump's treatment of women.

Women's issues are intersectional

The Women's March was about so much more than women's issues; rather, the march recognized that immigrant rights, black lives matter, LGBT rights, climate action, and gun control are also women's issues. They matter to women and they matter for women's equality, as the fight to end sexism, racism, and homophobia are all intertwined. And men are willing to join us in the fight.

Early on, the march was criticized for not including women of color, and the organizers quickly reacted and included diverse women in their leadership. From the leadership to the people in the streets, people of all walks of lives were represented at the march. That's why it disappointed me to read this Medium article criticizing the march. I can't deny her experience, but I can speak to my own: I heard loud chants of "black lives matter" and "trans lives matter" as I marched alongside women of all abilities, ages, color, shapes, and zipcodes. As to the comment that it was disrespectful to shout "march" over Janelle Monae's #SayHerName/ BLM performance, the reality was that most marchers couldn't hear her or any of the other speakers due to poor A/V planning. We had been standing in the crowd for hours with no clear communication about why the march hadn't started and eager to take to the streets.

Criticism isn't action in itself
It is easy for both sides to be critical, especially given the shear magnitude of the Women's March. While critical thinking should be encouraged, criticism without action accomplishes the same as silence. Sitting at your computer making memes isn't going to change things. Getting hundreds of thousands of people in the street will.

So if you think that American women can't complain since women "have it worse" in Saudi Arabia, what are you doing to help those women? If you think that the women's march is excluding important groups, what are you doing to make the movement more inclusive? If your life is perfect and you have nothing to complain about, what are you going to do for those who are less privileged? I know what I am going to do: I am going to continue to march, to write my representatives, and to advocate for equality loud and clear. History has its eyes on us.

***

More information about the Women's March on Washington:

Vision and mission statement
Full recording of speakers and performers
10 Actions for the First 100 Days campaign

Don't regulate Airbnb- Thoughts from a Superhost

With the recent debate in Arlington regarding the regulation of short-term residential rentals (a.k.a. accessory homestays or Airbnb rentals), I wanted to share my husband’s and my wonderful experience as Airbnb hosts and our concerns about these regulations. I applaud Arlington’s efforts to solicit public feedback and have submitted my thoughts to their online forum, but I wanted to provide some additional backstory.

Why we started hosting:
We rent a room in our three-bedroom condo that is owned by my grandmother. About two years ago, our roommate moved out and we were not interested in having another full-time roommate, yet we couldn’t make the rent on our own. We’d previously enjoyed using Airbnb to travel throughout the country, so, with our landlord's blessing, we started hosting. We've hosted colorful guests from Germany, England, Turkey, the Mariana Islands, and across the US, including a zen master, award-winning scientists, university president, and students presenting at conferences. That said, last year we only hosted only 17 guests for 39 nights and expect a slight increase for 2016. We have an average 4.8 out of 5-star rating from guests and have earned the "Superhost" label.

The proposed regulations:
The current regulations would require hosts to get a permit, authorize home inspections, ban serving food & drink, and limit the number of guests, in addition to a bunch of other bureaucratic red tape I don’t quite understand. Perhaps most significantly, we may be disqualified from hosting guests since we rent our condo and do not own it. I find many of these regulations to be unnecessary and expect them to have an adverse affect on the Airbnb experience and Arlington community as a whole.

Why we need Airbnb:
Airbnb brings visitors and revenue to this area, and it helps hosts like us earn money to put toward the exorbitant price of rent. Most of our guests chose to stay in Arlington through Airbnb because it is cheaper than staying in DC, thus bringing revenue to the community. Our guests have always been kind, cultured, quiet, professional, and eager to get out and explore Arlington. (Oh, and despite the fears that Airbnb guests are coming to take our already scarce parking spaces, only once in two years has someone ever brought their car). Because we rent out a spare room, we consider our guests to be temporary roommates- not hotel guests. Yet these regulations treat us like a hotel and address a problem that doesn’t exist.

Depending on which regulations pass, we may have to quit being Airbnb hosts. We don’t have the time or resources to navigate the pending red tape. What makes Airbnb so special is how it so easily connects people from all around the world to a homestay for meaningful vacations and business travel. These regulations threaten to take away exactly what distinguishes the Airbnb experience from staying in a bland, profit-maximizing hotel. I hope that the new laws won’t take away this vibrant space in our community.

Note: I submitted these comments to the Arlington County Board on November 7, 2016.

