The disaster is having a huge impact on women, especially pregnant women. At least 10,000 pregnant women will need delivery services in the coming month and 1,500 of them will need care for life-threatening complications during delivery. With limited or no access to health facilities, pregnant women are at an even greater risk of complications and death related to pregnancy and childbirth.

Haiti already has the highest rate of maternal death in the region: 670 deaths per 100,000 live births. In general, approximately 15% of all pregnant women will experience a complication requiring medical interventions. This is even worse in a disaster situation.

To help meet the specific needs of pregnant women, new mothers and children, CARE is focusing on the following as part of its immediate emergency response:

-distribution of water purification tablets to provide clean water, particularly for pregnant women and children who are particularly susceptible to water-borne illness such as diarrhoea;

-distribution of emergency food rations;

-distribution of infant kits for mothers with newborns and young babies;

-distribution of hygiene kits that include basic hygiene items such as soap and toothpaste, but also sanitary napkins and underwear for women.”

The UN is now distributing food to women only to ensure it reaches families: but this may add to women's vulnerability when they are already at an increased risk of violence. Akhtar explains:

Generally we see a rise in gender based violence during emergencies such as these as people are often displaced from home (1 million people in this case) and access to basic services such as water and electricity is scarce. Women, as the main care givers in a family, are then often required to walk to the water points or distribution sites early in the morning or late at night and are therefore at increased risk of attack from opportunists.

Things that we can do to reduce the risk include ensuring that water points are in open areas with good visibility and are well lit. In addition, any camps arising from the displacement should also be well lit so that walking to and from water points / distribution sites is less risky.

The worst earthquake to hit Haiti in 200 years has devastated millions of lives. Please support the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal to provide emergency supplies and assistance there. Visit www.dec.org.uk for more details or call 0370 60 60 900.

We Mixed Our Drinks blogged yesterday on the tabloids' fondness for reporting 'cry rape' stories, and observed:

"when the media continues to publicise such cases yet ignore the majority of shocking and disgusting attacks against women...we end up with the situation we have at present, where a woman who has been raped is automatically assumed by many to be a liar simply out to ruin an innocent man's life."

I wonder to what extent this media bias affected, for instance, the respondents to Amnesty's 2005 survey on attitudes towards rape. The headline finding was that a third of people believed women are partly responsible for rape if they flirt; but it also revealed depressing levels of ignorance about rape statistics. Only 4% of respondents thought the annual incidence of rape was over 10000 - Amnesty quoted the British Crime Survey to put the correct figure at more like 80000. 11% thought it was under 1000 cases a year. When asked about the conviction rate, the average estimate was 26%, whereas the true figure tends to hover around the 6% mark.

Why - as we should never stop asking - is that real figure so low? Could it be related to the fact that a tenth of British people think less than a thousand rapes occur each year? Does the 'flirts are asking for it' mentality find its way into the courtroom?

We know it does. And we got a timely reminder last week, when - as Holly Combe reported here - a rape trial collapsed after it emerged that the complainant had discussed group sex with strangers on MSN. As Peter Tatchell points out,

'The judge and prosecutor appear to have come close to suggesting that the alleged victim had, by sharing her group sex fantasies, invited the rape; that given her racy sexual mores she had only herself to blame.'

Our justice system assumes women who report rape are lying if they have - or have discussed having - an adventurous sex life. The media assumes women who report rape are lying unless - as Hannah at We Mixed Our Drinks puts it - 'the rape victim happens to be beautiful, white, virginal and wealthy'. But surely those charged with protecting us and pursuing the guilty must take each reported rape seriously, and do their best to collect relevant evidence...?

...We should be so lucky. The Guardian reported today on the IPCC's findings in the case of John Worboys, a cab driver whom the police first questioned about sexual assault in 2003, then allowed to rape at least 85 more women over five years.

One of the women, 'Anna', describes how she was treated - by Worboys and by the police (again, severe trigger warning) - on this video.

'Anna' did everything you're supposed to do. She got a licensed black cab home (because as everyone knows, thanks to Transport For London's victim-blaming campaign of recent months, getting an unbooked minicab is asking to be raped too). She reported her assault. She did everything she could to try to bring her attacker to justice.

