Migration Category: Feminist Newswire

Stories from the Feminist News Wire.

Notre Dame Students Sue Over Denial of Birth Control Coverage

Posted on by Feminist Newswire

Irish 4 Reproductive Health, a student group at the University of Notre Dame, together with several individuals insured by the university, sued the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury, and Labor as well as Notre Dame itself for entering into an agreement to deny students, university employees, and their dependents insurance coverage of birth control, in violation of U.S. Constitution and federal law.

The lawsuit, filed last week by the National Women’s Law Center, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and the law firm Macey Swanson LLP, challenges an agreement made between the Trump-Pence Administration and Notre Dame to settle a previous lawsuit brought by the university opposing the birth control coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Under the ACA, health plans are required to cover all FDA-approved birth control methods and related services without any additional out-of-pocket costs. The settlement agreement allows Notre Dame to ignore the ACA by denying coverage outright for certain methods of birth control, including IUDs and emergency contraceptives, and forcing individuals to pay out-of-pocket for other methods.

Under the current rules, only houses of worship are exempt from the ACA birth control coverage requirement. Religiously-affiliated non profits and some for-profit corporations who have religious objections to birth control coverage can request an accommodation that would prevent these employers from paying for this coverage, while allowing insured individuals to receive birth control without additional costs. Notre Dame and others had previously sued the federal government to challenge the accommodation process. Nine federal courts of appeal rejected these challenges, including the one from Notre Dame. The cases went to the Supreme Court, which, in 2016, sent them back down to the lower courts to be resolved.

Subsequently, in October 2017, the Trump-Pence Administration issued interim final rules that would allow almost any employer who alleges a religious or moral objection to birth control to deny coverage. Two federal courts–in Pennsylvania and California–blocked these rules almost immediately, in December 2017.

The settlement agreement, entered into without any input from impacted individuals, however appears to reflect the interim rules.

“It’s illegal for the Trump Administration to take away people’s right to contraceptive coverage behind closed doors,” said National Women’s Law Center President and CEO Fatima Goss Graves. “We are exposing this deceptive tactic and taking the Administration and Notre Dame to court to stop them from chipping away at our right to control our bodies and lives. People deserve birth control coverage, no matter where they work or go to school.”

In their lawsuit, the students ask the the federal district court to invalidate the settlement agreement, which is set to go into effect on July 1, and block the federal government and Notre Dame from relying on or enforcing the interim rules.

Media Resources: National Women’s Law Center, Press Release 6/26/18; Reuters 12/21/17, 5/16/16; New York Times 12/15/17; Feminist Newswire 10/6/17, 2/25/14

University of North Carolina Found in Violation of Title IX

Posted on by Feminist Newswire

Last week, the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights concluded a five-year investigation, determining that University of North Carolina Chapel Hill was in violation of Title IX. UNC did not admit guilt, but Chancellor Carol Folt listed five actions to improve UNC’s Title IX program.

During the investigation, which lasted from 2011 to 2016, over 387 sexual harassment and sexual violence complaints were filed at UNC.

285 of these complaints were filed since UNC’s current policy was implemented in 2014. Only 18 were formally investigated. A mere five were resolved within the university’s timeframe.

The Department of Education started the investigation after four former UNC students and a former administrator filed complaints. Two of the survivors were heavily featured in “The Hunting Ground,” a 2015 documentary on campus sexual assault. These two women also co-founded End Rape on Campus, a survivor advocacy group, and co-authored “We Believe You.”

Recently, in Fall 2016, sophomore Delaney Robinson went public with her outrage at the UNC administration’s failure to properly investigate her case after she was raped by a UNC football player the previous February. When questioned by the Department of Public Safety, Robinson was asked about how much she drank that night, what she was wearing and even about her sexual history. Allen Artis, her assailant, received a much different treatment.

“Rather than accusing him of anything, the investigators spoke to him with a tone of camaraderie,” Robinson said in a press release. “They provided reassurances to him when he became upset. They even laughed with him when he told them how many girls’ phone numbers he had managed to get on the same night that he raped me. They told him, ‘don’t sweat it, just keep on living your life and keep on playing football.’”

After she was raped, Robinson went to the hospital, got a rape kit and soon filed a complaint with UNC’s Title IX office. Even though her rape kit showed “blunt force trauma,” she was met with delays from the UNC administration until she held a press conference in September 2016 alleging that UNC mishandled her case.

Nearly a year later, the case against Allen Artis was dismissed, and Artis was reinstated to the football team.

Robinson’s press conference about UNC’s investigative failures made national news and inspired a UNC student movement against campus sexual assault. Students organized rallies, protests and forums to confront the administration about how they handle sexual assault cases.

Last September, Secretary of Education Betsy Devos announced she would roll back the Title IX protections put in place under the Obama administration in the Dear Colleague Letter. She remarked that she will be hearing from politicians, medical professionals, and the clergy to “replace the current approach” in handling Title IX complaints and instances of sexual violence.

DeVos gave voice to the “falsely accused” and claimed the existing guidelines overreached and failed to give those accused of sexual misconduct due process.

 

Media Resources: Daily Tar Heel 6/27/18, 9/14/16, 6/29/17; The News and Observer 6/26/18; CNN 9/13/16

Supreme Court Rules Against Public Sector Unions

Posted on by Feminist Newswire

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against public-sector unions in Janus v AFSCME, deciding that unions can no longer collect fees from public employees who opt not to be union members yet are covered by and profit from all of the benefits that unions achieve. This ruling reversed precedent from the 1977 ruling in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.

In her dissent, Justice Kagan states this ruling “prevents the American people, acting through their state and local officials, from making important choices about workplace governance. And it does so by weaponizing the First Amendment, in a way that unleashes judges, now and in the future, to intervene in economic and regulatory policy.”

According to Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority Foundation, “This is a civil rights and women’s rights issue that will impact some five million workers who live in the 22 states where all public employees currently pay union fees. This will especially impact Black women, who are disproportionately represented in public sector jobs.”