Useful links:

• The full list of the 21 proposed regulations
• Share your thoughts on Arlington’s pending Airbnb regulations here by Nov. 15
• Interested in hosting on Airbnb? Use my host referral link

What I've learned from my job search so far

US Capitol photo by Tara Siuk

Two months ago I made a bold move: I quit a job that I liked to find something that better fit my passion for progressive public policy. I had been searching for jobs for a few months before I quit, but I wasn't able to invest much in the process while working full time. As someone who likes to stay busy, having so much free time on my hands made me restless at first. Since then, I've learned a lot that has made me a better person and stronger future employee. Here's what I learned so far, and I hope that this post helps and encourages those in a similar situation:

People want to help
I am extremely grateful for the friends, acquaintances, friend-of-friends, and flat out strangers who have donated their time to meeting with me, shared their experiences, and forwarded job opportunities. I'm still nervous when I reach out to schedule informational interviews, but I nevertheless push myself to do so. It is difficult for me to ask for favors, but I am always pleasantly surprised when I do, and I am eager to pay it forward down the line.

There are many opportunities to learn
Without any obligations during business hours, I'm finally able to attend panels and conferences on subjects I'm interested in, from topics related to my job search (like how to fine-tune your resume) to more academic matters. I've learned about emerging global trends at the Pew Charitable Trusts and youth civic-engagement tactics at the GovHub. LinkTank publishes a great schedule of events in the DC area which I highly recommend, and I make it a point to attend at least one event a week. Not only do I walk out of these events a smarter person, but I get to build my network from meeting other conference goers and by engaging in discussion in person and through social media, In addition to these one-day events, I am also taking an online data science course through JHU/ Coursera to learn new skills relevant to public policy. Many of these coursers are free or very low-cost- I recommend checking them out.

Each job application makes you stronger
After hours and hours of searching for jobs and writing cover letters, I've nailed down my career narrative and identified my clear skill sets. Although it sometimes feels like my job applications go into a black hole, I walk away from each application with a better idea of who I am and what kind of job I want. Each week I find myself making small changes to my resume, and it's growing stronger and stronger. I've received a lot of solicited and unsolicited feedback on my cover letters and resume, and taking the time to implement these suggestions has made them better.

Investing in paid job-search services can be worth it
There are myriad useful, free websites out there, but I'm glad I've invested in some paid ones as well. I bought a subscription to Brad Traverse Jobs, which posts jobs related to public policy and government affairs and found it immediately useful. By consolidating so many intriguing jobs in one place, it is well worth the $5 a month. I also started a free one-month trial of LinkedIn Premium to build my network, find jobs, and make new contacts. At $29 a month, I'm not sure I will continue after the trial ends tomorrow, but it was helpful. In addition to the many online jobs boards, I found these free websites useful for public affairs: Democratic House Resume Bank, House Bulletin, Senate Resume Bank, DC Public Affairs Jobs, and my county government's job board. However, for Capitol Hill jobs--even more so than other jobs-- it really is about who you know, so I am making sure to complement my online networking with in-person networking.

Small goals are important, too
Obviously, my main goal throughout this process is to get a job in my desired field. But setting smaller goals makes me feel more accomplished along the way. An easy goal is setting a target number of applications to submit each week (mine is pretty small because I'd rather focus on crafting the perfect cover letter for a job I really want than send out a bunch of generic ones). I'm thankful that I have enough savings and support from my husband to take this time off to job search. Still, I've set a date a which I will take a part-time job, internship, and/or start temping until I can find a permanent position. That date has given me the confidence and leeway to not give up, as well as something to look forward to.

All work and no play is dull
At first I felt guilty for spending time on hobbies instead of searching for jobs. However, there are only so many hours a day you can check the same job boards again and again. Investing in the things that make me happy, well, makes me happy! I finally got around to making a scrap book for my wedding, volunteering, picking up guitar again, and getting more involved with local organizations. I've even been able to travel a bit and visit some friends and family, and I've read a ridiculous number of books.

My search continues with some hopeful possibilities brewing, but this post is a reminder to myself and others in the same situation that it is not a waste of time. Some days I'm excited by the many possibilities before me, yet others I feel inadequate, discouraged, and hopeless. But that's all ok- this is a learning experience, and we can do this!

More than just a woman on US currency

I'm elated that a woman will finally be represented on US paper currency. But why do so few seem to celebrate that a person of color will also be represented? Harriet Tubman, an activist and abolitionist most known for her leadership in the Underground Railroad, certainly deserves her place on the $20 bill. However, her identity as a black women cannot be ignored. If anything, Harriet Tubman is more known for her work fighting against racism than fighting against sexism. Why, then, is one part of her identity celebrated over another? From the mainstream media to nerdy comics to my Facebook feed, people seemed to ignore this part of Harriet Tubman's identity (and I'm not even getting into the straight-up racist reactions).

