A report released earlier this month by the NAACP found that Florida is among the states with the “most restrictive” felon disenfranchisement “laws in the country” — one of many aspects of the state’s voting practices that will limit voter participation among minorities, according to the group.

The subject of voting rights in the U.S. has received renewed attention since sweeping changes to voting laws were passed in states across the country. Voting rights advocates in Florida have largely focused on new limitations on third-party voter registration, early voting days and ballot measure signatures. Little scrutiny, however, has been given to a rollback of voting rights for ex-offenders, also referred to as returning citizens.

According to the NAACP report (PDF), Florida is one of only four states in the country that “denies the right to vote permanently to all individuals convicted of any felony offense.”

The NAACP reports:

Florida imposed a mandatory five-year waiting period and petition process for the restoration of rights for individuals who have completed their sentences. In March 2011, Florida, which already had the largest disfranchised population of any state in the country (approximately 1 million), rolled back state rules enacted four years ago that eliminated the post-sentence waiting period and provided for automatic approval of reinstatement of rights for individuals convicted of non-violent felony offenses.

The previous rule was put into effect in 2007, allowing the restoration of rights to more than 154,000 people who had completed their sentences.

Under Florida’s new rules, all individuals who have completed their sentences, even those for non-violent offenses, must wait at least five years before they may petition the Clemency Board for the restoration of their civil rights, including the right to register to vote. Some offenders even have a mandatory seven-year period before they may petition.

Even worse, the five–year waiting period for individuals convicted of a non-violent offense to apply for restoration of voting rights resets if a person is simply arrested for a criminal offense—even if charges are eventually dropped or the person is acquitted of all allegations.

By most accounts, these new clemency rules make Florida’s the most restrictive felon disfranchisement approach in the country.

Desmond Meade, president of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition and a self-described “formerly convicted individual,” says that blame for the state’s poor voting rights for returning citizens goes “beyond political reasons.”

“This is more than just politically motivated,” Meade tells The Florida Independent. “These policies have been pushed by the prison industrial complex.”

According to Meade, private prison companies are “big campaign donors” that benefit from policies that limit former inmates’ rights.

“That’s how they make their money,” Meade says. According to Meade, keeping ex-offenders from having a say in political affairs limits proper accountability for legislators and institutions such as prisons — whether they are public or private. He also says that private prison companies have long lobbied for restricted rights of former inmates. As their influence grows, Meade argues, the rights of returning citizens shrink.

The power of private prisons in Florida has become increasingly visible in the past few years. According to reporting by The American Independent’s Yana Kunichoff:

GEO Group, the second-largest private prison operator in the country, is headquartered in Florida, and is already running the state’s largest private prison, the Blackwater River Correctional Facility in Milton. When the Corrections Corporation of America builds the largest private immigration center in the country, as it agreed with the town of Southwest Ranches and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to do earlier this year, Florida will become ground zero for private prisons.

The situation in Florida isn’t unique, but advocates say the scale of Florida’s plan is remarkable.

“It’s precedent-setting,” says Ken Kopczynski, executive director of the Private Corrections Working Group, a website that collects news and resources on the growing influence of the private prison industry.

Kopczynski says the proposed budget amendment and the planned ICE-contracted center “is the largest privatization effort in the U.S., if not in the world.”

The industry, Kunichoff wrote, has relied “on the goodwill of legislators” and groups such as the GEO Group have given hundreds of thousands in campaign donations to the Republican Party of Florida.

Meade says state policy-makers have favored prison companies, while simultaneously disregarding the rights of offenders and former offenders.

“We definitely feel that they are implementing their policies just to show they are being ‘tough on crime,’” Meade says, something he says this is done at the expense of actually “reducing and preventing crime.”

“This is all contrary to public safety,” Meade says. “There is no evidence that giving voting rights to returning citizens will negatively effect a community.”

He describes the rollback as an effort to block “people’s access to the polls.”

According to Meade, the new House Bill 4129 — which was introduced by state Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Shalimar, last month — would “create yet another obstacle.” According to a summary of the bill, 4129 would repeal a “provision that prohibits clerk or inspector from asking elector to provide additional information or recite elector’s home address after presenting picture identification that matches elector’s address in supervisor of elections’ records.”

