As the number of women who said they’d been sexually harassed by Harvey Weinstein climbed above 40, women across the globe last week took to social media to publicly acknowledge their own sexual harassment. Meanwhile, members of the Iowa Supreme Court grapple with whether a southeast Iowa county attorney's sexual harassment of women who worked for him was legitimate grounds for removing him from office.

How is that even a question?

In January, a district court found Abraham Watkins had violated rules that prohibit Iowa attorneys from committing sexual harassment. The case required a special prosecutor because the accused was the chief prosecutor of Van Buren County and one of his alleged victims was his second in command.

"Mr. Watkins has engaged in a pattern of conduct that is unacceptable by any reasonable standard," District Judge James Drew wrote. "Many people, probably most, would consider much of his behavior to be outrageous or even shocking."

Among other things, the judge found that Watkins once, without provocation, showed his female assistant county attorney a naked picture of his wife covered in blue body paint, at least twice came into the office wearing only boxer briefs in front of a 20-year-old legal assistant, and showed that employee, Jasmine Wallingford, naked, sexually explicit photos of his wife. He also spoke of having naked photos of all his former girlfriends. Watkins also discussed his wife’s refusal to have sex with him and showed Wallingford a video of his wife squirting milk out of her breast into Wallingford's car, according to the state.

Wallingford resigned, citing a hostile work environment. Watkins' attorney Alfredo Parrish said that was in reference to conflicts between Watkins and his wife, who also worked for him.

But that was still Watkins' responsibility. What female employee wants to find herself in the middle of her boss' marital problems, or for that matter see him in his underwear in the office, or hear about his sex life? What kind of employer shows pictures of his naked wife to his employee?

The judge found Watkins had committed “willful misconduct or maladministration in office” and removed him from the county attorney job. The Van Buren County Board of Supervisors had petitioned the judge over this, its chairman Mark Meek testifying citizens had a right to have a county attorney "that does not sexually harass county employees." Indeed.

The county appointed attorney F. Montgomery Brown as special prosecutor, who wrote in a brief that even after being given the option of resigning quietly, Watkins asked another female employee jokingly if he could video chat with her while she was in the shower.

As a part-time private attorney and county attorney, Watkins did all his work from his home office, where his employees also worked. Brown claimed he retaliated against his assistant county attorney, Virginia Barchman, after the petition for his removal was filed, exiling her from the house/office. Barchman has since been named Watkins' replacement.

Parrish didn't dispute most of the facts but argued Watkins was playing a mix of public and private roles since his office was in his home, and that the district court hadn't differentiated between his conduct as a friend, mentor, employer or private citizen.

But since he had the women in his home in his official capacity, it was inappropriate for him to be anything but professional around them.

Most women who've been subjected to that kind of behavior would recognize it not just as discomfiting but also intimidating when it's a boss, wherever it takes place, because he's using his power as leverage.

“Given the extent and stunning nature of his conduct one can, and in the [trial court’s] opinion must, infer that he was acting with a bad or evil purpose,” the judge had ruled. But Parrish argued the court had not established any intent to harm.

Even if the intent was Watkins' sexual gratification, if it wasn't a mutual intent, it was harmful. The district court ruled that the county also faced potential civil liability for Watkins' actions.

Watkins appealed his removal from office to the Iowa Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments Sept. 14.

“He is not worthy of the office of county attorney," Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Thompson told justices.

Much of the justices' questioning revolved around issues of jurisdiction: whether the county supervisors were authorized to bring the petition, or citizens should have had the choice of voting an elected official out of office. But some justices still seemed unclear on why, as one put it, "if a public official commits sexual harassment, that is grounds under Chapter 66 for their removal?”

Another asked if it wasn't more of a "political problem" than a legal one for the county when no felony was committed.

Thompson was even grilled on what constitutes "unworthy for office."

Parrish, for his part, argued that "words alone without proper context cannot create sexual harassment."

Defense attorneys must defend their client, and justices must parse the language of the law to ensure its intent is followed. But watching these oral arguments was one of those occasions where you wished there were at least one female justice still on the court. Given the preponderance of women who seem to have suffered from sexual harassment at one time or another, I'm guessing a female justice would have equated sexual harassment with bad intention. And I believe she would have said it makes a public official — the county prosecutor, no less — unworthy of the office.

Rekha Basu is an opinion columnist for The Des Moines Register. Contact: rbasu@dmreg.com Follow her on Twitter @RekhaBasu and at Facebook.com/ColumnistRekha. Her book, "Finding Her Voice: A collection of Des Moines Register columns about women's struggles and triumphs in the Midwest," is available at ShopDMRegister.com/FindingHerVoice