And what did the police do? Read the IPCC findings. They laughed. They assumed from the start that she was lying. They failed to collect evidence; they failed to search Worboys' home; they failed to question him properly; they failed to give Anna any accurate information about the case. It's damning.

Then read what the IPCC recommend. Making information available for victims online; regular case updates with victims, sharing of information and intelligence with local agencies where there is a risk to the community; formalising structures to encourage women to report to third parties. Regarding the complaints against individual Met officers, the commission upheld complaints against five out of eight, recommending two should be given written warnings and three should receive words of advice. That's it.

These recommendations bring the responsibilities right back to the victim. Never mind that Anna, and many other women, did report being raped, and were met with nothing but humiliation. Never mind that more than 80 women went through an ordeal that would not have happened if the police had done their jobs. Forget the idea that they should lose their jobs. Nope - it's all about encouraging women to report, in the face of a system that could not be more discouraging.

Meanwhile, the media gets away with making rape invisible; the courts get away with deciding which women have the right to complain when they are raped; the police get away with mocking rape victims; and rapists get away with rape. The justice system is rotten with misogyny from beginning to end.

When I first moved to Manchester, I was unemployed, living in a single rented room in Cheetham Hill, and basically penniless. I was very lucky that a friend was able to lend me some money for my housing deposit and for food. By the time I’d bought the essentials - Granny Smiths, tea, soya milk, a packet of biscuits and about twelve packets of noodles - all I had left was change. I needed a job, and fast.

When I schlepped up Cheetham Hill Road to the Jobcentre, I was dismayed to be handed a ‘phone number for claiming JSA (0800 055 6688, if you need it) and told to go away and call it. Don’t get me wrong, the callcentre staff were brilliantly helpful, and I got everything I needed in the post the next day. But the call used up all my precious ‘phone credit (call costs from mobiles obviously vary, but half an hour on hold to the JC+ can cost you up to twelve quid). This meant it was back up the hill to use the Jobcentre’s ‘phone every time I wanted to call a prospective employer.

For me that was a one-off pain in the arse - for thousands, perhaps disproportionately women, it’s a daily barrier and a big deal. The 2008 Nations and Regions Communications Market Report by Ofcom showed that the poorest people are the most likely to rely on a mobile, especially in the North. Those in temporary accommodation - like those recently granted refugee status, or those fleeing domestic violence - are unlikely to have access to a landline, certainly for a confidential conversation. Meanwhile, public telephones are completely impractical for anyone with caring responsibilities.

Leeds CAB published a report last summer on the mobile-related barriers facing people who want to claim benefits, or change their benefits, or check that their benefits are still being paid, or find out why a payment has been missed…or, of course, to try and find a job. A West Yorkshire CAB reported:

“Charlotte was on her own after her violent partner was excluded from the home with an injunction. She needed to get her benefits directed to her and her children. She only has a mobile phone and was short of credit. Charlotte later returned and said she had run out of credit and could not ring JCP to continue her claim. She could not stand at a
phone box with two young children for 45 minutes.”

Thankfully, this is about to - partially - change. Yvette Cooper, the Work and Pensions Secretary, has announced that from this week, O2, Orange, Vodafone, Tesco Mobile, T-Mobile will no longer charge customers for calls to benefit claim lines at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Lizzie Iron, Citizens Advice Head of Welfare Policy said:

“We are very pleased to welcome the announcement by the DWP that calls to most of their 0800 numbers will be free to many more customers, thanks to an agreement between the Department and six of the biggest mobile phone operators.

“For many years, we have been concerned about the cost of calling government to access basic services such as benefits and crisis loans. Successive Citizens Advice reports, from Not Getting Through in 2007, to Hung-UP published by Leeds CAB in summer 2009, have highlighted the prohibitive costs for people who do not have a landline, and depend on a mobile phone. In the last two years, DWP has introduced several 0800 numbers to ensure that calls are free from a landline, but these calls can still be expensive from mobile phones.

“It will mean that people on the lowest incomes will no longer be spending money they can’t afford, simply to claim the benefits that might keep them out of poverty. We particularly welcome the fact that it will now be free of charge to claim a crisis loan - which is critical for people in the most urgent need of a financial safety net.