“That is crazy,” Meade says. “I guess volunteers will decide who votes now.”

(Photo: Wikimedia Commons/Smithers7)

In a Bloomberg television interview, Sessions, R-Texas, told Al Hunt that Buchanan “has been forthright and brought the information to the committee and to the Department of Justice himself,” and that he has “confidence” in him despite the ongoing investigations.

In December 2010, the Federal Election Commission filed suit against Buchanan’s former car dealership and a former business partner for allegedly reimbursing employees who donated to the congressman’s 2006 and 2008 campaigns with car dealership funds.

Though the FEC didn’t file suit against Buchanan himself, the allegations are now the subject of an investigation by both the Department of Justice and the Office of Congressional Ethics. In July, The Florida Independent published a lengthy sworn deposition given by Buchanan’s former business partner (in which he says Buchanan orchestrated the campaign reimbursements); in September, we posted two voicemails left by Buchanan that reference the scheme.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee criticized Sessions’ comments in a press release sent, arguing that his defense of Buchanan comes despite Republican Leader Eric Cantor pledging to enforce a “zero tolerance policy” on ethics violations.

“When your Finance Chairman is under criminal investigation for campaign finance schemes, every dollar you raise is suspect,” said the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s Jesse Ferguson. “NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions and Republican leadership standing by Congressman Vern Buchanan is only the latest exception in their ‘zero tolerance’ policy for ethics.”

Sheriff Joe Arpaio (Photo: Flickr/Gage Skidmore)

A federal report released Thursday finds that Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., an advocate for controversial immigration enforcement and detention measures, has committed a “wide range of civil rights violations.”

The Associated Press reports:

The federal government issued a scathing report Thursday that outlines how Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office has committed a wide range of civil rights violations against Latinos, including a pattern of racial profiling and discrimination and carrying out heavy-handed immigration patrols based on racially charged citizen complaints.

The report, obtained by The Associated Press ahead of its release, is a result of the U.S. Justice Department’s three-year investigation of Arpaio’s office amid complaints of racial profiling and a culture of bias at the agency’s top level.

The AP adds that federal authorities will continue to investigate, among other complaints, “a large number of sex-crimes cases that were assigned to” Arpaio’s office “but weren’t followed up on or investigated at all.”

In a press release issued Thursday, the Department of Justice states that the ongoing civil rights investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office found “reasonable cause to believe that MCSO, under the leadership of Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, has engaged in a pattern or practice of misconduct that violates the Constitution and federal law.”

The department found

a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct and/or violations of federal law occurred in several areas, including:

• Discriminatory policing practices including unlawful stops, detentions and arrests of Latinos;
• Unlawful retaliation against individuals exercising their First Amendment right to criticize MCSO’s policies or practices, including but not limited to practices relating to its discriminatory treatment of Latinos; and
• Discriminatory jail practices against Latino inmates with limited English proficiency by punishing them and denying them critical services.

Arpaio has said he trains his deputies with federal immigration officials, has the largest group of cross-certified law enforcement men and women (160 of them) and proudly talks about his “tent city,” where about 2,000 detainees live “in Korean War tents” and “sleep in bunk beds, 20 to a tent.”

Asked what he would do if the Supreme Court decides to strike down Arizona’s immigration enforcement law S.B. 1070, Arapio said on CNN this week:

It doesn’t change anything. I do like certain parts of that new law, but I’ll tell you one thing, we’ve been doing it under two other state laws. We have two other state laws, one is the employer sanction that the Supreme Court ruled in our favor. So, it’s not going to change anything I’m doing, regardless of what that decision is.

Arapaio endorsed GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry in late November, saying Perry “has done more to combat illegal immigration and secure the border than any other candidate in the Republican presidential field.”

A federal judge has denied the Federal Election Commission’s motion to fine a former business partner of Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Sarasota, over contributions made to Buchanan’s 2006 and 2008 campaigns.

As extensively reported by The Florida Independent, the FEC has been investigating a series of donations made to Buchanan’s 2006 and 2008 congressional campaigns, during which time a dealership he co-owned allegedly reimbursed employees who donated to his campaign committee.

