Law

BUT I AM PRO-LIFE!

Californiapenalcode

 

I hate the term “pro-life.”

I hate it because it’s a misnomer. I hate it because it’s completely misleading, not to mention meta-rhetorical in the worst way. I hate it because in spite of being well-versed in debates about women’s health and abortion (and therefore knowing full-well that I am “pro-choice”), I constantly find myself writing, typing, thinking, and saying the term “pro-life” when I actually mean to say “pro-choice.”

I suppose this happens because I actually am pro-life. I believe in the value of a human being’s life, and I believe in the inalienable right to bodily autonomy for each and every one of us. And because I believe in this right, I believe in every woman’s right to choose. Choose her life. She is a human being and I believe in the value of her life—and her inviolable right to choice—whoever she is.

Below is a case brief I wrote back in my L1 Criminal Law class, on the case of Keeler v. Superior Court. I am sharing it today because it underscores some very important legal facets with regard to who is considered a ‘human being’ according to the law, how murder, feticide, and abortion are all  differentiated in accordance with the law, and why making these distinctions is so crucial, not only to our legal framework, but to well-informed, intelligible, and respectful debates.

 

*********************

 

KEELER v. SUPERIOR COURT (1970)

FACTS:

  • Man blocked woman with his car while she was in her car
  • Talked to her, pulled her out of the car, got upset at seeing her pregnant stomach and said
  • “I’m going to stomp it out of you”
  • Proceeded to beat her mostly in the stomach, but also in the face
  • Left her there unconscious
  • Woman woke up and drove back to Stockton where she received medical attention
  • Fetus was examined in utero & delivered by cesarean- stillborn
  • cause of death: skull fracture w/ consequent cerebral hemorrhaging

ISSUE: Is an unborn, but viable, fetus considered a “human being” within the meaning of CA’s murder statute?

RULE: No, the majority holds that CA’s Penal Code, Sec. 187 does not mean to include unborn, yet viable, fetuses within its meaning of “human being.”

ANALYSIS: To expand upon the CA statute in order to include unborn, but viable fetuses, would elicit two problems:

  1. jurisdiction, in that the court would be overstepping its judiciary boundary (into the territory of legislature) and
  2. it would violate the defendant’s right to due process by creating a law that would have been unbeknownst to him, because they would be creating it right then and there in that courtroom. Moreover, this violates the prohibition of creating ex post facto laws (because that’s what they would be doing if they were to expand on the statute’s meaning- creating a new law). Finally, there is persuasive authority guiding the majority’s decision- looking at similar cases throughout the country, other states are “unanimous in requiring proof that the child was born alive before a charge of homicide can be sustained.”

CONCLUSION: An unborn fetus, even if viable, is not a “human being,” as regarded by CA state law, the courts are not to overstep their bounds by augmenting statutory law, and if the court were to augment the law within the midst of a case, such as the People would suggest in this one, it would be a violation of due process.

 

 *********************

I cannot tell you how many times I have heard the phrase “slippery slope” used by one of my law professors in school, because, really, all it takes is one single word to have been different in a law, one ruling to have been different in a court case, and suddenly you are talking about far-reaching implications and ramifications for many other laws (and individuals) all over the country. Change one legal facet and you are looking at a potential (or rather, probable) shift in our entire legal landscape.

For example, in one class we were looking at cases of pregnant women who had been guilty of intoxication and the legality (or rather, illegality?) of whether or not Child Protective Services could (or should?) be called on them. Can there be—and/or should there be—any legal repercussions for being intoxicated while pregnant?

Can the woman be taken into custody?  After all, there was no actual ‘child’ involved, therefore the rule does not apply. It doesn’t meet the criteria required in order to file charges for child abuse or neglect. Can she be jailed or imprisoned—if there was no possession, no intent to sell, nothing besides the fact that she did in fact test positive for drugs or alcohol? And if she currently cannot be taken into custody according to the law, should she be? After all, once again, there is no child involved—only a fetus, and legally a fetus is not a human being. That’s why it’s called a fetus. And before that it’s called an embryo, and only after it is no longer a fetus is it called a human being.