Once a majority of workers vote to be represented by a public sector union, the union must represent all workers, even non-union members. The fair share fees, therefore, prevent non-union members from receiving the benefits of the union’s collective bargaining process without contributing to the cost of providing those benefits. No fair share fees can be used for any other purpose, including political activities. According to labor rights advocates, overturning Abood weakens the ability of unions to negotiate fair pay and safe workplaces and could reduce union membership.

“This decision comes down as teachers across the country have walked-out of their classrooms, demanding livable wages and adequate resources for their students. Many of these teachers live in states that have already taken significant steps to weaken public sector unions. They are the canaries in the coal mines, but they are also the blueprints for how we move forward,” explains Smeal.

In February, teachers in West Virginia held a nine- day walkout, the longest teacher strike in the history of the state, to demand a pay increase for teachers. However, the walk-out in West Virginia was not an isolated incident. Over 50,000 teachers, staff, and supporters in Arizona participated in a rally at the state capitol building in April to demand higher wages and better funding for education. Teachers in Oklahoma also led a successful walkout to protest the lack of resources and funding for public schools, as well as the below average wages for teachers and support staff in the state, resulting in a $6,000 raise in salary for teachers and a $1,250 raise for support staff.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who took the seat after Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, has a history of siding with corporations and voted against worker’s rights in Wednesday’s ruling.

Media Resources: The Sacramento Bee, 6/27/2018; The New York Times, 6/27/2018; Feminist Majority Foundation; 6/27/2018; Feminist Newswire, 1/12/2016; The Feminist Newswire, 5/04/2018

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Anti-Abortion Fake Clinics

Posted on by Feminist Newswire

This week, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a California law requiring that anti-abortion, fake health centers provide women with complete and accurate information about abortion.

The conservative majority claimed that California could not prove a compelling interest for providing patents with comprehensive medical resources, and therefore ruled that the law violates the First Amendment as it compels speech that could betray one’s religious beliefs.

The four liberal justices dissented, as they believed California had a substantial interest in providing accurate medical information about constitutionally protected services like abortion to its citizens.

Dissenting, Justice Breyer wrote, “Using the First Amendment to strike down economic and social laws that legislatures long would have thought themselves free to enact will, for the American public, obscure, not clarify, the true value of protecting freedom of speech.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch predictably ruled with the majority. Trump appointed Gorsuch with the intention that he would be a hardline vote against women’s reproductive rights.

Fake clinics are state funded and oppose abortion on religious grounds. However, accurate medical information is vital to women’s health.

“When it comes to making their health decisions, all California women — regardless of their economic background or ZIP code — deserve access to critical and nonbiased information to make their own informed decisions,” Xavier Becerra, the Attorney General of California said.

Under the California law, pro-life, fake clinics were required to hang notices with information about where free or low-cost abortions were available to women. The law also required unlicensed clinics to disclose that they are unlicensed, as many try to attract women by appearing like an abortion clinic.

Fake clinics lie to women about the side effects of abortions in order to persuade them not to seek an abortion. Personnel wear white coats matching the attire worn by legitimate doctors and falsely claim that abortions cause infertility or breast cancer. Deceptive advertisements in these clinics are designed to confuse women as they make time-sensitive decisions about whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.

This decision follows the passage of a string of state measures aiming to restrict abortion. Earlier this month, Iowa tried to pass a heartbeat abortion ban, which was temporarily blocked by a District Court.

Later this summer, the Trump Administration plans to implement a domestic gag rule that will strip federal funding from abortion clinics receiving Title X funding for birth control. The comment period for the rule opened last week.

 

Media Resources: New York Times 6/26/18; CNN 6/26/18; Feminist Newswire 4/7/17, 11/11/13, 6/18/18, 5/23/18

Afghan Women Break Glass Ceilings

Posted on by Feminist Newswire

Women in Afghanistan are being celebrated for unprecedented rises in female leadership and activism across social, political, and economic spheres.

Elected in 2014 on a pro-women’s rights campaign, President Ashraf Ghani has elevated women in almost all senior levels of government. Pointing to key leaders Hasina Safi, Minister for Information and Culture, Munera Yousufzada, Deputy Governor of Kabul Province, and Marjan Jawid Ghoryani, Deputy Mayor of Harat, the Afghan government celebrates its sustained efforts to appoint more women into top political positions.

“I believe that with support of other women and men, we are able to improve life for all women of Herat,” said Ghoryani in an interview with the Feminist Majority Foundation. “Increased participation of women in decision making positions of the municipality, securing work environments for women employees, and implementing practical capacity building projects in the municipality are just some of my top plans for the future.”

Ghoryani’s success comes after a long career of “social, security and family challenges” resulting from her gender identity. Despite an impressive resume, including leadership roles as Cultural Department Director and Head of District Offices, Ghoryani frequently faced tension in a male-dominated environment.

Barriers to entry were also a challenge for the recently appointed Deputy Governor of Kabul, Munera Yousufzada, who commended the changing culture of Afghanistan as a product of the increased appointment of female leaders. Yousufzada, who has extensive experience in international relations, looks forward to continuing the empowerment of women in the field of diplomatic affairs and government relations.

At a Washington DC forum hosted for a delegation of eight high-ranking Afghan women officials in February, Commissioner for the Independent Commission for Overseeing the Implementation of the Constitution of Afghanistan, Ghizaal Haress, stated, “People’s views in Afghanistan towards girls’ education have changed. (Positive thinking) towards the encouragement of young girls to attend school and pursue an education have increased.”

At the same forum, Deputy Minister for Economic Affairs for the Afghan Ministry of Foreign Affairs advised the audience, “Let’s stop thinking of Afghan women as victims and recipients of help…Start to think about them as your partners.”

 

Media Resources: Tolo News 5/20/18; Feminist Newswire 6/4/15, 2/26/18

Supreme Court Rules on Major Gerrymandering Cases

Posted on by Feminist Newswire

The Supreme Court ruled on two major cases regarding gerrymandering on Monday. The decisions, a victory for Republican lawmakers in Texas and North Carolina, allow for the majority of the states’ voting districts to remain in their current design ahead of the 2018 elections.