Buchanan himself has not been punished by the FEC, even though, at the time of the alleged reimbursements, he was majority owner of the dealership. Instead, the FEC fined his former business partner, Sam Kazran, and the dealership the two co-owned together, Hyundai of North Jacksonville.

U.S. District Judge Roy Dalton yesterday denied the FEC’s “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,” which would have fined Kazran nearly $68,000 for the reimbursements. In his ruling, Dalton writes that the FEC “does not provide any guidance in its Motion” and “rests its case primarily on certain statements made by Kazran, which the FEC contends conclusively establish that Kazran solicited others to make campaign contributions in their own names and either advanced the money or promised to reimburse them.”

Though Kazran has admitted to knowing about the reimbursement scheme, he has long maintained that Buchanan was the one orchestrating it. The Independent has spoken with two former Buchanan employees who backed Kazran’s story.

According to Dalton, Kazran’s statements “are not judicially binding admissions,” as he proceeded without legal counsel and may not have known that he was admitting to liability. In his own words, Kazran says that he is a “political outsider” who had no knowledge of campaign finance laws and was only following his boss’ orders.

Stating that “the Court is not persuaded by the FEC’s position,” Dalton adds that he is “reluctant to grant partial summary judgment on the issue of liability where the FEC’s theory of liability is unclear, especially where one theory may suggest that individuals who are not defendants in this enforcement action may have violated the statute as well.”

Though Buchanan himself wasn’t named as a defendant in the FEC suit, his implication in the case isn’t cut-and-dry. He is currently under investigation by both the House Office of Congressional Ethics and the U.S. Department of Justice over the same allegations in the FEC suit.

Historically, the FEC has been somewhat reluctant to file suit against sitting members of Congress, but as the federal agency charged by Congress to enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, it has absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute violations.

Kazran might now have the chance to demonstrate that Buchanan coerced him into making the contributions, which he has maintained all along. The Independent obtained a lengthy sworn deposition Kazran gave to the FEC, as well as two voicemails in which Buchanan himself references the reimbursement scheme.

As Dalton’s ruling reads, “a trial court is permitted, in its discretion, to deny even a well-supported motion for summary judgment, if it believes the case would benefit from a full hearing.”

kazran_dc_order_deny_part_sj –

Former Arizona Sen. Russell Pearce — one of the most recognized architects of that state’s immigration enforcement law S.B. 1070, and who recently lost a recall election — writes today that his defeat had nothing to do with S.B. 1070.

Pearce writes at Politico:

My Republican opponent was Jerry Lewis, who stated he was opposed to SB1070, supports the DREAM Act and believes illegal aliens do the jobs that Americans won’t.

In a normal election, Lewis would have had no chance in the primary. And with a large GOP registration edge in my district, I would likely have won easily against the Democrat.

Pearce argues that Democrats supported Lewis and, “looming over the campaign was a prolonged smear campaign against me for accepting (with dozens of other legislators) free college football tickets.”

He also reiterates his immigration track record:

We have inspired other states to take action. More than 34 states are now proposing legislation modeled on SB1070. Alabama, South Carolina, Utah and Georgia have already passed bills.”

The immigration enforcement state laws passed in Arizona, Alabama and Georgia have been challenged in court.

According to the Tucson Citizen, Republican Jerry Lewis, who defeated Pearce, “participated in a national teleconference to mark the Nov. 11, 2010, adoption of a document called the Utah Compact, which advocates a more humane approach to immigration issues.”

The Citizen adds: “During an Oct. 6 campaign debate with Pearce, Lewis said Arizona’s focus on strict border enforcement has made the state a paraiah in some national and international quarters. Drawing boos from Pearce supporters, Lewis said Arizona now suffers from an image akin to that of ’1964 Alabama.’”

Photo credit: Protesters demonstrate against Arizona S.B. 1070 (Pic by ProgressOhio, via Flickr)

Former Arizona Sen. Russell Pearce — one of the most recognized architects of that state’s immigration enforcement law S.B. 1070, and who recently lost a recall election — writes today that his defeat had nothing to do with S.B. 1070.