An imagined Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill.
Source: Harriet Tubman Historical Society

Of course, racism, sexism, and all of these -isms are ultimately connected and perpetuated by many of the same hegemonic power structures. Yet even "progressive" advocates are guilty of perpetuating other -isms.  Many popular feminists like Lena Dunham have been criticized for being "white feminists" insomuch as their work and advocacy excludes the struggles of women of color. (Some feminists of color instead use the term"womanist" instead to separate themselves from white feminists). Speaking of dollars, while white women make only 78 cents on the dollar of what men make, black women make just 64 cents on the dollar and Latinas make 56 cents on the dollar of what men make due to these institutionalized -isms. In fact, some critics lament that putting Harriet Tubman on the $20 goes against everything she fought for by making her a symbol of the oppressive economy she fought against. (Root writer Cedric Mobley has a great response to those critics).

Gender Wage Gap (note that it fluctuates from year to year)
Source: New Republic & AAUW

This post is long overdue, yet the problem remains. Certainly, we need more women, people of color, and other minorities represented on our currency. After all, money is power, and those who we chose to memorialize on currency retain that power symbolically. It should also be noted that Women on 20's, the group that advocated for Harriet Tubman to be on the $20 bill, has a diverse list of women candidates who Harriet Tubman beat out. Let's not make the same mistake when these women get on our currency. Instead, let's celebrate all parts of their heritage & identity.

---

* Case in point: a search for "Harriet Tubman woman $20" on Google News yields 49,700 results, while "Harriet Tubman black $20" yields 31,300 results (and "Harriet Tubman African-American $20" yields 11,880). 31,300 + 11,880 still is less than 49,700. I'm unable to find the original print headlines from April 20, 2016 when it was announced that Tubman would grace the $20, but I'm still sleuthing. 

Education not Deportation

I've been working with a student in Maryland who, despite being awarded multiple scholarships, cannot afford to attend community college this fall because he is being charged out-of-state tuition. Even though he has lived in Maryland for five years, has graduated from a Maryland public school, and his mom pays state (and federal) income tax, he is being charged the out-of-state rate because he is an undocumented immigrant.

DREAM activists in North Carolina.
Photo credit: Justin Valas, 2010

Daniel* is a bright, optimistic, and hard-working, young man with a great sense of humor. This summer he's been working long hours at a restaurant to cover the additional cost of school next fall. He's also spent the last few months looking forward to going to college-- until he looked at his bill last week and realized he was being charged thousands of dollars more than he thought.

Many young immigrants face a similar shock when they see their college bill for the first time and realize that they'll have to drop out of school before they even start because they can't afford it. Some students realize this in high school and give up, seeing no point in doing well in school and finishing their secondary education if they can't afford college. A college degree is key to success in the United States. But with little hope of accessing college, some undocumented youth have even committed suicide out of hopelessness.

I'm grateful that the Maryland DREAM Act offers Daniel and other young immigrants an avenue for getting in-state tuition; however, it is a confusing, bureaucratic process. I'm working with Daniel to get his paperwork together this month, but, because he just found out about the process and school starts in a few weeks, he may have to wait until next spring to start college.

A DREAM Act supporter holds a poignant sign.
Photo credit: ShoreShot Photography.

But what about the states that don't have a DREAM Act? Thirty-eight states, including Virginia, still charge undocumented students out-of-state tuition to attend public colleges. It seems absurd that an undocumented Maryland student can become eligible for in-state tuition, but a student across the Potomac River, in Virginia, is denied that right. But because there is no national policy, even students in states with a DREAM Act are confused about their opportunities. Daniel didn't think he was eligible for it until I walked him through the process.

Thanks to Obama's executive order, undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as children can apply for DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and attain legal residency. However, this process also carries with it a mountain of red tape and a large $465 fee (which is cost-prohibitive for many low-income immigrants). It's still up for debate, though, whether or not DACA recipients qualify for in-state tuition. The University System of Georgia, for example, denies DACA students in-state tuition.

The University of Virginia, my alma mater, similarly charges undocumented students out-of-state tuition. UVa tuition for the upcoming school year is $38,026 for out-of-state students and $15,672 for in-state students. The ACLU says it's illegal for UVa and other colleges to discriminate against undocumented students in this way, and they successfully won the right for one undocumented student to get in-state tuition. Other students, however, aren't so lucky.