The term “gerrymandering” refers to the redrawing of districts in order to achieve a balance of voters that will elect a specific kind of candidate. Plaintiffs had argued that districts in both North Carolina and Texas were unconstitutional, as they were both drawn to give an overwhelming political advantage to Republicans. Both cases were decided on a 5-4 decision, with Justice Kennedy siding with the conservative justices.

In the Texas case, the Court ruled that all but one district, Democratically-held state House District 90, could remain in place for the 2018 elections. This decision reverses a lower court ruling that found Texas’s map was unconstitutional and discriminated against minority voters.

On similar grounds to their decision last week on Wisconsin districting, the Supreme Court sent the North Carolina case back down to the lower court, finding that the plaintiffs did not have grounds to bring a suit. North Carolina is one of the most gerrymandered states in the country; in 2016, Republicans won 10 of the 13 congressional seats despite only winning 53 percent of the popular vote.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs in Wisconsin’s redistricting case did not have grounds to bring a lawsuit, sending the case back down to the lower court. In the first statewide election after Wisconsin Republicans redrew the state’s legislative map in 2010, Republicans won just over 48.6 percent of the statewide vote but received 60 of the 99 seats in the state assembly.

The Supreme Court’s decisions for North Carolina and Wisconsin are not based on the constitutionality of the districts, but rather the plaintiffs standing to be able to file suit. Both matters must once again be heard in their respective lower courts.

The only gerrymandering case that has so far resulted in the redrawing of districts was decided in January by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and upheld in February by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that case, the state Supreme Court ruled that the state’s congressional districts violated the state Constitution, not necessarily the U.S. Constitution, and therefore had to be redrawn. Under the old districts, the GOP held 13 of the state’s 18 seats in the House of Representatives despite the fact that Democrats have almost 800,000 more registered voters than Republicans. The districts have since been redrawn, and the new districts will be in place for the 2018 elections.

 

Media Resources: CNN 06/25/18, The Washington Post 06/19/18, The New York Times 06/25/18, CBS 06/25/18, The Brennan Center 01/09/18, WCBV 06/25/18, The New York Times 03/19/18

New Concerns Arise as Trump Signs Order to Allegedly End Family Separation Policy

Posted on by Feminist Newswire

President Trump signed an executive order today, claiming it will end the family separation policy his administration implemented in April. But legal analysts have voiced concern over language in the order that could allow for the indefinite detention of children with their parents, a practice that until now has been forbidden due to a 20 day legal limit on children’s stays in immigration facilities.

It is unclear what will happen to the over 2,000 children who have already been separated from their parents, or if this order will face a legal challenge.

Just this morning, Democratic Representatives gave speeches on the House floor calling on Trump to end his inhumane policy. Each representative who attended brought two children with them, highlighting the young ages of the children detained in tent cities and facilities at the border.

A press conference followed on the Capitol lawn with speeches by John Lewis and Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal. “I never thought I would see the day when children are literally used as pawns for a pointless, wasteful, racist wall. It’s a disgrace and it must end today,” demanded Smeal. “We are spending our summer registering voters so that in November we can vote out the politicians who did nothing to save vulnerable, immigrant children from this humanitarian crisis.”

The family separation policy resulted from the announcement of a “zero-tolerance” border policy, which aimed to prosecute as many border-crossers as possible – even those who turned themselves over to Board Patrol seeking asylum. Under this policy, parents are immediately sent into criminal custody, while children are classified as “unaccompanied alien children.” This classification used to only apply to minors crossing the border without an adult relative. It allowed Border Patrol to forcefully separate the children from their parents.

Speaker Paul Ryan claimed the border policy is due to a 1997 court decision called the Flores Settlement. However, the settlement does not require families be separated at the border, and no other administration has interpreted the settlement as such.

Feminist Majority protested the DOJ’s policy on Wednesday, June 13 and walked alongside many Members of Congress, including civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis. Dozens of activists including several Representatives risked arrest by blocking the door to the Department of Customs and Border Patrol.

“Let’s be clear: this is a new policy created by this Administration to use children as leverage to deter people who are desperately seeking safety,” said Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal in a statement. “Instead of helping them find refuge, we are ripping their children from them in hopes of deterring other desperate people.”

Until today, Trump insisted that Congress alone could overturn his family separation policy, but over the weeks long crisis, no bill to resolve the matter was brought up for a vote in the House or Senate.

New of the policy began to intensify after Senator Jeff Merkley visited a Texas detention center in early June. Merkley was denied entry and the facility administrators called the police, despite his attempts to reach out to the facility beforehand to schedule a visit.

During a visit he was later permitted to take, his staff reported disturbing images of children kept in cages. The particular facility was a re-purposed Walmart owned by private nonprofit Southwest Key Programs. The windows were blacked out, and it housed up to 1000 children. Southwest Key Programs runs 27 immigrant children’s shelters.

Judge Who Gave Light Rape Sentence Recalled

Posted on by Feminist Newswire

Aaron Persky, the judge who sparked national outrage after granting a light jail sentence to Stanford rapist Brock Turner, was recalled by California voters in their June 5 primary. It is very rare for a judge to be recalled: since 1911 when recalls were first legalized, only four attempts have been successful; the last was in 1932.

Persky will be replaced by Cindy Hendrickson, an Assistant District Attorney, who will serve for the remainder of Persky’s term, which concludes in 2022. Hendrickson, who has had a 25 year legal career, has promised to protect women and survivors of sexual violence.

The campaign to recall Persky was started by Michele Dauber, a Stanford law professor and sociologist who also led the charge to revise Stanford’s sexual assault policy. To get the recall on the ballot, Dauber had to earn nearly 90,000 petition signatures, 20% of the number of people who voted in Persky’s last election. Dauber’s campaign raised over $1 million dollars, received the required number of signatures, and was endorsed by a plethora of elected officials, publications, professors, and organizations, including the Feminist Majority Foundation.

National outrage erupted in 2016 after Persky granted a light sentence to rapist Brock Turner. Despite a jury finding him guilty of assault with intent to commit rape, penetration of an intoxicated person, and penetration of an unconscious person, Persky opted to disregard prosecutors’ recommended six-year prison sentence. Instead, Persky handed down a mere six months in county jail and three years of probation. Turner served only 3 months of his sentence.

