On July 27, the Utah Supreme Court overturned Warren Jeffs' conviction of accomplice to rape. Jeffs, the so-called "prophet" and leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints (FLDS), had been convicted of accomplice to rape when he orchestrated the marriage of 14-year-old Elissa Wall to her first cousin, 19-year-old Allen Steed. Wall was terrified of the marriage and begged Jeffs to cancel it. He refused. He also refused to help her after she was married, when she pleaded with him to release her from her husband, who had been raping and abusing her repeatedly during their marriage. While Jeffs' guilt in this case appears undeniable, the Utah Supreme Court claimed that because the prosecution could not prove that Jeffs intended for Steed to rape Wall, his conviction should be overturned.

This ruling by the Utah Supreme Court gives no justice to Wall, who endured years of brainwashing under Jeffs and then years of abuse under her husband. But the Utah Supreme Court's decision also denies justice to women all over Utah and ultimately all over the country. If the state can say that a man who forced a girl into marriage against her will is not an accomplice to rape, then the state essentially finds it acceptable for men to tell women what to do with their bodies, choices and lives, stripping them of all autonomy. The state of Utah already heavily restricts women's rights in a variety of ways. It puts the "rights" of unborn fetuses ahead of women's rights to privacy and control of their bodies, and it also bans and restricts so many types of abortion care that abortion services are difficult, if not impossible, to obtain there. Utah also limits women's right to choose how to live their own lives, particularly concerning whom to marry. While Jeffs can coerce a girl into marriage against her will, same-sex adults who have spent years in loving, committed relationships cannot marry in Utah or most other states. In fact, the Utah Supreme Court's decision to overturn Jeffs' conviction reflects the state's, and the country at large's, failure to recognize a woman's body and life as her own.

On a more positive note, though Jeffs' conviction has been overturned, he most likely will have a new trial in Utah. Even if he doesn't, he's facing charges of bigamy, sexual assault of a child and aggravated assault in Texas. The FBI is also investigating him for sexual assault of a minor and conspiring to sexually assault a minor, and he has a federal indictment against him for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution. If Utah doesn't eventually bring this man to justice, hopefully Texas or the federal government will.

So, you're committed to the cause and fired up for feminist activism. What now? How do you get informed on issues and decide what direction to take?

Getting involved with your local NOW chapter is one great way of jumping straight into activism. To contact them, check out our chapter page. Contact information should be available for state and local chapters. Fill out the contact form and tell them you want to get involved. Easy as pie!

There are also many resources online to stay informed, starting with email. Sign up for NOW emails, and stay up to date with NOW's latest actions and press releases.

But you can also stay connected and informed right where you already are online. The National NOW Action Center and many local NOW chapters also have their own Facebook pages -- just visit facebook.com/NationalNOW. Click the "like" button and you'll stay up to date with what NOW is doing. You'll also be able to share issues you are passionate about with your friends quickly and easily. (Check out the "favorites" section of NationalNOW and you can find chapters from across the nation to follow, too!)

If you don't already have one, getting a Twitter account is also a good idea to keep up with the latest breaking news. It makes activism easy. Twitter is a constant stream of user-generated information in 140 characters or less, and its content includes to-the-minute updates on issues and calls for activist mobilization. Twitter allows word to spread fast, and you should use it to network on issues locally and nationally. Follow the National NOW Action Center's Twitter, pick out some choice activists to follow and you can spread and receive information about the latest feminist events and issues from your computer or cell phone. As with Facebook, you can also follow chapters from all around by checking out the NOW chapters list on Twitter.

There are also simpler solutions. Really simple. Following NOW's RSS feed (short for Really Simple Syndication) can be an easy way of keeping up with the latest updates from NOW without constantly revisiting the website to find new material. You can add different feeds to your reader and use it as a personal, online "newspaper," covering new material from all of your favorite websites.

Probably the most popular means of managing RSS feeds is using an application like Google Reader, but you can also treat an RSS feed just like a bookmark Just go to the feed of your choosing (for example, Say It, Sister!), click to subscribe, and your browser will walk you through the process.

Being up to date on the latest information-sharing and social networking methods will keep you on top of feminist issues and help make your activism relevant and successful, so try to get acquainted with as much of it as you can. It's technologies like these that allowed NOW to organize a rally against Stupak-Pitts only three days after it was introduced last year.

Check the headlines, follow legislation that affects women and talk with other feminists about the latest issues. Share personal stories, issues you're passionate about or emerging strategies for activism. Sharing this blog post with friends who are ready to take the next step technologically might also be a good start.

The world is getting smaller and smaller, and being informed on the issues is now easier than ever. Find at least one issue that gets you fired up, and use all of the tools at your disposal to address it. You will find that other people care too.

This is part two of a blog series on grassroots activism. Upcoming posts will cover local involvement, NOW chapter meetings and more!

Where does one start with the whole Shirley Sherrod debacle? Let's start with the positives. Through this right-wing attack, we were introduced to an amazing woman who handled the controversy and the public spotlight with dignity and integrity. We can learn a lot from Sherrod, if we can resist getting caught up in the spectacle of it all.

Sherrod is an inspiring public servant. Despite serious setbacks in her own life, Sherrod went on to help others, including the farmer she was talking about in her speech at an NAACP event -- the speech that was deceitfully edited by right-wing hack Andrew Breitbart. Who knows how many lives Sherrod has touched throughout her career of working for nonprofits and the U.S. Department of Agriculture? That she almost became a casualty in the conservative effort to paint the Obama administration as practicing reverse-racism is despicable.