To be clear, all of the cases we were looking at involved women whose pregnancies were past the point of viability. In other words, all of these women had chosen to go through with their pregnancies and either have a child, or give it up for adoption. In any case, I cannot tell you how much such actions infuriate me. I have had the misfortune of personally knowing a couple of women who have been guilty of these same actions (e.g. doing crack while pregnant with a baby they and someone close to me were going to have). It makes me livid. Beyond livid. I would love to see such women go to jail for this. However, if such legislation were to exist it would compromise the current status quo in a major way. In actuality, it would probably compromise the lives of many more women than initially intended. Remember, CPS only has jurisdiction over juvenile human beings. If they were to have the authority to take action over such cases it would conflict with existing precedent (such as Roe v. Wade and Keeler v. Superior Court), comprising abortion law as we know it today, and bringing with it a whole host of other ramifications. Where would the line be drawn?

Let’s say there’s a woman at a bar, enjoying a glass of wine after a long day at the office. Another patron at the bar—a complete stranger—looks at the woman enjoying her glass of wine and for whatever reason thinks, “Why is that pregnant woman drinking? Unbelievable. I’m calling the authorities.” The woman is taken into custody and it turns out, unbeknownst to her, she is actually pregnant.

What then?

Such legislation and/or rulings could also greatly impact our legal framework (or at least what little of it there is) for assisted reproductive technologies. There are already intense debates going on about leftover embryos, surrogates, and whose rights govern whose genetic materials, and when we are talking about reproductive law at large, it encompasses these aspects as well.

This just about covers the tip of the iceberg as to why I am pro-choice. Yes, I believe in a woman’s right to choose, but I also strongly agree with the legal reasoning behind the majority’s decision in Roe v. Wade, and I don’t think the implications of changing such precedent are worth it. I am pro-choice because, in actuality, I am pro-life. A pregnant woman’s right to her own body and life should never be superseded by the State. Her life comes first—whether she chooses to go through with her pregnancy or not—in either case, it is her life on which everything rests, so why shouldn’t this be her choiceAs the Court concluded in its decision:

“The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it.”

You see, I am pro-life. Because I believe that life starts at the woman.

It’s her life—therefore her decision.

CONSUMER BEWARE

Real Time with Bill Maher, 2/14/14

Stop the Comcast-TimeWarner merger. Sign the petition: 

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-comcasttimewarner-cable-merger-and-require-more-competition-cable-industry/ym52vbd4

Need More Convincing?

Paul Krugman asks, in his New York Times article yesterday, “So let me ask two questions about the proposed deal. First, why would we even think about letting it go through? Second, when and why did we stop worrying about monopoly power?”

He goes on to make the following points:

On the first question, broadband Internet and cable TV are already highly concentrated industries, with a handful of corporations accounting for most of the customers. Once upon a time antitrust authorities, looking at this situation, would probably have been trying to cut Comcast down to size. Letting it expand would have been unthinkable.

In fact, a number of experts — like Susan Crawford of Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, whose recent book “Captive Audience” bears directly on this case — have argued that the power of giant telecommunication companies has stifled innovation, putting the United States increasingly behind other advanced countries.

And there are good reasons to believe that this isn’t a story about just telecommunications, that monopoly power has become a significant drag on the U.S. economy as a whole.

There used to be a bipartisan consensus in favor of tough antitrust enforcement. During the Reagan years, however, antitrust policy went into eclipse, and ever since measures of monopoly power, like the extent to which sales in any given industry are concentrated in the hands of a few big companies, have been rising fast.

Moreover, there’s good reason to believe that monopoly is itself a barrier to innovation. Ms. Crawford argues persuasively that the unchecked power of telecom giants has removed incentives for progress: why upgrade your network or provide better services when your customers have nowhere to go?

And the same phenomenon may be playing an important role in holding back the economy as a whole. One puzzle about recent U.S. experience has been the disconnect between profits and investment. Profits are at a record high as a share of G.D.P., yet corporations aren’t reinvesting their returns in their businesses. Instead, they’re buying back shares, or accumulating huge piles of cash.

In addition to the overarching macroeconomic implications of this merger, there are also, at the most basic individual level, the adverse aspects for us consumers, such as data caps, courtesy of Comcast.

If you like cable, this should matter to you.

If you are a consumer, this should matter to you.