The California Assembly responded by unanimously passing a bill that would establish a mandatory minimum sentence of three years in prison for anyone convicted of raping an unconscious person. Previously, California state law required a three year sentence for anyone convicted of raping a conscious person, leaving a legal loophole that failed to protect vulnerable potential victims.

But critics, such as the ACLU of California, have cautioned against the use of mandatory minimums, citing “negative impacts on communities of color and other unintended consequences.”

 

Media Resources: The New York Times 06/11/2018, Mercury News 02/06/2018, SF Chronicle 06/05/2018, CROWDPAC,  Ballotpedia, California Secretary of State, Palo Alto Online 06/02/2016, CBC 06/08/2016

Supreme Court Upholds Ohio Voter Suppression Law

Posted on by Feminist Newswire

In a 5-4 decision last week, the Supreme Court upheld an Ohio law that removes voters from voter rolls after four years of inactivity. This reversed the 6th Circuit Appeals Court’s decision finding that the Ohio policy violated the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, a law that bans removing voters from voter rolls for failing to vote. The decision fell along ideological lines.

Under the Ohio “use it or lose it” policy, address confirmations are sent to registered voters after skipping an election cycle. If the voter fails to confirm their address or vote, their registration is cancelled after four years of inactivity.

Conservative Justices claimed that the notices served to correct inaccurate voter rolls. However, only 4 percent of respondents had actually changed addresses.

Justice Breyer dissented, writing that thousands of voters who did not respond but had not moved were removed from registration lists because of “the human tendency not to send back cards received in the mail.” A representative of the ACLU pointed out that most states confirm that voter registration information is up-to-date using tax or DMV records.

The conservative majority of Justices ignored arguments about the entrenched history of voter suppression among low-income and minority voters. Populations of voters from predominantly poor black neighborhoods were purged from Ohio’s voter rolls in the greatest numbers.

“Congress enacted the NVRA against the backdrop of substantial efforts by states to disenfranchise low-income and minority voters, including programs that purged eligible voters from registration lists because they failed to vote in prior elections,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote.

Justice Sotomayor went on to write that Ohio’s policy was one developed with “concerted state efforts to prevent minorities from voting and to undermine the efficacy of their votes.”

This case mirrors voter suppression tactics that have been uncovered in other states. In November 2016, voting rights protectors, including the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP, filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that three North Carolina counties illegally purged thousands of voters from the registration rolls, a disproportionate number of whom were African American.  The passage of strict voter ID laws in many states has also increased the rate of voter discouragement. A 2017 study showed that as many as 23,000 eligible voters in Wisconsin were discouraged from casting a ballot in the 2016 presidential election due to the state’s voter ID laws.

 

 

 

Media Resources: CNN 6/11/18; New York Times 6/11/18; ACLU; Oyez 2017

 

Virginia Medicaid Expansion to Begin January 1

Posted on by Feminist Newswire

Two weeks ago, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam approved a state budget that included allocations for Medicaid expansion. The expansion will go into effect on January 1 and will cover over 400,000 currently uninsured adults.

Democratic Leader David J. Toscano (D-Charlottesville) and Democratic Caucus Chair Charniele Herring (D-Alexandria) are celebrating the passage and declared, “This is a great day for the Commonwealth, especially those nearly 400,000 Virginians who will now have access to affordable healthcare.”

The state House of Delegates approved Medicaid expansion through their budget bill in March, but for months the state Senate refused to include an expansion in their bill. GOP State Senators Frank Wagner and Emmett W. Hanger Jr. changed their positions once a work requirement was added to the bill. With the exception of adults with disabilities, most recipients of Medicaid in Virginia will be required to work or volunteer. Individuals who are above the federal poverty line will also be required to pay premiums of up to 2 percent of their income, another addition that appealed to Republicans.

Republicans have felt increased pressure to pass Medicaid expansion since they nearly lost control of the House of Delegates to Democrats in the November 2017 elections. Three races were closely contested, and GOP incumbent David Yancey was not declared the winner of the final disputed district until January, preserving a Republican majority with a 51-49 split. Still, the Democrats picked up 15 seats, meaning that they came very close to ending the Republicans’ 17-year control of the state House. Governor Northam, also a Democrat elected in 2017, has been instrumental in increasing the pressure on Republicans since he ran on the promise of expanding Medicaid.

Virginia is the 33rd state to expand Medicaid since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed, and other states still have the opportunity to follow suit. When state governments have refused to pass legislation, activists have often tried to get initiatives on the ballot. In Idaho and Nebraska, advocates are gathering signatures, and Utah already has sufficient names to qualify for a ballot initiative. In Maine, voters already approved a Medicaid expansion through a referendum, but Gov. Paul LePage is trying to block it, leaving expansion up to a court decision.

Medicaid expansion helps cover adults with incomes that are too high to qualify for traditional Medicaid but still too low to buy insurance through the private healthcare market, a group that falls into what is known as the “coverage gap.” There are still about 2 million Americans who fall into this coverage gap, indicating the importance of activists’ efforts to expand Medicaid in their states.

The Affordable Care Act is what originally made Medicaid expansion possible. When it went into effect in 2014, states began having the option of expansion. In accordance with the law, the federal government has to pay no less than 90 percent of expansion costs in each state. Despite the Republicans’ multiple attempts to repeal the ACA last summer, the law remains in place, and the federal government continues to finance its part of Medicaid expansions. In states that have expanded Medicaid, coverage is available to low-income adults up to 138% of the poverty line.

 

Media Resources: AlexandriaNews 5/31/18; New York Times 5/30/18; Washington Post 3/10/18; healthinsurance.org 5/31/18; Politico 5/30/18; Feminist Majority Foundation 12/20/17; NPR 1/4/18; Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation 11/1/17; Feminist Majority Foundation 9/20/17

Iowa Heartbeat Abortion Ban Temporarily Blocked

Posted on by Feminist Newswire

On June 1, Polk County District Court Judge Michael Huppert temporarily blocked Iowa’s fetal heartbeat ban, SF 359, from going into effect until the case can make its way through the appropriate legal channels.