Rally last month in DC for immigration reform. 
Photo credit: Rick Reinhard, 2013

There's no rational argument in favor of charging undocumented students who live in-state anything other than in-state tuition. Undocumented immigrants pay the same state taxes that fund public universities that citizens do. In fact, undocumented immigrants pay more local, state, and national taxes than the 1 percent. In 2010, undocumented immigrants paid $11.2 billion in taxes.

This is just another reason why we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform on a national level and make college more affordable for everyone. If undocumented youth are given legal status, then they can prove their legal in-state residency. I'm lucky that I didn't have to sign an affidavit and prove that my parents paid state income tax over the past three years just to pay in-state tuition.** No one ever questioned my legality. Education is a right is a right that should be accessible for all, regardless of what papers they have.

---

* Name changed to maintain confidentiality
** These are part of the requirements of the Maryland DREAM Act.

The Case for Labelling GMOs

I've been following the debate on GMOs ever since watching documentary Food Inc. in my environmental policy class. As part of the job application process, a potential employer asked me to write a response to a contentious issues covered in a news article. I decided to respond to the this weekend's NYT article "Major Grocer to Label Foods with Gene-Modified Content." I'm sharing it here because it's an issue that I'm passionate about. Whether or not you personally prefer eating genetically modified food, I hope you can agree that the consumer has a right to know whether or not their food is genetically altered so that they can make the choice themselves.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have become the norm in the American agriculture industry, yet consumers currently have no way to determine if the food they are eating is genetically modified. The public has expressed a range of personal, environmental, health, and economic concerns related to GMOs consumption, but organizations such as the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association claim that they lack warrants for their claims. On March 9, 2013, the New York Times published an article chronicling Whole Foods’decision to label foods that contain GMOs. Whole Foods is a major upscale grocery chain that primarily sells natural and organic food, and their decision illustrates how labelling GMOs can be profitable. Consumers shouldn’t have to wait for individual corporations to label GMOs, however. The government ought to protect the consumer’s right to know by requiring all GMOs to be labelled.

The New York Times article cites a Mellman Group poll that shows 90 percent of respondents support labelling GMOs. Consumers are hesitant to embrace GMOs for a variety of personal, environmental, health, and economic reasons. Some oppose GMOs on religious grounds, as they believe altering genes is akin to “playing God.” Others are worried about the dearth of studies examining the long term impacts of GMOs on human health and the environment. Similarly, GMO opponents point out that GMOs threaten biodiversity. Others merely want to avoid supporting Monsanto, the largest vender of GMO seeds and their associated products, as it maintains an unchecked monopoly on GMOs.

While the Americans public is very much in favor of labelling GMOs, the agriculture and food industry is vehemently opposed. Opponents fear that Americans will chose not to buy GMOs despite any evidence showing that they negatively impact human health. They correctly show that the Food and Drug Administration, American Medical Association, and World Health Organization have no evidence showing that GMOs are unsafe for consumption. However, the absence of evidence on the dangers of GMOs doesn’t mean that they are inherently safe. Perhaps that’s why the European Union requires all GMOs to be labelled and countries as diverse as Peru have banned GMOs entirely. Moreover even if the GMOs aren’t harmful themselves, they encourage farmers to use more harmful pesticides and herbicides on their crops, as GMO crops are resistant to these chemicals. As a result, the chemical runoff from GMO crops poisons soil and water resources.

Since non-GMO products tend to be more expensive than their counterparts, opponents might also argue that other grocery chains won’t be able to afford to make the same choice as Whole Foods, as Whole Foods is an upscale grocery atypical of the rest of the industry. Yet the New York Times article states that more than 20 other corporations that sell food products, including Wal-Mart, met last week to consider labelling GMOs as well. Moreover, some consumers prefer to buy GMOs because they are cheaper, have a longer shelf life, and have other enhancements. Whole Foods isn’t refusing to sell GMOs; it’s giving consumers enough information so they can choose what’s best for them.

Despite studies showing extensive support for labelling GMOs, last November voters narrowly failed to pass a stateballot initiative which would require the labelling of GMOs in California. Corporate interests spent billions of dollars to defeat the cause, which is why the government must intervene at a federal level. Consumers have expressed their right to know what’s in their food, and they’ve cited a variety of valid personal, environmental, health, and economic reasons. The government ought to require the labelling of GMOs so that consumers can be given the product information they need to make the right choice for themselves, otherwise corporations will unfairly make that choice for them by refusing to label their products.

***

Visit Just Label It to learn more about the campaign to label GMOs.