And guess what… We’re all consumers. None of us are exempt.

Let’s not forget to utilize our majority voice via our consumer power. After all, we are the 99 percent, right?

Stop corporate monopolies—which are bad for the economy & bad for us consumers.

Sign the petition

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-comcasttimewarner-cable-merger-and-require-more-competition-cable-industry/ym52vbd4

 

 

 

 

 

Everyday Sexism

I NEED FEMINISM BECAUSE

The amazing folks over at Everyday Feminism have a running theme of posting photos comprised of people holding up signs that say “I need feminism because…,” with each person’s sign citing just one reason (albeit I’m sure there are more) they need feminism. Today I would like to share with all of you just a little sneak peek into that which fuels my feminist fire.

A.K.A.: #EverydaySexism

Below is just a sampling of that which I see on the daily— images, articles, tweets, etc.—which only further serve to ignite the STRIDENT FEMINIST within me.

Exhibit A: The Underrepresentation of Women Within Our Government

wherearethewomen

via @NancyPelosi

Currently, “99 women serve in the U.S. Congress. Twenty women serve in the Senate and 79 women serve in the House. The number of women in statewide elective executive posts is 75, while the proportion of women in state legislatures is 24.3 percent.” (See more stats taken from the Women In Elective Office 2014 Fact Sheet)

Exhibit B: Blatant Sexist Bullshit such as, “Girls With Short Hair Are Damaged” by King of the Morons 

(ok, I made up that moniker)

shorthair01

“Girls With Short Hair Are Damaged” By Tuthmosis

Which is brought to us by a website called returnofkings.com, whose “About” section I have copied and pasted* below:

About

Return Of Kings is a blog for heterosexual, masculine men. It’s meant for a small but vocal collection of men in America today who believe men should be masculine and women should be feminine.

ROK aims to usher the return of the masculine man in a world where masculinity is being increasingly punished and shamed in favor of creating an androgynous and politically-correct society that allows women to assert superiority and control over men. Sadly, yesterday’s masculinity is today’s misogyny. The site intends to be a safe space on the web for those men who don’t agree with the direction that Western culture is headed. Click here to send an email to the team.

Women and homosexuals are prohibited from commenting here. They will be immediately banned.

ROK Community Beliefs:

1. Men and women are genetically different, both physically and mentally. Sex roles evolved in all mammals. Humans are not exempt.

2. Women are sluts if they sleep around, but men are not. This fact is due to the biological differences between men and women.

3. Men will opt out of monogamy and reproduction if there are no incentives to engage in them.

4. Past traditions and rituals that evolved alongside humanity served a net benefit to the family unit.

5. Testosterone is the biological cause for masculinity. Environmental changes that reduce the hormone’s concentration in men will cause them to be weaker and more feminine.

6. A woman’s value is mainly determined by her fertility and beauty. A man’s value is mainly determined by his resources, intellect, and character.

7. Elimination of traditional gender roles and the promotion of unlimited mating choice in women unleashes their promiscuity and other negative behaviors that block family formation.

8. Socialism, feminism, and cultural Marxism cause societies to decline because they destroy the family unit, decrease the fertility rate, and require large entitlements that impoverish the state.

ROK is published by Roosh V.

Exhibit C: tea party propaganda

(And, no, I will not capitalize the “t” or “p” in tea party)

LIBERALS

I actually got to see this little gem due to a  FAMILY MEMBER posting it on Facebook. OH, GOODY.

For one, I couldn’t help but see this and think, “You are not making your party look any better with this crap, buddy. This is fallacious in so many ways. Why not attack actual policies that are currently in place, in a logical, rational way? That would make you and your party look so much better than spouting nonsense BS like this.” Then it also occurred to me how very insulting this actually is to any Jewish Liberals out there. THINK, Teabaggers, THINK! Way to offend the Jewish crowd by comparing Liberals to Nazis. I’m sure they and any Holocaust survivors really appreciate your poor analogy.