The lawsuit to block the measure was filed in May by the ACLU of Iowa and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Legal director for the ACLU of Iowa, Rita Bettis calls the abortion ban “beyond extreme,” and asserts that its passage would virtually ban all abortions in the state as fetal heartbeats can be detected as early as 6 weeks into a pregnancy, a point before many women know that they are pregnant.

In addition to affecting time limits for abortions, the ban would also require clinics in the state to purchase ultrasound technology that is able to detect heartbeats. This technology is not standard equipment and could place an undue burden on independent clinics in particular.

SF 359 is just one in a series of bills passed at the state level that attempts to restrict abortion access since the outset of the Trump administration, including 63 restrictions adopted by 19 states in 2017 alone.

In May, the Louisiana State House passed a bill that would result in abortion being banned after 15 weeks of pregnancy. If successful, Louisiana women would be denied termination options earlier than the current 20-week mark, with the penalty of up to $100,000 fines and 10 years in prison for any doctor found to have violated the law. The implementation of this law hinges upon federal courts upholding a fifteen week abortion ban in Mississippi, which was temporarily blocked by US District Court Judge Carlton Reeves.

 

 

Media Resources: De Moines Register 6/1/18; Citizen Times 5/16/17; ACLU Iowa 5/15/18; Guttmacher Institute 1/2/18; Feminist Majority Foundation 5/21/18, 5/29/18; The Advocate 5/30/18; Reuters 3/20/18; NPR 5/29/18; New York Times 1/29/18;

Sessions Reverses Asylum Protection for Immigrants Fleeing Domestic and Gang Violence

Posted on by Feminist Newswire

On Monday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ruled that a 2014 Board of Immigration Appeals decision protecting victims of gang or domestic violence was “wrongly decided.”

“Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum,” Sessions wrote. “The applicant must show that the government condoned the private actions or demonstrated an inability to protect the victims.”

Advocates say tens of thousands of people are endangered by the change, which will make the application process much more complicated for asylum seekers who fall into this category, a majority of whom are women.

“Such applicants must establish membership in a particular and socially distinct group that exists independently of the alleged underlying harm, demonstrate that their persecutors harmed them on account of their membership in that group rather than for personal reasons, and establish that the government protection from such harm in their home country is so lacking that their persecutors’ actions can be attributed to the government,” Sessions wrote. “The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes — such as domestic violence or gang violence — or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim.”

Sessions’ ruling centered on reversing a decision made during an asylum case filed by a Salvadoran woman who entered the United States in 2014, fleeing from an ex-husband who raped and physically and emotionally abused her for years, even after she moved elsewhere in El Salvador. His brother, a police officer, had also threatened her. Immigration courts ruled that because women in Central America face societal norms and restraints that do not allow them to escape their abusive partners, they qualify for asylum under the law. Sessions disagreed and overturned the decision in Monday’s announcement.

Organizations that provide legal aid for women asylum-seekers, like UN Women, will be significantly impacted by the number of asylums granted and denied. Advocates have also pointed out that some of the most dangerous gangs in Central America grew out of U.S. based groups.

“Our clients are dependent on our justice system to grant them protections from severe crimes that originated in the United States, like gang violence that inflicts extreme abuse on women such as rape and murder,” the Assistant Director of Florida State University’s Center for the Advancement of Human Rights, Vania Llovera, said. “Now this administration is turning its back on victims and closing their doors to life.”

U.S. Department of Justice 06/11/2018; The Washington Post 06/11/2018; CNN 06/11/2018; Center for the Advancement of Human Rights Assistant Director Statement 06/12/2018; LA Times 6/14/2018

Death Toll from Hurricane Maria Higher Than Originally Reported

Posted on by Feminist Newswire

Fourteen Democrats from the House Committee on Natural Resources have called for an investigation into the Harvard study published last week that concluded Hurricane Maria caused 73 times more deaths than originally claimed by the U.S. government.

House Democrats from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have also expressed outrage and have called for a 9/11 style investigation into the death toll. If the House Committee on Natural Resources and Congressional Hispanic Caucus certify the findings of the Harvard study, Hurricane Maria will officially be the second deadliest hurricane in United States history.

Thousands lacked shelter and electricity as a result of the Category 4 hurricane. 283 Puerto Rican schools are closing this summer due to infrastructure damage and low enrollment as students move to the mainland United States.

There was widespread condemnation regarding President Trump’s response to the hurricane, as FEMA relief efforts were considerably slower than those in Texas and Florida. In an interview with Anderson Cooper, San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz stated “I will do what I never thought I was going to do. I am begging, begging anyone who can hear us to save us from dying. If anybody out there is listening to us, we are dying, and you are killing us with the inefficiency.” Commenting on the frail infrastructure on the island, President Trump defended FEMA, expressing considerable criticism of government officials in Puerto Rico and consistently mentioning the island’s $70 billion debt and distance from the mainland United States.

Puerto Rico is a United States territory, with a population of nearly 3.4 million American citizens. As a territory, Puerto Rico is eligible for the same funding as all states. However, Puerto Rico, like the District of Columbia, has no voting representation in Congress. Once Puerto Ricans move to one of the fifty states, they are eligible to vote wherever they seek residence, and the recent increase of Puerto Rican voters in Florida has led to ongoing questions of their electoral power. The Floridian Cuban population is nearly outnumbered by Puerto Ricans, who voted around 60% for Hillary Clinton in 2016 while 54% of Cubans voted for Donald Trump.

While some Florida politicians have begun campaigning in areas with a new influx in Puerto Rican residents, others, such as congressional candidate John Ward, have argued against Puerto Rican voting rights. Various activists and candidates have expressed disgust with Ward’s comments, reminding him that Puerto Ricans are also Americans.

Journal of New England Medicine 05/29/2018; CNN 06/06/2018; Yahoo News 06/04/2018; The New York Times 04/18/2018; Politico 03/27/2018; The Hill 09/27/2018; The Hill 09/30/2017; CNN Politics 09/26/2017; The New York Times 10/06/2017; Tampa Bay Times 05/02/2018; CNN 05/22/2018

 

 

 

Illinois Becomes the 37th State to Ratify the ERA

Posted on by Feminist Newswire

On Wednesday, with a required three-fifths vote (72-45) in the state House, Illinois became the 37th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. The United States is now only one state short of guaranteeing women’s equality in the U.S. Constitution.

