Rosamonde Ramsay Boyd Papers - Accession 331

The Rosamonde Ramsay Boyd Papers consist of bylaws, minutes, financial records, handbooks, annual reports, congressional records, pamphlets, and newspaper articles relating to the South Carolina Conference on the status of Women, the South Carolina American Association of University Women, and various other organizations supporting the Equal Rights Amendment. Dr. Rosamonde Ramsay Boyd (1900-1993) played an instrumental role in founding the South Carolina Conference on the Status of Women and was active in many of the other organizations. The Boyd Papers also contain records relating to the League of Women Voters, the South Carolina Coalition for the ERA, and the South Carolina Council for the Common Good.https://digitalcommons.winthrop.edu/manuscriptcollection_findingaids/1414/thumbnail.jp

Beijing, Gender and Environment – Challenges for Ecological Sustainability, Development and Justice?

Twenty years ago the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action was adopted to ‘… advance the goals of equality, development and peace for all women everywhere …’ (Beijing Declaration, 1995, paragraph 3). Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Chapter K (of the Beijing Platform for Action) on ‘women and the environment’ laid down three strategic objectives, inter alia , with objective 2 being to ‘integrate gender concerns and perspectives in policies and programmes for sustainable development’. This article demonstrates the importance of the implementation of this objective – on the one hand for progress on gender equality, and on the other hand for an ecologically sustainable development

Women In Prison In Argentina: Causes, Conditions, and Consequences

In many countries around the world, including Argentina, the number of women who are deprived of their liberty has risen over time and has increased disproportionately in comparison to male prisoners. In Argentina, the number of female prisoners within the federal system increased 193%, while the male population rose 111% from 1990 to 2012. Nonetheless, little research has been done to understand why there has been such a dramatic increase in women’s incarceration. At the same time, international and domestic laws governing prisons and prison policies and practices have traditionally been designed for men. In 2010, however, the United Nations adopted the first international standards relating specifically to women prisoners – the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Female Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for Women Offenders (Bangkok Rules) The Bangkok Rules specifically call for research to be conducted on (among other things) the causes of women’s imprisonment, the characteristics of women in prison, and the impact on children. This Report focuses particularly on the causes and conditions of women’s imprisonment, and consequences for children of incarcerated mothers in Argentina. In undertaking research for this Report, the authors developed two surveys, a General Prison Population Survey that was administered to nearly 30% of all women prisoners (246 women) in Argentina’s federal prison system (attached as Annex 1) and a Co-Residence Program Survey which received responses from 26 women residing with their children in prison (attached as Annex 2); conducted site visits to two women’s prisons in Buenos Aires, Argentina; and interviewed women prisoners, judges, academics and civil society members. Justice Elena Highton de Nolasco, the Vice President of the Supreme Court of Argentina, invited us to conduct this study and provided us with full and open access and cooperation. This Report focuses solely on the federal prison system in Argentina, known as the Servicio Penitenciaro Federal (SPF), while the vast majority of the people deprived of their liberty are held in provincial jails across the country. As of April 2012, the SPF detained 9,693 prisoners in 34 federal prisons. Of these, 9% (or approximately 872 SPF prisoners) were women

Women in Prison in Argentina: Causes, Conditions, and Consequences

In recent years, the number of women in prison has increased throughout the world, including in Argentina. In Argentina’s federal prisons, the population of female prisoners has expanded nearly 200% in the past two decades, a much higher rate than the increase in the number of incarcerated men. It is important to understand why these numbers have increased so significantly and to recognize the gender-specific needs and challenges of women prisoners. This report offers a valuable contribution towards our understanding of the causes, conditions, and consequences of women’s imprisonment in Argentina. It is based on extensive research, including desk research, interviews of experts and women prisoners and a survey of nearly 30% of the women in federal prisons. It thoughtfully analyzes the issues from the lens of international and domestic laws. It highlights Argentina’s good practices in the area of women in prison and identifies improvements that are still needed. This study reminds us – judges, lawyers, policy makers, and citizens – that we are all accountable for the human rights of women in prison. I am hopeful that its findings and recommendations will inform future efforts of actors within and outside Argentina to decrease the number of women in prison, improve the treatment of women prisoners, and address the effects of women’s imprisonment on their families and children