Protesters demonstrate against Arizona S.B. 1070 (Pic by ProgressOhio, via Flickr)

Pearce writes at Politico:

My Republican opponent was Jerry Lewis, who stated he was opposed to SB1070, supports the DREAM Act and believes illegal aliens do the jobs that Americans won’t.

In a normal election, Lewis would have had no chance in the primary. And with a large GOP registration edge in my district, I would likely have won easily against the Democrat.

Pearce argues that Democrats supported Lewis and, “looming over the campaign was a prolonged smear campaign against me for accepting (with dozens of other legislators) free college football tickets.”

He also reiterates his immigration track record:

We have inspired other states to take action. More than 34 states are now proposing legislation modeled on SB1070. Alabama, South Carolina, Utah and Georgia have already passed bills.”

The immigration enforcement state laws passed in Arizona, Alabama and Georgia have been challenged in court.

According to the Tucson Citizen, Republican Jerry Lewis, who defeated Pearce, “participated in a national teleconference to mark the Nov. 11, 2010, adoption of a document called the Utah Compact, which advocates a more humane approach to immigration issues.”

The Citizen adds: “During an Oct. 6 campaign debate with Pearce, Lewis said Arizona’s focus on strict border enforcement has made the state a paraiah in some national and international quarters. Drawing boos from Pearce supporters, Lewis said Arizona now suffers from an image akin to that of ’1964 Alabama.’”

Senate Bill 904, which Fasano’s team has dubbed the pill mill “glitch” or “tweak” bill, would primarily alter some of the minor statutes of last session’s House Bill 7095, which created tough administrative and criminal penalties for doctors who overprescribe narcotics.

According to Fasano aide Greg Giordano, the bill also contains substantive provisions that would give pharmacists and doctors more tools to fight doctor shopping.

904 requires that a prescriber consult the database and review the patient’s history, before writing prescriptions for certain drugs, and then make a notation on the face of that prescription, indicating that the consultation took place. If the prescription contains no such notation, the pharmacist filling it must also consult the database. The pharmacist would also be required to consult the database if he or she doesn’t already have a history with the patient being prescribed a controlled substance.

According to Fasano, those requirements would make it easier for pharmacists and practitioners to thwart the practice commonly known as”doctor shopping.”

Among the bill’s other requirements is a provision to require pharmacists who come across a prescription they believe was obtained through illegal means (i.e. though fraud or forgery) to file a report with the police department.

Shortly after a ban on dispensing prescriptions from doctor’s offices was enacted, Florida saw a spike in independent pharmacy applications, which some worried could be due in large part to pill mill operators who were no longer able to dispense from their place of business.

“The legislation allows pharmacy applications to be denied if the name of the person seeking a license is on the List of Excluded Individuals and Entities that is maintained by the United States Department of Health and Human Services [and] Office of Inspector General,” says Giordano. “This red flag should stop anyone from getting a pharmacy license if they have a reason to be on that list.”

According to Giordano, Fasano calls these latest provisions “the natural next steps in the fight to keep diverted prescription drugs from Florida’s street,” and says he will continue the fight to eradicate prescription drug abuse by “making it is a difficult as possible for someone to fraudulently obtain prescriptions that they do not need, while continuing to allow legitimate pain patients access to the medications they require.”

The FBI press release announcing the report states: “Intimidation…vandalism…assault…rape…murder. These are crimes by anyone’s definition. But add an element of bias against the victims—because of their race or religion, for example—and these traditional crimes become hate crimes.”

The FBI report shows that 65 out of 505 law enforcement agencies (.xls) in Florida (covering a population of more than 18.7 million people) reported 136 hate crime incidents in 2010.

The report numbers indicate:

• In 2010, 1,949 law enforcement agencies reported 6,628 hate crime incidents involving 7,699 offenses.
• There were 6,624 single-bias incidents that involved 7,690 offenses, 8,199 victims, and 6,001 offenders.
• The 4 multiple-bias incidents reported in 2010 involved 9 offenses, 9 victims, and 7 offenders.

Of the 7,690 single bias hate crimes, data shows that hate crimes motivated by race had the highest number of cases followed by sexual orientation, religion and ethnicity/national origin.

Over 62 percent of the total number of hate crimes were directed against persons, and the offenses included intimidation, simple assault, aggravated assault, murder, nonnegligent manslaughters and forcible rapes.