In any case, after much debate with said family member and their tea party friend, I finally ended my side of the debate with the following statements:

My objections to the above graphic are based on (but not limited to) the following logical fallacies:

  1. It analogizes current-day America to post WWI Germany, which is a highly inaccurate analogy due to the different economic, social, and political conditions of each country within their respective contexts.
  2. It equates Liberals with the Nazi party. Just one flaw in such an analogy between the two is the fact Liberals are for increased rights for the LGBTQ and Disabled communities, whereas the Nazis wanted such people rounded up and killed. Liberals are largely for a more egalitarian society with increased infrastructure and social programs whereas the Nazi Party was a dictatorship.
  3. It implicates a cause-effect relationship between stronger gun regulation and a fascist government takeover. England, even at the time that it was one of the Allies during WWII, had stronger gun regulation. yet it did not “follow Hitler’s lead,” nor does not today.

Exhibit D: Online Harassment

tumblr feminist art project

Lindsay Bottos’ “feminist art project”

The words on the above picture state:

I bet you’ve slept with half of baltimore. Your just an ugly slut with cheap ugly makeup and a shitty art school haircut. I hope you get an std and die, the world would be better without your ugly fucking face.

It is just one of many photos in a series Ms. Bottos has put together as a righteous fuck-you to all whom have thrown such insults at her on tumblr for no particular reason whatsoever. According to buzzfeed, “Since starting the Tumblr in 2010, she has received hundreds of cruel anonymous messages. Last week, she decided to turn the words of hate into a feminist art project; she screencapped some of the messages and posted them over pictures of herself.”

Online bullying, threats, and stalking are without a doubt a seriously gendered, feminist issue. After all, the majority of all such harassment—and I mean a LARGE majority of it—is aimed at women.

Just listen to what writer/journalist/heroine-of-mine, Amanda Hess, has to say on the subject:

“According to a 2005 report by the Pew Research Center, which has been tracking the online lives of Americans for more than a decade, women and men have been logging on in equal numbers since 2000, but the vilest communications are still disproportionately lobbed at women. We are more likely to report being stalked and harassed on the Internet—of the 3,787 people who reported harassing incidents from 2000 to 2012 to the volunteer organizationWorking to Halt Online Abuse, 72.5 percent were female.”

“The Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman draws a distinction between “tourists” and “vagabonds” in the modern economy. Privileged tourists move about the world “on purpose,” to seek “new experience” as “the joys of the familiar wear off.” Disempowered vagabonds relocate because they have to, pushed and pulled through mean streets where they could never hope to settle down. On the Internet, men are tourists and women are vagabonds.” (Excerpts taken from Amanda Hess’ Why Women Aren’t Welcome on the Internet)

This is our world, folks. This is why I NEED feminism. In fact we all do.

Even John Legend says so.

john legend

“All men should be feminists.”

*Editor’s note: I have de-linked the two hyperlinks originally contained within this text, so as to not contribute any more traffic to their site. (and if you’re a woman you’re “not allowed” to comment on any of their articles anyway)

#FreeOurMidwives

midwife listening to belly

The following excerpts are taken from the CFAM website, a site dedicated to California Families for Access to Midwives:

 

“Yelena Kolodji and Kavita Noble are CA Certified Nurse Midwives (CNMs) who are being prosecuted. Their only alleged offense: failing to obtain physician supervision.

It is virtually impossible for midwives to obtain physician supervision for out-of-hospital births. California Families For Access to Midwives (CFAM) fought hard to remove this unnecessary requirement from law. Thanks to enormous consumer pressure, as of January 1, 2014, physician supervision will be a thing of the past for Licensed Midwives in California —  but not for CNMs.

While most CNMs practice in hospital settings where physician supervision is virtually automatic, the few CNMs who provide out-of-hospital maternity care are forced to practice illegally since physicians are unwilling and/or unable to supervise them.

Yelena and Kavita have been providing comprehensive care to pregnant mothers and newborns for more than a combined 40 years, and have caught a combined 2,000 babies in hospital, birth center, and home settings.”

———————–

“This case also raises the broader question: do mothers have a right to access the full range of maternity care services their providers are trained and skilled to deliver?

When two skilled, experienced, and appropriately licensed midwives are prosecuted for providing appropriate care that results in a healthy mother and healthy baby, it is a sign that something is wrong with the system.”