“Other government departments may not have the same opportunity to negotiate with the phone companies, but it is vital that they continue to look at other ways to reduce the cost of calling government, and therefore keep more money in the pockets of those who need it most.

“However we are particularly disappointed that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs haven’t made more progress on this issue. Anyone with a problem over income tax, child benefit or tax credits could still be paying several pounds to call HMRC from a mobile phone. Today’s National Audit Office report is critical of HMRC’s handling of telephone enquiries, and we hope their recommendations are implemented as a matter of urgency by HMRC.”

This is a really rather annoying example of non-joined-up government. Time to email MPs about the HMRC, methinks - and maybe drop in a word about the non-participating mobile networks, too. Isn't it meant to be good to talk?

if she wins, she will hold a debate with world leaders in Davos about how to end female genital mutilation now.

Davos is the 5 day World Economic Forum meeting which brings together the global “great and good” - business leaders, politicians, scientists, religious leaders, philanthropists and journalists - to discuss the most pressing issues facing the world today. Three million girls a year have their lives blighted by FGM; 140 million women live with the horrendous physical and psychological issues. Ending FGM within the next generation is one of the most pressing issues facing women across the world.

Julia's campaign video was shortlisted by judges Paulo Coelho (UN Peace Ambassador), Ariana Huffington (Founder of the Huffington Post) and Professor Mohammed Yunus (Nobel Peace Prize). The whole world is voting to send one person to the World Economic Forum in a fortnight and put their case to world leaders.

To vote for Julias, go to YouTube: www.youtube.com/davos; select the 'End FGM now' video, watch it and click on the green thumbs up.

Please also forward this to as many of networks and friends as possible and ask them to vote also. You can vote as often as you like, right up to 11.59pm on Friday 15th January 2010.

To follow Julia’s journey, you can visit her blog or follow her on twitter: @JLM_FGM.

For more information on FGM, please visit www.forwarduk.org.uk.

Russell described this as evidence of a 'circumscribed' benefits system, implying an inflexible set of rules not able to bend to Christelle's individual situation. I'm not so sure.

For income support, you need to satisfy the 'right to reside' test and the 'habitual residence' test. You pass the right to reside test as an EEA national if you're working or studying, and after five years of that, you have a permanent right of residence. Christelle had, at the time she tried to claim income support, been in the UK for eleven years, and working between 1997 and 2005. The permanent residence rule only came in in 2006, so sometimes benefit claimants have trouble convincing benefits agencies that the time they spent in the UK before 2006 counts; but Christelle could certainly have claimed permanent right of residence.

For the habitual residence test, meanwhile, you have to show evidence of your intention to reside. Christelle worked here, studied here, her sister lived here, she wanted to have her baby here. How could she possibly have been turned down?

Maybe because habitual residence isn't defined in benefit regulations. It's assessed on a case-by-case basis. I've heard of cases where people who came to the UK 45 years ago failed the habitual residence test. This isn't the faceless tick-box of a bureaucratic welfare machine. This is an all too human system where individual DWP staff can make a call and call it wrong.

Please note: I'm not saying Christelle Pardo died because DWP Staff Member X said no when s/he should have said yes. I'm saying: it's a complicated system. When it comes to benefits for people from abroad, it's not a yes or a no: it's open to interpretation. It's case law.

So my first answer to what went wrong is: maybe somebody made the wrong call. My second is: apart from a supportive sister, Christelle seems to have been on her own. I can't find any hint in the papers of anyone taking on her case while she was still alive. Amongst the many lessons of this awful story, I think there is a vital one on the importance of advocacy.

The Child Poverty Action Group publishes textbooks to empower individuals by informing them of their entitlements and suggesting tactics for enforcing them, and it campaigns for a fairer benefits system; Citizens Advice does likewise at a national level while individual Citizens Advice Bureaux can argue the case down the 'phone with the Jobcentreplus and send caseworkers to argue claimants' rights at tribunals. Countless law centres and advice agencies do the same.

In an ideal system the tactics and the tribunals and the arguing wouldn't be necessary, but this system is a minefield and no-one should be left to wander in it without a guide. The DWP should signpost people to these, but they don't always. If you're in a situation anything like Christelle's, or you know anyone who is, please find someone experienced to help - the Community Legal Advice website has a directory of CABx and law centres.