In fact, Sherrod is a shining example of transcending the wounds of racism. Her now infamous (or is it famous?) speech was all about evolving beyond reflexive bias. It was courageous of Sherrod to share with that audience her temptation to commit a second wrong when given the chance to discriminate against someone who, because of his race, represented those who had discriminated against her and other African Americans for centuries. Sherrod explained how she recognized that a poor white farmer could be oppressed by the "haves" in the same way people of color could. Her story is enlightening, and we should be thankful that it is now out in the public domain.

That said, the negatives to this story are many. This is a clear warning that the radical right is on a mission, and it doesn't care who gets trampled in the process. The mainstream media, social justice organizations, and our government -- all of us need to take care not to be put on the defensive so easily. Thoughtful discussions of racism and its long, destructive legacy, should not be derailed by these partisan attacks. This dialogue belongs to us, not to the blowhards who seek to divide people through wedges like racism and sexism. Let's follow Shirley Sherrod's example and seek common ground amongst all of us who stand to lose if the "haves" get their way.

Today the Obama administration announced new guidelines under the Affordable Care Act for preventive care, which will require insurers to cover a wide range of preventive services without charging co-pays or deductibles. Sounds good and makes sense, but a review of the list of what's covered reveals a conspicuous omission: contraceptive coverage.

At any given time, 70 percent of women between the ages of 15 and 44 are sexually active and do not want to become pregnant. Of that group, 98 percent, or virtually all, have used a form of contraceptive. This widespread need and use of contraceptives indicates that they comprise one of the most popular types of preventive care for women in this country.

Curiously, the omission of contraceptive coverage also flies in the face of the government's own data on the return on investment shown within the longstanding Medicaid program. Of women who use Medicaid, every dollar that has been spent helping them avoid unwanted pregnancies has saved $3.74 on medical expenses that would have been needed. (Many thanks to the Guttmacher Institute for these statistics.)

I have lived in Washington long enough to know that writing this post may be just enough for a Democratic Party enthusiast to call me up and tell me why, with all sorts of unconvincing words, contraceptives have not been classified as preventive care.

Or perhaps I would hear something about the undue power and influence of those 14 paid lobbyists roaming Capitol Hill on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which argues that contraceptives provide abortion care and should therefore be accessible to nobody, which is wholly scientifically inaccurate, medically impossible and in violation of the Constitution as read by the Supreme Court (for now, at least).

Even more likely would be an entreaty to focus on the good these new guidelines have created for women's reproductive health: covering cervical cancer screenings for sexually active women, anemia screenings for pregnant women and mammograms for women over 40 every one to two years. To those ends and more, very good. But.

Most of the women in any elevator are sexually active, often with men, and trying not to become pregnant. If you ask them if contraceptives are preventive care, they will give you a resounding yes.

Somewhat paradoxically, the preventive care guidelines do require insurers to provide free folic acid supplements to women who "may become pregnant." Words matter -- this is preventive care for women who "may become," not necessarily "are trying to become" pregnant. It is an acknowledgement that an ability to become pregnant also comes with potential consequences for health, in other words, that a potential to become pregnant justifies preventive care. That's what contraceptive coverage is.

Outrageous? Yes. While we can be happy that insurers will cover a long list of good preventive care services that people need, conspicuously omitting what may be the most widely needed and used form of preventive care for young women is discrimination on the basis of sex. It's wrong, and it needs to be fixed.

By Kristen McCarthy, PAC Intern

"How many of you here today know a woman who you think would make a good elected official?" queried Massachusetts State Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz. Hands shot up all over the room. We were in Boston at the National NOW Conference's Political Roundtable, where women politicians and women who worked in politics were discussing how to advance women's rights through electoral politics.

I had raised my hand, almost without thinking. "Who do I know who would be a good elected official?" I wondered. Various people came to mind -- my outspoken friend from college, my dynamic younger sister, my favorite high school teacher, my fellow NOW interns. I wondered if these women would ever run for office, or if, as many women do, they would decide not to run, either because the obstacles were too big or the reward seemingly too small.

The problem is not that women do not win when they run for office. Statistically, women win elections for public office at the same rate men do. However, far fewer qualified women choose to run for office. Even when women do decide to run, there's still the chance that their party (and this applies to both major parties) will not work to support them, deeming a less qualified man "more electable." 1992 was hailed as "the year of the woman," but nearly 20 years later we have yet to achieve gender parity in Congress.

This seems to paint a grim picture for the future of women in electoral politics. But I do not think that is necessarily the case. At the political roundtable, the audience got to hear about all the ways that individuals in Massachusetts and across the country are trying to get girls involved in the political process. One of the most important parts of this effort involves convincing girls that they are capable of being leaders. If girls become involved in leadership positions from an early age, this creates a pipeline that takes them straight from the playground to the public sphere.

I challenge the readers of this blog to think of women they know who would make good elected officials, whether it be your mother, your sister, a co-worker, or maybe even yourself. Ask them why they have never run for office and encourage them to take that plunge. Based on the number of hands that went up when State Senator Chang-Diaz asked her question, we all know someone who could make an impact on politics if only they tried to enter the arena.