————————-

“Please get involved in our efforts to support midwives Yelena and Kavita during this trying time by:

******************

 

The legal issue at hand is one of non-compliance with CA state law mandating physician supervision for CNMs. But what is the purpose of such a law? It’s mere existence infers that midwives are inept, or at best, not fully competent, to attend childbirth as autonomous medical professionals—as if they need an authoritarian medical professional overseeing them. Yet midwives are extensively trained in childbirth and perinatal care. If anything it’s the OBGYNs who are not trained well enough in the ways of natural childbirth and effective labor coaching.

Rules like this are in place for bureaucratic reasons—in the legal and financial interests of physicians—not in the interests of mother and baby’s health. It’s about insurance, it’s about money, it’s about fear of lawsuits. It’s not about the best birth outcomes.

 

For more information, check out my Sources:

 

who decides how she gives birth

 

 

 

Midwifery Legislation in CA & AB 1308

cfam

There has been quite a battle going on in California this year. Midwives, midwife advocates, and childbirth advocates alike, have all been organizing, raising awareness, and talking to our leaders in the state capital about revisions for our state’s Licensed Midwifery Practice Act.

For those of you that may not know, prior to 1993 a woman could not choose to have a home birth if she wanted. It was only after California passed its Licensed Midwifery Practice Act in 1993 that this was made possible. This was a huge step in the right direction for midwives and birth rights advocates. However in spite of its recognition of midwives as medical professionals, it still greatly limited their autonomy as medical professionals.

Earlier this year, Assemblywoman Bonilla introduced AB 1308, which would remove the physician supervision requirement from existing law (The CA Licensed Midwifery Practice Act of 1993), as well as enable midwives to “directly obtain supplies, order testing, and receive reports that are necessary to his or her practice of midwifery.”

The rule of thumb since the MPA’s inception in 1993 has been that midwives must, and can only, operate within the purview of CA’s State Medical Board, subordinate to physicians. This has proven problematic in many ways. For one, some physicians view midwives with hostility and will outrightly deny them the cooperation they need in order to carry out their healthcare practices. This not only hinders their capability of being able to comply with state law, but can, and often does, hinder their ability to secure proper supplies and necessary tests.

The larger point at issue here, however, is the fact that midwives are licensed medical professionals. They are highly educated and skilled within the very specific scope of pregnancy, childbirth, and perinatal care. They know what they’re doing, and The California Legislature knows this. Even In 2000, the California Legislature stated in an amendment to the Midwifery Practice Act that:

“Numerous studies have associated professional midwifery care with safety, good outcomes, and cost-effectiveness in the United States and other countries. California studies suggest that low-risk women who choose a natural childbirth approach in an out-of-hospital setting will experience as low a perinatal mortality as low-risk women who choose a hospital birth under management of an obstetrician, including unfavorable results for transfer from the home to the hospital.”

Midwives need, and deserve, greater autonomy.

Contact your CA legislator today and voice your support of birth rights and midwifery care!

Allow Me To Introduce Myself…

FEMINISM

Hello, my name is Justine.

I’m the woman behind MFB.

Seeing as I’m coming up on almost 50* posts by now, and some of you are actually reading this, I thought it a good time to tell you a little bit about myself.

I’m the youngest of three children, with an older brother and an older sister.

My brother and sister both have dirty blonde hair (at least naturally they do), green eyes, sun-kissed light skin, and they’re both tall. I’m five feet tall with brown eyes and dark brown hair (at least naturally, it is) and I have olivey-tan skin. I’m adopted. Yet I somehow look more like our mom than they do.

I used to sing and play guitar in coffee shops. (Yes, it was the 90s)

I grew up in Venice, CA. (Think: beaches, skateboarding, drive-by shootings!)

I used to work with animals. Then I worked in fashion. Then even later, I traded in my Gucci and Prada for t-shirts and jeans in order to work at a grocery store while in college. Giving up that fabulously fashion-forward job to go back to school full-time was one of the hardest things I’ve ever done. And I had just left my boyfriend of 5 1/2 years right before doing it (yes— leaving him was easier than leaving the job).

I left home at 17, but only became a serious college student at 22, just shy of my 23rd birthday. I mean, come on—living on my own, and in a different state at 17 years old….? For me, being a responsible and independent SEVENTEEN year old college student was riddled with contradictions.