Women in Prison in Argentina: Causes, Conditions, and Consequences

In recent years, the number of women in prison has increased throughout the world, including in Argentina. In Argentina’s federal prisons, the population of female prisoners has expanded nearly 200% in the past two decades, a much higher rate than the increase in the number of incarcerated men. It is important to understand why these numbers have increased so significantly and to recognize the gender-specific needs and challenges of women prisoners. This report offers a valuable contribution towards our understanding of the causes, conditions, and consequences of women’s imprisonment in Argentina. It is based on extensive research, including desk research, interviews of experts and women prisoners and a survey of nearly 30% of the women in federal prisons. It thoughtfully analyzes the issues from the lens of international and domestic laws. It highlights Argentina’s good practices in the area of women in prison and identifies improvements that are still needed. This study reminds us – judges, lawyers, policy makers, and citizens – that we are all accountable for the human rights of women in prison. I am hopeful that its findings and recommendations will inform future efforts of actors within and outside Argentina to decrease the number of women in prison, improve the treatment of women prisoners, and address the effects of women’s imprisonment on their families and children

Sexual Violence by Educators in South African Schools: Gaps in Accountability

In many South African schools, educators have sexually harassed and abused the learners in their care. This serious human rights violation is widespread and well known. However, its actual incidence is difficult to determine as many cases of educator-learner abuse are never reported. Such harassment and abuse – which occurs with frequency not only in South Africa but also worldwide – has devastating consequences for the health and education of the learners, mainly girls, who experience it. Over the past decade, South Africa has adopted important laws and policies to address this grave human rights problem, yet sexual violence persists in South African schools with disquieting regularity. This report examines the gaps in accountability that exist for educator abuse of learners in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Drawing upon desk research and interviews with government officials, NGOs, police, community members, and affected individuals, it identifies and discusses the problems that contribute to the government’s failure to hold abusive educators responsible for their actions and to protect and provide redress to the learners they have abused. It also situates these issues within a framework of South Africa’s international, regional, and domestic legal obligations, and provides recommendations aimed at filling these gaps

Smokes and mirrors at the United Nations’ universal periodic review process

Purpose: In 2006, the United Nations’ Human Rights Council was tasked to establish a new human rights monitoring mechanism: the Universal Periodic Review Process. The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of discussions held in the process, over the two cycles of review in relation to women’s rights to access health care services. Design and Methodology: This investigation is a documentary analysis of the reports of 193 United Nations’ state reports, over two cycles of review. Findings: The primary findings of this investigation reveal that despite an apparent consensus on the issue, a deeper analysis of the discussions suggest the dialogue between states is superficial in nature, with limited commitments made by states under review in furthering the protection of women’s right to access health care services in the domestic context. Practical Implications: Considering the optimism surrounding the UPR process, the findings reveal that the nature of discussions held on women’s rights to health care services is at best a missed opportunity to make a significant impact to initiate, and inform, changes to practices on the issue in the domestic context; and at worst, raises doubts as to whether the core aim of the process, to improve the protection and promotion of all human rights on the ground, is being fulfilled. Originality/Value: Deviating from the solely technocratic analysis of the review process in the existing literature, this investigation has considered the UPR process as a phenomenon of exploration in itself, and will provide a unique insight as to how this innovative monitoring mechanism operates in practice, with a particular focus on women’s right to access health care services