“I am appalled and embarrassed that the state of Illinois has not done this earlier,” said Democratic Rep. Stephanie Kifowit. “I am proud to be on this side of history and I am proud to support not only all the women that this will help, that this will send a message to, but I am also here to be a role model for my daughter.”

In April, the Illinois state Senate voted 43-12 with no debate to ratify the ERA. It was the first piece of legislation ever endorsed by the newly formed bipartisan women’s caucus.

“Every roadblock imaginable has been thrown up against the Equal Rights Amendment, yet we have persisted,” said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority and Feminist Majority Foundation who has been working for ERA ratification for 47 years. “Since Alice Paul first authored the ERA in 1923, generations of feminist women have struggled to make constitutional equality a reality.”

The ERA passed both houses of the U.S. Congress in 1972, and like every proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, was sent to the states for ratification. The amendment lost momentum after the arbitrary ten year ratification deadline set by Congress came in 1982. The amendment was three states short of the 38 needed for ratification. But the push for the ERA has received renewed attention following the election of Donald Trump, and a year ago, Nevada became the 36th state, and the first state since 1982, to ratify the ERA.

Many Constitutional scholars believe that because the time limit is in the pre-amble of the amendment, and therefore not part of the wording voted on by the states, it is subject to an extension by a vote in Congress. Thousands demonstrated in Washington in 1978—the original ERA deadline—and Congress granted an extension until June 30, 1982. It is the only amendment to ever have a time limit placed on it.

The ERA’s passage would be far from symbolic; it will help women in cases of discrimination in education, employment, wages, insurance benefits, scholarship, military service, social security, violence against women, and more. Without the passage of the ERA, women have been forced to gain equality law by law. If the ERA is ratified by 38 states and becomes the law of land, women would be mentioned in the Constitution for the first time, and there would be a guarantee against the Supreme Court, Congress or state legislatures gutting equality on the basis of sex.

Local governments have joined the fight for ratification. In January, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously for a resolution in support of the Virginia legislature ratifying the ERA. And in 2016, the Durham City Council passed a resolution calling on the North Carolina legislature to ratify.

“The ERA has continued to gain greater and greater momentum,” continued Smeal. “Ratification efforts are proceeding and intensifying in numerous states, including Virginia, which experienced an overwhelming feminist victory in the 2017 state elections. National, state, and local efforts will persist until equality is ours!”

 

Media Resources: Chicago Tribune 5/31/18; Feminist Newswire 4/12/18; Feminist Majority 5/31/18

Sex Segregated Public Education Is Increasing, But It Can Be Stopped

Posted on by Feminist Newswire

Last month, the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF) released “Tracking Deliberate Sex Segregation in K-12 Public Schools,” its third multi-year  report based mainly on 2013-14 data from the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC). The report found and named 794 public coed U.S. schools that reported having single-sex academic classes and 75 all-girl and 58 all-boy public schools.

Title IX was signed June 23, 1972 almost 46 years ago to prohibit sex discrimination—including most sex segregation—in education programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Yet FMF has found that deliberate sex segregated public K-12 education has increased since 2007.

In fact, shortly after FMF’s most recent report was completed, the U.S. Department of Education (ED), released their 2015-2016 CRDC data. In that data, FMF found the names of over 500 additional public coed schools that reported having single-sex academic classes with especially large increases in Nevada and Tennessee. FMF also identified nine additional all- girl and twelve additional all-boy public schools.

FMF found that most of the sex segregation was in schools with high proportions of low income Black and Latinx students. This troubling reality is compounded by the fact that 64 years after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, America’s public schools are more racially segregated than ever.

The FMF report and webpage on sex segregation document how deliberate K-12 single-sex instruction is educationally unsound, economically wasteful, and often unlawful.

Under the Bush administration, the ED released 2006 regulations weakening Title IX prohibitions on single-sex education. But in December 2014, the ED Office for Civil Rights provided clarifying Q&A guidance on justifications that schools need to show that their single-sex education is not discriminatory. These 2014 Questions and Answers on Title IX and Single-Sex Elementary and Secondary Classes and Extracurricular Activities  are meant to be used to adequately justify that any allowable single-sex public education does not increase sex stereotyping and sex discrimination. This guidance also reminds schools that they should publish information on their single-sex activities as well as their evaluations and justifications on their school websites and that any of this deliberate single-sex education should be approved by Title IX Coordinators and other officials.

The FMF report found some good news. Working with Title IX experts in South Carolina and Washington state education agencies, FMF learned that in these two states many of the named schools that had reported single-sex academic classes did not in fact have them and had misreported.  What’s more, many of these schools that did have single-sex academic classes did not have plans to continue them.

Thus, to reduce the numbers of sex discriminatory sex segregated programs in K-12 public schools, FMF recommends that Title IX Coordinators  and other gender equity advocates check the current status, policies, and for any plans of schools that indicate allowing single-sex classes. Lists of the public K-12 schools with single-sex classes by state are included in the 2018 FMF report and the updates from the 2015-16 CRDC responses for each state are available from FMF’s Education Equality Program.

Please share verification findings as well as information on additional public K-12 schools with sex segregation with Dr. Sue Klein, Director of this FMF program. If your child attends a single-sex public school or a public school with sex separated classes, please also share your information with the American Civil Liberties Union by using their excellent response form.

The Local Education Agency responses in the 2015-16 CRDC provide the most recent national contact information on school district Title IX Coordinators and the American Association of University Women (AAUW) is planning to include more recent information on finding Title IX Coordinators in their interactive search tool.  However, in many cases these district and school-based Title IX Coordinators need help from other gender equity activists including reminding them that intentional sex segregated public education is rarely legally, educationally, or economically justifiable.