So what about the ideal system? Jenni Russell points out that 'The understandable logic behind the existing rules is that if someone cannot demonstrate that they have contributed to this society then the society has no reciprocal obligation to them.' Right here, with this idea of 'contributing to society', we have 'what went wrong, part 3'. There's an underlying assumption (in the benefits system, not in what Jenni Russell said) that by becoming pregnant you stop becoming a contributor.

This is not only fundamentally sexist - the same thing couldn't happen to a man (one to challenge under the Equality Bill?) - but it's bollocks. To have children in the UK, and bring them up to be the UK's future students/cafe workers/CAB advisers/solicitors/DWP staff/F-Word contributors/whatever, is to contribute to the UK.

This is recognised elsewhere in the benefits system - for example, my mother was recently relieved to discover that the years she didn't work, as a single parent, still count towards her state pension entitlement because she was bringing up children at the time. That's feminism made law, and it's high time it was extended to the most vulnerable mothers, to stop more women like Christelle slipping through the net.

However, one disappointment has been the Bill's exceptions for age discrimination. Specifically, the National Minimum Wage isn't affected. Nor, as far as I can see, will the Bill change the unequal provision of state benefits, like Jobseeker's Allowance, housing benefit and tax credits.

The two arguments I've heard in favour of varied wage and benefit rates - excluding 'nobody votes for raising benefits during a recession' - are:

- it's intended to encourage young people into higher education
- young people need less money because they're supported by their parents.

First, the education angle: as many students and graduates will know, if you have a part-time job at university you're only entitled to £4.83 per hour until you're 21. If you're from a low-income family, this is one more reason university might seem too expensive.

What we're told is that with a degree, you needn't rely on benefits or the national minimum wage. But there's a recession on. I know graduates on JSA, and I bet you do too.

The 'parental support' argument, meanwhile, applies disproportionately to better-off families. Benefit rates don't change until you're twenty-five. I'm a graduate, and many of my friends are graduates, so I know many people who are way past 25 and still living at home. But none of their parents are on benefits or low incomes.

As soon as a child turns 16 or leaves sixth-form, their parents lose child benefit and child tax credits; if they're receiving housing benefit and/or council tax benefit, that goes down. Unless this child is able to contribute to the household income from their £50.95 per week JSA, or from their wage, which could be as low as £3.57 an hour, then they're under pressure to move out.

Which brings me to the way this affects women (you wondered when I'd get to it). Imagine you're a teenage girl, and your parent(s) is/are on benefits or low incomes. (I'm aware that both of these things will apply to some readers, so please forgive me if I generalise or stereotype - I have based this on a composite of real people, but I know there will be many women whose experience it excludes.) Maybe your parent(s) has/have their own financial problems. You'd all find it easier if you moved out. Where do you go?

Your family's experience of debt may put you off university. You're low priority for council housing. If you rent privately, the maximum housing benefit you can receive a week is £65 (this varies nationally, but it's £65 a week in Salford). As many young people complain to me at work every week, that won't cover your rent anywhere, unless you house-share - and house-sharing isn't something you'd necessarily consider unless you'd already been to university. Who would you share with?

You could get a job. Maybe. If your parents are on benefits then there are a whole separate blog-post's worth of barriers to employment; and you might still earn less than four quid an hour, with no tax credits.

There is a way that all of these rules won't apply to you, and I'm sure a lot of readers have spotted it. Depending on your circumstances...you could have a baby. You'd move up the council housing list; you'd get more housing benefit; and you'd get tax credits.

I'm pretty nervous about putting the words 'baby' and 'council housing' close together. Please don't misunderstand: the reason families get more support is that they need it. I'd never suggest we withdraw any that support. There should be more.

I'm certainly not suggesting that young women get pregnant in order to get housing and benefits. Every week I meet a lot of young people with children, and I'd take a lot of persuading that any of them did it for the money.

But faced with a system that disadvantages young men and women alike, having a baby is one option some women have. (And men too, I know - but it's different, and I could do a whole separate post about why.) I think they should have more options. And I think, incidentally, that it would take a lot of pressure off social housing if they did. But that's another post right there.