Category: Inequity

Medical misogyny investigation: Australian women wrongly admitted to psychiatric wards | SMH

This masthead has uncovered a series of disturbing cases where women claim they have been disbelieved, misdiagnosed, and wrongly admitted to mental health wards. Others have been told their pain is “all in their head”.

A woman was involuntarily detained under the Mental Health Act after telling police she was being watched and could hear someone on her roof, only for her complaint to be vindicated when food and cameras were later found in the roof of her home, according to two doctors familiar with the case.

The NSW woman spent multiple days in a mental health ward because police and hospital staff had wrongly believed she was delusional when she reported her stalking fears to authorities, said Dr Karen Williams, a consultant psychiatrist who specialises in trauma and family violence.

In a separate case, a pregnant woman was forcibly admitted to a mental health unit before it became apparent that her distressing symptoms were being caused by a severe drug reaction to the medication she had been prescribed.

More than 1700 of the 1800 women who responded to this masthead’s ongoing investigation into medical misogyny said they felt dismissed or ignored when seeking healthcare.

Source: Medical misogyny investigation: Australian women wrongly admitted to psychiatric wards

What is going wrong with childcare in Australia?

An ABC Four Corners investigation revelead many Australian childcare centres are not meeting regulatory standards, with most being for-profit services, despite receiving government support through childcare subsidies. Poor-quality services and bad pay and working conditions are driving good educators away from the sector, according to Professor Marianne Fenech from the Sydney School of Education and Social Work and Professor Gabrielle Meagher from Macquarie University.

Data from Australia’s childcare regulator consistently shows for-profit childcare services are, on average, rated as lower quality than not-for-profit services.

Inquiries suggest this divergence is due to staffing levels, qualifications and pay. In 2023, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) found large for-profit providers spend significantly less on staffing than not-for-profit providers.

Childcare subsidies haven’t always worked in this way. “Operational subsidies” were introduced in 1972 through the historic Child Care Act, which set the precedent for Australian governments to fund childcare.

This aimed to support women’s workforce participation through an expanded, high-quality childcare sector. Subsidies at the time were only available to not-for-profit services and required the employment of qualified staff, including teachers. In these ways, Commonwealth funding positioned childcare as a public good, like school education.

Then, in 1991, federal government subsidies were extended to for-profit providers. This prompted dramatic changes in the childcare landscape, leading to a dominance of for-profit centres.

Today, more than 70% of all long day-care centres are operated by private providers. Between 2013 and 2023, the number of for-profit long daycare services jumped by 60%, while not-for-profits only grew by 4%.

There are 25 large long daycare providers in Australia and of these, 21 are run for profit. Large for-profit providers impact sector quality in several ways.

Many have disproportionately high numbers of staffing waivers, granted by regulators, permitting them to operate centres without the required number of qualified staff.

Large for-profit providers also serve investors as well as families. So there are extra incentives to cut costs and maximise profits.

Source: What is going wrong with childcare in Australia?

‘They’re meant to help and did the complete opposite’: many children feel silenced by family courts

My new paper, co-authored with Southern Cross University researchers Eliza Hew, Meaghan Vosz and Helen Walsh and published in the journal Child and Family Social Work, looked at how children felt about their experiences in the family courts.

We interviewed 41 children and young people aged ten to 19 from Queensland, New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria. Four key themes emerged.

1. Children feel silenced

The children in our study wanted to be heard directly. As Troy, 14, put it:

Talk to us, not about us.

2. Children feel ‘in the dark’

Most children we interviewed felt “in the dark” about family court processes.

3. Some children will vote with their feet

Some children said they’d refused to comply with family court parenting orders. As Ava, 13, put it:

If they can’t listen to me, I’m not going to listen to them.

4. Children feel less able to trust others

Children stressed the importance of family law professionals creating space to build trust. But several children felt they were betrayed by law professionals who’d shared what the children had said with their parents.

Source: ‘They’re meant to help and did the complete opposite’: many children feel silenced by family courts

Not Just a Lawsuit—a Revolution! | Women’s Coalition

“It’s Not Just a Lawsuit—It’s a Revolution!” is the rallying cry of thousands of women joining together to file lawsuits claiming they are being discriminated against in family courts. The legal battle comes within the larger context of making revolutionary change.