Media Resources: Feminist Majority Foundation Education Equality Web Page;  2014 Single-Sex Guidance from OCR; American Civil Liberties Union;  Teach Kids, Not Stereotypes; Civil Rights Data Collection

Contact: Dr. Sue Klein FMF Education Equity Director, sklein@feminist.org

 

Court Upholds Rights of Transgender Student Under Title IX

Posted on by Feminist Newswire

Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Arenda Allens ruled in favor of former-high school student Gavin Grimm by refusing to dismiss his case against the Gloucester County School Board over the right of transgender students to use bathrooms that corresponds to their gender identity. Grimm, a Virginia teen who has been waging this court battle for over four years, reports ‘an incredible sense of relief’ at the federal decision.

Grimm’s case claimed that by barring him from the men’s restroom, the school violated both Title IX, which bars discrimination on the basis of sex, and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits states from refusing equal protection of its laws to all citizens.

President Obama had issued a Dear Colleague letter during his administration clarifying that education equity under Title IX protects transgender students’ access to whichever restroom corresponds with their gender identity. In February 2017 however, the Trump administration rescinded that assertion, claiming that the Obama administration had not sought proper legal analysis or provided appropriate explanation for why these protections were guaranteed under Title IX. Following that rescission, the Supreme Court announced in March 2017 that they would no longer hear Grimm’s case, sending it back to the lower court for further consideration in light of the Trump administration’s decision.

The school board used this Trump administration decision to claim that Grimm’s request for fair treatment on the grounds of gender identity was invalid under Title IX. Judge Allen disagreed, however, calling the argument ‘resoundingly unpersuasive’ and ruling that the single person bathroom policy implemented by the school had resulted in ‘sex stereotyping violations of the law.’ The legal counsel will now have 30 days to arrange a settlement conference. Grimm’s will head to college in the fall, where he hopes to continue the battle for transgender rights in education.

Almost a year ago, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Wisconsin school district violated Title IX when they prevented a transgender student from using the boys’ bathroom, setting an important precedent.

Despite numerous court rulings affirming transgender students’ rights under Title IX, the Department of Education announced in February of this year that they would no longer investigate or take action to protect transgender students who are denied access to restrooms that correspond with their gender identity.

According to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, approximately 150,000 teenagers 13 to 17 identify as transgender.

 

Media Resources: NY Times 5/22/18 ; BBC News 5/23/15 ; Feminist Majority Foundation 3/6/17, 6/7/17, 2/12/18

When Misogyny Kills

Posted on by Feminist Newswire

On Friday, a 17-year-old gunman murdered ten of his classmates at Texas’s Santa Fe High School, the 22nd school shooting in 2018 that resulted in injury or death. The mother of one of the victims, Shana Fisher, believes that her daughter was targeted by the gunman after publicly standing up to him and rejecting his repeated advances only a week before.

While that is likely to never be confirmed by the gunman himself—who was taken into police custody—it fits the pattern of many recent terrorist attacks and school shootings in which the motive was to commit violence against women.

In February, 17 teachers and students were killed by a 19-year-old armed with a semiautomatic assault rifle at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The gunman was reportedly stalking his ex-girlfriend—a current student—whom he was abusive towards.

One month later, a 17-year-old boy walked into a Maryland high school and shot 16-year-old Jaelyn Wiley who had reportedly just ended a relationship with him. She later died from her injuries.

In April, a man drove a van down a busy street in Toronto, murdering 10 people. He identifies as an incel, or “involuntary celibate,” a group of male supremacists who hold hatred towards women because of the men’s inability to engage in sexual relationships. The Toronto terrorist has an online record of celebrating other mass murderers who identified as incels, such as the misogynist who killed six people in 2014 at UC Santa Barbara. The Southern Poverty Law Center recently categorized male supremacy as a hateful ideology.

More than half of mass shootings have been committed by gunmen with a history of violence against women. “Research shows us that domestic violence is one of the biggest risk factors for future acts of violence,” said Adelyn Allchin, director of public health research at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “When young, angry men have easy access to firearms, lives are at risk.”

According to Loveisrespect, one in three people under 18 have experienced verbal, emotional, sexual or physical abuse from a dating partner. But only about one-third of young victims ever tell someone, and even when they do, many adults fail to take it seriously.

While the Lautenberg Amendment bars individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from owning firearms, there are many loopholes. Abusers can easily evade prohibitions by purchasing firearms at gun shows and forty-one states don’t require all convicted domestic abusers to relinquish guns they already own. Plus, many states have what is called the “boyfriend loophole,” which means that the gun prohibition only applies to a domestic abuser who lives with, is married to, or has children with the victim.

In one California study, of women whose abusers had access to a firearm, two-thirds of them had used the weapon to threaten or intimidate the victim. 4.5 million women in the United States report experiencing intimidation or coercion by an intimate partner using a gun. The chance of a woman in an abusive household being killed by her partner quintuples when a gun is in the home.

50 American women are shot and killed by an intimate partner every month. American women are 16 times more likely to be killed by a gun then women in other countries.

Media Resources: CNN 5/18/18; Feminist Newswire 2/16/18, 6/2/17, 3/1/18; Teen Vogue 3/22/18, 5/21/18; Southern Poverty Law Center 4/24/18; Refinery 29 5/20/18

Saudi Arabia Arrests Women’s Rights Activists

Posted on by Feminist Newswire

The government of Saudi Arabia has arrested numerous women’s rights activists less than a month before the country is due to formally legalize female drivers. The women, who worked as vocal campaigners’ in the #women2drive movement, have been charged with suspicious activity and crimes of treason, a common smear and intimidation tactic employed by Saudi authorities to denigrate political activists.

The imprisonment comes in response to their involvement in feminist advocacy both within and outside of the kingdom. Whilst Saudi officials have refused to comment on exactly who they have arrested, and have barred most of them from outside contact, it is believed that 11 high profile activists have been jailed. They have also made no comment on the status of the Female Drivers Act, set to go into effect June 24.

Activists in the #women2drive campaign, Aziza Yousef, Eman AlNafjan and Loujain Hathloul were three of the most prominent figures arrested. The human rights defenders were pivotal to winning the right to drive for women and had been driving illegally for years in protest. Amnesty International has denounced the imprisonment as political repression consistent with the countries oppressive reputation and designed to intimidate Saudi Arabian women from speaking out against sex discrimination.

