Thanks to a ruling by the 10th Circuit Cort of Appeals, women can now legally go topless in six western states.
Topfree demonstrations have taken place in many of the six states impacted by the ruling.
The audio of the arguments before the 10th Circuit.
The text of the final ruling:
The states covered by the 10th Circuit
- District of Colorado.
- District of Kansas.
- District of New Mexico.
- Eastern District of Oklahoma.
- Northern District of Oklahoma.
- Western District of Oklahoma.
- District of Utah.
- District of Wyoming
OTOH, the 7th and 8th circuits have ruled that states can set laws against women going topless. Their legal logic is that the 14th Amendment allows gender based discrimination as long as it is not “invidious”. Please listen to the audio!
The definitions I saw for invidious are:
- (of an action or situation) likely to arouse or incur resentment or anger in others.
- (of a comparison or distinction) unfairly discriminating; unjust.
So, in your lay opinion, does a law against a woman being topless match either or both of those definitions?
I’d love to hear the 9th Circuit come down on the matter. Since the circuits are split, it is likely to come before SCOTUS on of these years.
But, just so you dont get too giddy with hard won freedom, a woman in Utah is fighting criminal charges for bring topless in her own home. Her stepchildren, two boys, 9 and 13, and a 10-year-old girl, unexpectedly saw her topless when she and her husband had stripped down in their garage after getting insulation fibers in their clothes. The three were embarassed. Stepmom didn’t immediately grab for a cover-up and instead used it as a teachable moment about gender equality.
The kids mentioned it to the biological mom who went to the police. Three counts of “lewd exposure to a child” charges were filed under Utah State law.
You heard that right. Even the 10-year-old girl. It is considered lewd in Utah for a girl to see a woman’s breasts. The 10th Circuit ruling is now part of her defense. Her husband was just as topless and, of course, could not be charged.
What is even more bizarre is that nobody is sure when this happened. The defendant thinks it was 2016 while the prosecution thinks it was 2017 or 2018 but didn’t file until Feb 2019.
Utah argues that the ruling only applies to city ordinances and not state law. They also argue that if the state law is overturned there will be “unforeseen consequences”. They assert it would no longer be illegal for a molester to touch a young girl’s breasts. Are they implying that it is currently legal for molesters to play with young boy’s breasts? Their logic is both unfathomable and spurious.
There is a very good reason I don’t live in Utah.