But first—Great news: We are filing in New York! If your case is or was in a NY family court, make sure you sign up and tell your NY mama friends.

The filing of each discrimination lawsuit can be seen as a metaphorical Storming of the Bastille.

Family courts everywhere exist as despotic mini-monarchies. Judges rule autocratically, rarely impartially when it comes to a man wanting to take his children, his property, away from the mother. Women have been giving everything they have in the battle for their children but are still losing custody in the dictatorial regime.

This filing of discrimination lawsuits is the first step in this multifaceted Revolution, just as the Bastille uprising, and it is an important one. Women coming together to make the legal and constitutional claim that they are being discriminated against gives credence and power to our cause.

Even if some cases are dismissed, the act of rebelling gives women power. You can dismiss a lawsuit, but you can’t dismiss a Revolution! Further, any dismissals will further fuel women’s outrage and rebellion.

Women have had enough. Women are revolting against the tyranny of family courts. The filing of discrimination lawsuits is just the first instrument of our revolt.

It’s not just a lawsuit—it’s a Revolution.

Join the Women’s Revolution!

Source: (1) Not Just a Lawsuit—a Revolution!

Statement of ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan KC: Applications for arrest warrants in the situation in Afghanistan | International Criminal Court

After a thorough investigation and on the basis of evidence collected, my Office submits that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Supreme Leader of the Taliban, Haibatullah AKHUNDZADA, and the Chief Justice of the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan”, Abdul Hakim HAQQANI, bear criminal responsibility for the crime against humanity of persecution on gender grounds, under article 7(1)(h) of the Rome Statute.

My Office has concluded that these two Afghan nationals are criminally responsible for persecuting Afghan girls and women, as well as persons whom the Taliban perceived as not conforming with their ideological expectations of gender identity or expression, and persons whom the Taliban perceived as allies of girls and women. This persecution was committed from at least 15 August 2021 until the present day, across the territory of Afghanistan.

This ongoing persecution entails numerous severe deprivations of victims’ fundamental rights, contrary to international law, including the right to physical integrity and autonomy, to free movement and free expression, to education, to private and family life, and to free assembly.

These are the first applications for arrest warrants in the Situation in Afghanistan. My Office will file further applications for other senior members of the Taliban soon.

These applications recognise that Afghan women and girls as well as the LGBTQI+ community are facing an unprecedented, unconscionable and ongoing persecution by the Taliban. Our action signals that the status quo for women and girls in Afghanistan is not acceptable. Afghan survivors, in particular women and girls, deserve accountability before a court of law.

Source: Statement of ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan KC: Applications for arrest warrants in the situation in Afghanistan | International Criminal Court

ICC chief prosecutor seeks arrest warrants for Taliban leaders over persecution of women | Taliban | The Guardian

The international criminal court’s chief prosecutor has requested arrest warrants for the Taliban’s supreme leader and Afghanistan’s chief justice on the grounds that their persecution of women and girls in Afghanistan is a crime against humanity.

It marks the first time the prosecutor has built a case around systemic crimes against women and girls, legal experts say. It is also a rare moment of vindication for Afghan activists, who over the last three years have often felt abandoned by the international community even as Taliban oppression deepened.

Since sweeping back to power in 2021, the Taliban have issued more than 80 decrees that violate women’s basic rights. Women are barred from most work, secondary education and public spaces, and their daily life is restricted in various ways.

Recently the group banned windows in rooms frequently used by women, to ensure they could not be seen by men not related to them. New buildings should be constructed without windows in these rooms and existing windows should be covered up, the order stipulated.

Activists are campaigning for the crime of gender apartheid to be recognised under international law, to reflect the scale of Taliban restrictions.

Source: ICC chief prosecutor seeks arrest warrants for Taliban leaders over persecution of women | Taliban | The Guardian

Andrew v. White | 604 U.S. ___ (2025) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Brenda Andrew was convicted by an Oklahoma jury of murdering her husband, Rob Andrew, and was sentenced to death. During her trial, the prosecution introduced extensive evidence about her sex life and personal failings, which was later conceded to be irrelevant. Andrew argued in a federal habeas petition that this evidence was so prejudicial it violated the Due Process Clause.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) upheld her conviction, finding some of the evidence about her extramarital affairs relevant but acknowledging that much of the other evidence was irrelevant. Despite this, the OCCA deemed the errors harmless. Two judges dissented, arguing that the prejudicial evidence undermined the fairness of the trial.