Once I did become serious about obtaining my B.A., however, I was an English major for the first three years  until I got to UC Berkeley…where I felt like the universe had opened up a Pandora’s box of all the world’s knowledge from which I could pick and choose what I wanted to learn. Who could pick just one “major” from all this worldly knowledge…? So I went with the department that let me make up my own. I majored in Gender Politics (under the auspices of the American Studies Department) and ended up studying how and where law and gender intersect. I spent over a year researching and writing my thesis, which was on the socio-politics of childbirth. If you’re curious, you can read an excerpt here.

I became so enamored with reproductive law and feminist jurisprudence that I actually went on to law school in order to pursue a career as a legal advisor in the field of ARTs (Assisted Reproductive Technologies), as well as possibly practicing midwifery law (midwives need good lawyers dammit). Unfortunately, as I came to learn, law school is a soul-sucking experience and as much as I loved studying the law, I knew a life in law was not the life for me. But I continue to study it in my own way, writing about that which I am passionate about here, and I do still enjoy at least attempting to apply legal reasoning to my everyday life.

When I first started college I was a musical theatre major.

Music will always and forever be my first love. I still own two guitars from when I was 15 and 21, and still listen to a lot of the same music I listened to at age 13, 15, and 20…which seems weird to me now because that seems so long ago. I have also had the #1 most favorite song in the world for the last 20+ years. I listen to so much music, and so many different kinds, I like to think that I am some kind of idiot savant when it comes to the music round at pub quiz, but if I were really that good at identifying so many songs and musicians, my team and I would probably win more.

The end.

 

*This article has been revised as of 1/13/2014. When first published I was only at approximately 20 posts.

La Femme Fetal

One of the most amazing politically conscious pieces of music ever…

La Femme Fetal by Digable Planets

Lyrics:

It was 8:49 on a beautiful 9th day of July
There was not a cloud to speak of
So the orange sun hung lonely in the sky
I lay prone in my catboat home
Thinking of fine nappy Jackie and his jazz cat’s horn
Sliding in a tape of bird on verve when suddenly rang my phone

“Hey butterfly”, the voice said
Slip on some duds comb out your fro and slide on down to my pad
The vibe here is very pleasant and I truly request your presence
A problem of great magnitude has arose and as we speak it grows
Damn, what could it be I thought
A juice I bought and rolled on down to her spot
Seeing bros I know slapping fives I arrived and pressed G-5
And there was Nikki lookin’ some kind of sad
With tears fallin’ from her eyes she sat me down
And dug my frown and began to run it down

“You remember my boyfriend Sid that fly kid who I love
Well our love was often a verb and spontaneity has brought a third
But do to our youth an economic state, we wish to terminate
About this we don’t feel great, but baby that’s how it is
But the feds have dissed me, they ignored and dismissed me
The pro-lifers harass me outside the clinic
And call me a murderer, now that’s hate
So needless to say we’re in a mental state of debate”

“Hey beautiful bird”, I said digging her somber mood
The fascists are some heavy dudes
They don’t really give a damn about life
They just don’t want a woman to control her body
Or have the right to choose but baby that ain’t nothin’
They just want a male finger on the button

Because if you say, “War”, they will send them to die by the score
Aborting mission should be your volition
But if Souter and Thomas have their way
You’ll be standing in line unable to get welfare
While they’ll be out hunting and fishing
It has always been around, it will always have the niche
But they’ll make it a privilege not a right accessible only to the rich

Hey pro-lifers need to dig themselves ’cause life doesn’t stop after birth
And for a child born to the unprepared it might even just get worse
The situation would surely change if they were to find themselves in it
Supporters of the h-bomb and fire bombing clinics
What type of shit is that? Orwellian in fact
If Roe V Wade was overturned would not the desire remain intact
Leaving young girls to risk their healths
Doctors to botch and watch as they kill themselves

Now I don’t want to sound macabre
But hey, isn’t it my job to lay it on the masses
And get them off their asses to fight against these fascists
So whatever you decide make that move with pride
Sid will be there and so will I
An insect ’til I die

Rhythms and sounds, spinning around
Confrontations across the nation
Your block, my block, dreadlocks what a shock
Land of the free but not me
Not me, not me, not me, not me
Not me, not me, not me, not me