Image via macwagen.
Mind you, that’s “sexual relations” and not just “reproduction” as affirming sexuality as a human right. I’d like to hear more from my legal contacts on this one, but it seems to me like a big step in the right direction. Dear friend and colleague Cory Silverberg writes,
For many years the World Health Organization, among other international bodies, has affirmed that sexuality is an intrinsic part of life and that sexual health is an important part of overall health.
But for some Americans their right to sexual expression is curtailed legally because it isn’t always considered a legal right by the courts. If you’re non-disabled and heterosexual (and aren’t a member of the BDSM community) you may not have thought much about this since your sexuality (probably) hasn’t been greatly impacted by the law. But if you’re a member of any of the previously mentioned groups, or if your sexual expression is in some other way “non normative,” a legal decision handed down by the DC Circuit last week may be of interest.
The opinion was delivered in a case where a woman breast cancer survivor sued the U.S. State Department for discriminating against her based on her disability by rejecting her for a job in the Foreign Service. The proof of her disability was specifically given as her inability to engage in sexual relations. As part of the decision the judges had to determine whether or not an inability to have sexual relations constituted a limitation of a “major life activity.” In a 2-1 vote the judges ruled that sexual relations does in fact constitute a major life activity. (…read more.)
Ok, so she has scarring from a mastectomy and appearance issues so someone has decided that no one will ever want to have sex with her ever again??? That’s how it sounds, but I hope that is not the interpretation there. I like the fact that sex is being acknowledged as a basic human right/drive/activity (and not just about married straight people making’ the babyz), but to apply it in this way sounds appalling…
And I agree with Alex Ess…what job exactly was she applying for? Did part of it entail seducing foreigners and gathering state secrets via pillow talk? Sounds like a bad movie…
Reading the ruling reminds me why lawyers and bureaucracies have such bad reputations.
In a sane world, when the district court described the State Departments actions as “callous and unreasonable” one would have hoped the State Department would have issued a waiver, and everyone could have gone home (or abroad) happy.
She was rejected for a job in the Foreign Service because of her inability to engage in sexual relations? What job was this?
I don’t think this decision has much of an impact other than in the Americans with Disabilities Act context. This opinion does not establish any kind of constitutional right to engage in sexual relations or anything like that. Still, its clearly the right decision and many district courts have recognized sexual relations (and not just reproduction which the Supreme Court has acknowledged) qualify under the ADA. I would also note that this was an appeal from a motion for summary judgment so she still has to go back and prove her claim at the trial level, though that shoudn’t be too hard now.