Replacing Myths with Facts: Sex-Selective Abortion Laws in the United States

Several countries in the world have sex ratios at birth that are as high or higher than China and India, including countries with predominantly white populations. Nonetheless, immigrant communities in the United States from China and India are consistently accused of harboring a preference for sons. It is supposedly this preference for sons that leads Asian Americans to abort female fetuses. In response, eight states have enacted bans on sex-selective abortion and 21 states and the United States Congress have considered such bans. Proponents of sex-selective abortion bans claim that the United States is one of the few countries in the world where sex-selective abortion is not prohibited. However, our research reveals that only four countries explicitly prohibit sex-selective abortion and that, instead, many countries that are concerned with sex selection prohibit the practice even before the embryo is implanted in the uterus. Our research also reveals that sex-selective abortion bans are not likely to change sex ratios at birth. In a study we conducted on sex ratios in two states that adopted sex-selective abortion bans over 15 years ago—Illinois and Pennsylvania—we found that the laws were not associated with changes in sex ratios. Laws banning sex-selective abortion purport to combat gender discrimination. However, the text of the laws and the statements made in support of the bans during legislative hearings make it clear that they are intended to place restrictions on abortion services generally. Moreover, the laws purport to solve a problem that may not exist at all in the United States. Rather than changing behavior or addressing a purported problem, sex-selective abortion bans are likely to lead to the denial of health care services to Asian American women. Many of the laws require medical professionals to scrutinize a woman’s reproductive choices. Since it is difficult to determine the true reason a woman has chosen to terminate her pregnancy, medical professionals may err on the side of caution and deny care to women in order to avoid liability under the law, even when a woman is not seeking a sex-selective abortion. Laws banning sex-selective abortion have been enacted on the basis of misinformation and harmful stereotypes about Asian Americans. We do not support the practice of sex selection by any means, but rather than combating discrimination, sex-selective abortion bans perpetuate it

Replacing Myths with Facts: Sex-Selective Abortion Laws in the United States

Several countries in the world have sex ratios at birth that are as high or higher than China and India, including countries with predominantly white populations. Nonetheless, immigrant communities in the United States from China and India are consistently accused of harboring a preference for sons. It is supposedly this preference for sons that leads Asian Americans to abort female fetuses. In response, eight states have enacted bans on sex-selective abortion and 21 states and the United States Congress have considered such bans. Proponents of sex-selective abortion bans claim that the United States is one of the few countries in the world where sex-selective abortion is not prohibited. However, our research reveals that only four countries explicitly prohibit sex-selective abortion and that, instead, many countries that are concerned with sex selection prohibit the practice even before the embryo is implanted in the uterus. Our research also reveals that sex-selective abortion bans are not likely to change sex ratios at birth. In a study we conducted on sex ratios in two states that adopted sex-selective abortion bans over 15 years ago—Illinois and Pennsylvania—we found that the laws were not associated with changes in sex ratios. Laws banning sex-selective abortion purport to combat gender discrimination. However, the text of the laws and the statements made in support of the bans during legislative hearings make it clear that they are intended to place restrictions on abortion services generally. Moreover, the laws purport to solve a problem that may not exist at all in the United States. Rather than changing behavior or addressing a purported problem, sex-selective abortion bans are likely to lead to the denial of health care services to Asian American women. Many of the laws require medical professionals to scrutinize a woman’s reproductive choices. Since it is difficult to determine the true reason a woman has chosen to terminate her pregnancy, medical professionals may err on the side of caution and deny care to women in order to avoid liability under the law, even when a woman is not seeking a sex-selective abortion. Laws banning sex-selective abortion have been enacted on the basis of misinformation and harmful stereotypes about Asian Americans. We do not support the practice of sex selection by any means, but rather than combating discrimination, sex-selective abortion bans perpetuate it

Sanitation, human rights, and disaster management

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to link debates around the international law on human rights and disaster management with the evolving debate around the human right to sanitation, in order to explore the extent to which states are obliged to account for sanitation in their disaster management efforts. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on analysis of existing laws and policy relating to human rights, sanitation and disaster management. It further draws upon relevant academic literature. Findings The paper concludes that, while limitations exist, states have legal obligations to provide sanitation to persons affected by a disaster. It is further argued that a human rights-based approach to sanitation, if respected, can assist in strengthening disaster management efforts, while focusing on the persons who need it the most. Research limitations/implications The analysis in this paper focuses on the obligations of states for people on their territory. Due to space limitations, it does not examine the complex issues relating to enforcement mechanisms available to disaster victims. Originality/value This is the first scholarly work directly linking the debates around international human rights law and disaster management, with human rights obligations in relation to sanitation. The clarification of obligation in relation to sanitation can assist in advocacy and planning, as well as in ensuring accountability and responsibility for human rights breaches in the disaster context