Over 48 percent of these crimes stemmed from racial bias, over 19 percent were “motivated by sexual-orientation bias,” over 18 “resulted from religious bias,” over 13 percent “were prompted by ethnicity/national origin bias” and “0.6 percent resulted from biases against disabilities.”

Almost 70 percent of racial bias crimes were “motivated by anti-black bias”; a little over 65 percent of the religious bias crimes were anti-jewish, and almost 58 percent of hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation bias “were classified as anti-male homosexual bias.”

Hispanics were the target of over 66 percent of the hate crimes motivated by ethnicity/national origin.

The report also indicates that almost 60 percent of 6,008 hate crime offenders were whites, followed by blacks (a little over 18 percent).

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona — known for his controversial immigration enforcement measures and his birther conspiracy theories — was heckled Saturday as he spoke at “Choose Liberty,” an event organized by the Eastern Orlando Tea Party and Americans for Prosperity.

A Phoenix Fox TV station reported that, ”while delivering remarks — some hecklers tried to steal the spotlight by yelling and moving toward the sheriff.”

Sheriff Joe Arpaio (Pic by Gage Skidmore, via Flickr)

The Fox affiliate quotes Arpaio as saying: “I’ve been cracking down on illegal immigration for the last three years, which I now have the Justice Department investigating me, ACLU — everybody’s taking shots at me because of my fight against illegal immigration. And I’m going to continue to do it until the problem is resolved.”

A 2009 Time magazine article points out that Arpaio “has faced numerous complaints from Amnesty International, the ACLU and other rights groups. His office is being investigated by the Justice Department for alleged discrimination and unconstitutional searches and seizures.”

Arpaio recently called on President Obama to release his birth certificate microfiche. According to right-wing site World Net Daily, “While the top Republican candidates refuse to touch the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility, at least four are eagerly seeking the endorsement” of Arpaio.

The site adds that Arpaio told Choose Liberty participants on Saturday “that his ‘Cold Case Posse‘ probe examining the president’s qualification for his state’s 2012 ballot is in full swing.”

Americans for Prosperity, which helped organize Choose Liberty, “is an organization of grassroots leaders who engage citizens in the name of limited government and free markets on the local, state, and federal levels.” The group has received millions of dollars from the controversial Koch brothers.

Watch coverage of the event:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Heckled in Florida: MyFoxPHOENIX.com

Update:

Watch more video of the scuffle here.

Advocates for legislation that would create humane rules for the shackling of incarcerated pregnant women say the law would fill a present gap in jail policies in Florida, despite claims by the Florida Department of Corrections that the measure is unnecessary.

State Rep. Betty Reed, D-Tampa, and Sen. Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa, have introduced a bill that creates rules in county and city jails to protect the health of pregnant women who are incarcerated.

Last session, a similar bill almost made it to a final vote, but it eventually died. While the bill found wide support, Florida’s Department of Corrections opposed the measure.

A response (.pdf) from the department, posted on the website of the Association of State Correctional Administrators, claims that a report that gave the state of Florida an “F” for its shackling policies was “misleading.”

Officials at the state agency said they have policies prohibiting the restraints of women who are in labor, as well as guidelines for pregnant women.

According to a statement from Florida Department of Correction to The Florida Independent:

The Florida Department of Corrections does not shackle female inmates in any stage of labor. Florida refers each pregnant inmate to an OB/GYN physician to provide prenatal care and follow them through their pregnancy. Inmates receive prenatal counseling, vitamins and exams. They also receive an extra nutritional meal each day. Any time a woman is pregnant and sent to prison it is a tragedy for mother and child. Florida does not have prison nurseries, so mothers must make a decision about where to place their child well prior to birth. Most place children with family members. At all stages of her incarceration medical personnel are consulted. A pregnant women who is being transported may be restrained, depending on her custody level and behavior. She may be restrained if she is considered a security risk by the Officer in Charge. However, if the inmate is already in labor during transport, she will not be restrained. In the hospital after delivery is complete, inmates are tethered to their recovery beds by one ankle.(This is provide security for the hospital and to prevent escapes). Additionally, there is a correctional officer in the room with them at all times, to be sure they have access to the bathroom or any other needs they may have. Infants do not return to prison with their mothers. Most pregnant inmates reside at Lowell CI, there are 20 to 25 there on average. Late term pregnant inmates (over 35 weeks) are housed at Broward CI.