The World Economic Forum ranks Saudi Arabia as 138th out of 144 countries on gender parity. The kingdom formally discriminates based on gender, and has laws that require women to obtain permission from a male relative in order to apply for a passport, travel, marry, get divorced, open a bank account, get a job, or have certain medical operations. Women are also separated from men outside of their family and are required to wear abayas, full length robes, in public.

The driving ban crippled women’s freedom and independence. Women could only travel if they were with a chaperone or chauffeur, preventing them from fully participating in the Saudi society and economy. In September, the monarchy announced that the ban would be lifted. Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, who has worked to paint himself as a reformer, took credit for the decision as part of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, but the monumental step would not have been possible without the brave feminist activists in Saudi Arabia who have been participating in acts of civil disobedience for decades.

The Saudi Arabian feminist movement has achieved multiple victories this year, including the right to watch soccer and join the military, though only in certain positions. In March, the Saudi Information Ministry announced that women would be able to gain custody of their children after a divorce without having to file a lawsuit, as long as there are no disputes between the parents. In addition, they can also now collect child support and apply for and collect their children’s passports, though they are still not allowed to leave the country with their children lacking a judge’s permission.

 

 

Work Cited: The Telegraph 2/18/18 ;Feminist Majority 9/28/17 ; CNN 5/21/18 ; AP News 5/22/18

Trump’s Anti-Abortion Domestic Gag Rule Strips Funding from Women’s Clinics

Posted on by Feminist Newswire

The Trump-Pence Administration has proposed a new gag rule on all women’s clinics receiving Title X funding, prohibiting doctors, nurses, and healthcare professionals from providing information about abortion.

Under this new rule, any clinic that receives Title X funding for family planning and reproductive healthcare would be barred from providing any information, referrals or services for abortion. This rule forces clinics across the country to choose between accepting funding for low-income health services or stopping providing any care or medical advice concerning abortion.

“This dangerous anti-woman and anti-science gag rule will take away from poor women, uninsured women, and adolescents their basic reproductive health services and will result in harming vulnerable women and girls,” said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation.

Trump’s rule is designed to prohibit patients eligible for Title X funding from receiving birth control, cancer screenings, STI treatments, and a whole host of preventative health services from family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood. Such a domestic gag rule not only violates women’s basic human rights, but also violates best medical practices and denies  Title X patents from receiving comprehensive reproductive health information and services.

Title X of the Public Health Services Act is the only federal domestic program that is exclusively concerned with providing funds for family planning and reproductive health services. Title X funding is awarded through competitive grants to whichever healthcare providers prove they are best qualified for meeting the needs of the communities they serve. Under the longstanding Hyde Amendment, it is already against the law for Title X funds, or any federal dollars, to be used for abortion services. Clinics are required to keep those funding streams separated and are frequently audited to ensure compliance.

In 2015, over 4 million people received healthcare from over 3,900 facilities funded under Title X, a third of which were Planned Parenthood clinics. Typically beneficiaries of Title X funding are teens and adults who have too much income to qualify for Medicaid but too little income to afford health insurance through the marketplace. Over half of those who access healthcare through Title X are women of color.

According to the Center for American Progress, women’s health centers that receive money from Title X prevent 1 million unintended pregnancies each year that would have resulted in 501,000 unplanned births and 345,000 abortions.

In one of his first acts as president, Donald Trump signed an executive order reinstating and expanding the Global Gag Rule, banning all overseas organizations that receive any U.S. global health aid from providing or distributing information about abortions, even using funding from non-U.S. government sources.

The Global Gag Rule is already devastating initiatives aiming to bring healthcare and empowerment to women. Because they refused to stop providing safe abortions in Kenya—where 75 percent of abortions are done unsafely–Marie Stope International lost a $3 million deal with USAID meant to expand their contraceptive access program to 75,000 more women in rural Kenya. Concerning the funding shortage emergency that has been caused by the gag, Bill Gates said, “The U.S. is the number one donor in the work that we do. Government aid can’t be replaced by philanthropy. When government leaves an area like that, it can’t be offset, there isn’t a real alternative.”

“We know that the Global Gag Rule that was reinstated and expanded by the Trump-Pence Administration is resulting in desperately needed services being cut, health clinics forced to close, and an increase in maternal mortality, maternal illness, and unsafe abortions. Bottom line, whether in the Global South or the United States, such a punitive and dangerous rule will increase maternal mortality and needless suffering,” said Smeal.

 

Media Resources: Feminist Newswire 1/24/17, 3/31/17, 2/22/17

Afghan Girls Robotics Team Continues Success

Posted on by Feminist Newswire

After first gaining fame in the summer of 2017, the Afghan Girls Robotic Team continues to wow the world following an incredible international tour. The most recent success for the team of six young women was in Ontario, Canada, where they were honored with the For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST) Award.

 

The three day FIRST event was attended by over 250 teams, welcoming 7500 students to compete in a worldwide robotics competition dedicated to supporting youth engagement with science and technology. First Robotics Canada prides itself on the values of ‘equity, diversity and inclusion’ and was honored to welcome the Afghan Girls to the event.

 

Their success in Ontario follows a long line of victories within the past year, with the team winning recognition in New Mexico and The Netherlands. Most noted has been their participation in Europe’s largest robotics event, where they competed against 3700 teams to win The Entrepreneurial Award, which rewards innovative solutions to real-world challenges. Director of Education, Abdul Rahman Ahmadi congratulated ‘positive impact’ and applauds their continued role in ‘encouraging other girls’ to pursue careers in STEM fields.

 

The team first drew attention early in 2017, when their Visas to the US were twice denied ahead of the FIRST Global Challenge. Feminist protests successfully put public pressure on the Department of Homeland Security to issue humanitarian paroles that allowed the girls to enter the country to compete.  At the competition, the girls were awarded the silver medal for “courageous achievement” for a robot they built in only two weeks due to the fact that their package of supplies was detained at the airport.

 

Media Resources: Feminist Majority Foundation 1/12/18; Tolonews 5/17/18; Tolonews 8/23/18; First Robotics

 

 

>