In federal court, the District Court denied relief, and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, stating that Andrew failed to cite clearly established federal law. The Tenth Circuit majority acknowledged the precedent set by Payne v. Tennessee but dismissed it as a pronouncement rather than a holding. Judge Bacharach dissented, arguing that the prejudicial evidence deprived Andrew of a fair trial.

The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the Tenth Circuit erred in its interpretation. The Court clarified that Payne established that the Due Process Clause can protect against the introduction of unduly prejudicial evidence that renders a trial fundamentally unfair. The Court vacated the Tenth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the trial court’s admission of irrelevant evidence was so prejudicial as to render Andrew’s trial fundamentally unfair.

Source: Andrew v. White | 604 U.S. ___ (2025) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

#BoycottAfghanistan – Campaign Club

Women can’t look out windows or talk to each other, while men get to travel the world and play sport. What kind of planet is this?

PLEASE SHARE THE PETITION
Use #BoycottAfghanistan on social media to find your friends, and local activism.

Women’s cricket in Afghanistan has effectively been outlawed since the Taliban’s return to power in 2021. Further restrictions have included banning the sound of women’s voices from being heard in public.

Source: (1) #BoycottAfghanistan – Campaign Club

“Discrimination against Women in Family Court” Lawsuit: Update & Campaign | Women’s Coalition | USA

The good news is we already have a draft lawsuit ready to go, so attorneys in every state will have something to work with. And after the first suit is filed, it will be much easier for others.

Since there have been no attorneys who’ve offered to take the lawsuit pro bono yet, we are now raising funds for it. We’ve just started a Gofundme for that purpose.

Plaintiffs make the claim that women’s state and federal rights to equal protection, procedural due process, and substantive due process are being routinely and systemically violated in family courts. Defendants are judges of the state’s trial court, collectively.

Declaratory relief is requested confirming that women have a right to equal protection and due process in custody cases and that those rights are being systemically violated in Family Court because they are women.

Other relief requested is for injunctions that judges must allow women who claim in the lawsuit they have been discriminated against to have custody and visitation reinstated and/or a right to a de novo (brand new) proceeding.

The complaint includes a list of discriminatory conduct by judges. Each plaintiff will list which ones apply in her case (made easy to check off in the join form linked below).

Source: (1) “Discrimination against Women in Family Court” Lawsuit: Update & Campaign

Women spend more of their money on health care than men. And no, it’s not just about ‘women’s issues’ | The Conversation

Medicare, Australia’s universal health insurance scheme, guarantees all Australians access to a wide range of health and hospital services at low or no cost.

Although access to the scheme is universal across Australia (regardless of geographic location or socioeconomic status), one analysis suggests women often spend more out-of-pocket on health services than men.

Other research has found men and women spend similar amounts on health care overall, or even that men spend a little more. However, it’s clear women spend a greater proportion of their overall expenditure on health care than men. They’re also more likely to skip or delay medical care due to the cost.

Women are more likely to have a chronic health condition compared to men. They’re also more likely to report having multiple chronic conditions.

While women are disproportionately affected by chronic health conditions throughout their lifespan, much of the disparity in health-care needs is concentrated between the first period and menopause.

Almost half of women aged over 18 report having experienced chronic pelvic pain in the previous five years. This can be caused by conditions such as endometriosis, dysmenorrhoea (period pain), vulvodynia (vulva pain), and bladder pain.

One in seven women will have a diagnosis of endometriosis by age 49.

Meanwhile, a quarter of all women aged 45–64 report symptoms related to menopause that are significant enough to disrupt their daily life.

[G]ender inequality issues still exist in the Medicare Benefits Schedule. For example, both pelvic and breast ultrasound rebates are less than a scan for the scrotum, and no rebate exists for the MRI investigation of a woman’s pelvic pain.

Even though women are more prone to chronic conditions, until relatively recently, much of medical research has been done on men. We’re only now beginning to realise important differences in how men and women experience certain conditions (such as chronic pain).

Investing in women’s health research will be important to improve treatments so women are less burdened by chronic conditions.

Source: Women spend more of their money on health care than men. And no, it’s not just about ‘women’s issues’