The 2010 report in question was compiled by the Rebecca Project for Human Rights. It analyzed whether a state’s policies harm pregnant women who are incarcerated.

The report was also “intended to help advocates assess their own state’s policies affecting these significant phases of pregnancy, labor and delivery, and parenting.” It gave a failing grade to any state that failed to “comprehensively limit, or limit at all, the use of restraints on pregnant women during transportation, labor and delivery and postpartum recuperation.” Thirty-six states, including Florida, received failing grades.

ACLU of Florida Policy and Advocacy Counsel Julie Ebenstein says that although the Department of Corrections has shackling policies for pregnant women in place, Florida jails do not.

She says the Florida Model Jail Standards currently do not contain a policy for the treatment of pregnant women.

Florida Model Jail Standards are “modeled after the Commission for Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation (CFA) process,” according to the Florida Sheriffs Association website. The Florida Corrections Accreditation Commission is an 11-member body that “develops standards for the accreditation of local jail facilities.”

Ebenstein says the problems associated with shackling pregnant women “are more prevalent in jails” than in prisons. According to her, the proposed legislation “is not at odds with the Department of Corrections policy.”

In 2009, an article in The Nation shed light on the conditions of incarcerated pregnant women. The article reported a grizzly story involving a young pregnant woman who was incarcerated in a Florida jail.

The article reported:

In the Collier County Jail in Florida, Joan S. repeatedly sought medical attention because she was near her due date and leaking amniotic fluid; this went on for almost two weeks. By the time she got an ultrasound, the doctor informed her that all of her amniotic fluid was gone and her fetus’s skull had collapsed. Jail officials then delayed taking her to the hospital, putting her at risk for septic shock the longer the dead fetus remained inside her. As if this were not bad enough, the jail delayed giving her a shot she needed because she has RH-negative blood, which could cause complications if she becomes pregnant in the future. She is only 22.

Ebenstein says the issue is about protecting public health. “This isn’t strictly about prisoner rights,” she says.

The bill is also quite expansive, according to Ebenstein. Women who are detained by immigration services, women who are in private prisons, and women in detention centers would all be protected by the law.

The 2010 Rebecca report found that there were no policies in place for women under Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE ) detention.

The Huffington Post reported in September about the prevalence of detained undocumented pregnant women being forced to give birth while shackled. In the article, it was reported that ICE’s policy on the treatment of pregnant women is currently insufficient and poorly enforced.

According to the article:

[Michelle] Brané, of the Women’s Refugee Commission, claims that although ICE policy includes language about the treatment of pregnant women, it’s not “proscriptive” or “legally binding.”

“They say, our policy is that we don’t shackle women, but they don’t say ‘Don’t shackle women,’ and they don’t hold anyone to it,” Brané said.

…”One of the shortfalls of ICE is that they won’t push local authorities enough — they’re very happy to wash their hands of things, and say, ‘That happened under local authority, not our authority.’” Brané said. “If you know someone is interpreting your request in a way that is illegal — just like with racial profiling — I think you have a responsibility to clear those ambiguities up.”

Aggie Hoffman, an immigration attorney in Los Angeles, believes that abuses of pregnant women seem to occur when “local law enforcement agencies act either out of ignorance of immigration proceedings or because they were not properly trained.” She also believes ICE must work harder to hold local law enforcement accountable for such abuses.

Christensen, the ICE spokeswoman, said in a statement that “it is against ICE policy to use restraints in medical situations, absent extraordinary circumstances.” Furthermore, she says that “guidance issued to the field in ICE Director John Morton’s June 2010 Civil Enforcement Priorities memo directs agency personnel not to detain pregnant or nursing women, unless they are required by law to be detained because of the severity of their criminal history or other extraordinary circumstances.”

Ebenstein says shackling policies have become a national issue.

“There is national appeal here,” she says. “But one of the most difficult parts has been raising awareness.”

“Ultimately,” she explains, “this is about women’s health.”