Migration Category: National Old Site

The European Court of Human Rights ruled yesterday that Ireland’s constitutional ban on abortions violates a woman’s right to adequate medical care in life-threatening situations. Nevertheless, the court maintained Ireland’s right to prohibit abortions in other circumstances. In 1992, the Irish Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal in cases when the woman’s life was endangered. Ireland’s Parliament, however, never enacted legislation to protect that right. The Court’s ruling will apply pressure to Ireland to draft a law that entitles women to obtain abortions when their life is at risk. Niall Behan, chief Executive of the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA), stated, “Today’s decision is a landmark one for Ireland and, in particular, for women and girls. The very considered and clear view of the European Court of Human rights leaves no option available to the Irish State other than to legislate for abortion services in cases where a woman’s life is at risk.”

Yesterday, the stand-alone measure to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT), introduced by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Representative Patrick Murphy (D-PA), passed in the House by a vote of 250 to 175. The bill now awaits a vote in Senate, although Republicans continue their stalling tactics Joe Solmonese, the President of the Human Rights Campaign, stated, “the US House of Representatives said, for the second time, what military leaders, the majority of our troops and 80 percent of the American public have been saying all along – the only thing that matters on the battlefield is the ability to do the job.” The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which contained an amendment to repeal DADT, passed in the House in May but failed to receive the necessary 60 votes in the Senate to overcome the Republican filibuster last week. Both US Secretary of Defense Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mullen have urged Congress to repeal DADT and endorsed the Pentagon study on DADT released at the beginning of this month. The report included a comprehensive survey of military service personnel and their spouses on their views of gays and lesbians openly serving in the military and found that the repeal of DADT would pose low risk to military effectiveness. Seventy percent of those surveyed stated they thought repeal would have a positive, mixed, or no effect. DADT was instituted by former President Bill Clinton in 1993 and prohibits the military from inquiring about a service member’s sexual orientation, and also calls for the discharge of anyone who acknowledges being lesbian or gay.

Yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA). Even though the content of IVAWA does not deal with abortion, this widely supported bill had been held up by anti-abortion politics. Finally, the bill emerged from committee with no anti-abortion amendment. However, to pass the bill out of committee, the committee essentially stripped funding and kept funding to existing resources. IVAWA provides for the development of a comprehensive strategy to reduce violence against women and girls internationally including an emergency response to critical or widespread incidents of violence in situations of armed conflict. The Act also directs both the Defense Department to incorporate prevention of and response to violence against women and girls into trainings of foreign military, police, and judicial officers. Senator Kerry stated, “This historic vote sends a powerful message to the world that the United States [Senate] stands against violence against women and girls, anywhere and everywhere it occurs. This bill tells women and girls that they are valued, respected members of society who do not have to suffer in silence.” The bill will probably not pass either the House or Senate in the lame duck session, which is running out of time and will have to be re-introduced in the new 112th Congress beginning January 5, 2011.

In Alaska, a new law requiring that doctors notify a parent of women age 17 and under who are seeking abortions went into effect yesterday after Superior Court Judge John Suddock refused Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest’s (PPGNW) request to block it. The new law permits a judicial bypass, which has been shown difficult for young girls without the means to navigate it. The law does not, however, require parental consent. If a parent does not consent to the abortion, there is a 48 hour waiting period before the procedure can be performed. The judge did remove the provisions in the law that imposed a prison sentence of up to five years and fines of $1,000 on doctors who broke the law. Exemptions to the law will be made if an underage woman testifies to abuse before a judge or receives a notarized statement from her doctor attesting to abuse at home. Clover Simon, Vice President of PPGNW-Alaska, stated, “This law is dangerous and puts teens at risk. Parents want to be involved in their teen’s lives but good family communication can’t be mandated.” In addition to Alaska, thirty-four states require parental notification or consent for women under the age of 18 who are seeking abortions.

Yesterday Virginia federal judge Henry Hudson ruled in a case filed in March by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli that the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is unconstitutional. The provision requires that all US citizens obtain health insurance coverage beginning in 2014. The provision has previously been challenged and found constitutional by another court in Virginia and one in Michigan. Judge Hudson’s ruling is the first to find the provision unconstitutional. Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius stated in their joint op-ed, “Every insured family pays an average of $1,000 more a year in premiums to cover the care of those who have no insurance…Striking down the individual responsibility provision means slamming the door on millions of Americans, who’ve been locked out of our health insurance markets, and shifting more costs onto families who’ve acted responsibly.” Under the ACA, certain preventive procedures, such as mammograms, colonoscopies, pap smears, tobacco cessation services, and obesity prevention services, no longer require a co-payment or other direct costs. President Obama signed the final version of the Affordable Care Act in March. The final law will eventually add coverage for 32 million people, increasing access to family planning and preventive care.

Yesterday, senators voted 83 to 15 to end debate and proceed to a final vote on President Obama’s tax proposal. The Senate is expected to conduct a final vote on the tax-cut package as early as this evening. Democrats have voiced frustration at the extension of Bush-era tax for an additional two years, which would add $900 billion to the deficit. Many Democrats also expressed concern about the estate tax exemption for inheritances of up to $5 million. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) clarified in her statement, “The Republican demands would provide tax cuts to the millionaires and billionaires, fail to create jobs and increase the deficit. And to add insult to injury, the Republican estate tax proposal would help only 39,000 of America’s richest families, while adding about $25 billion more to the deficit.”

Last week, Representative Joe Pitts (R-PA) was selected to chair the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, which oversees private health insurance, Medicare and Medicaid, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institutes of Health. Pitts, who was endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee, is outspokenly against abortion and has expressed his desire to repeal health care reform law. Representative Pitts also stated that he would continue to try to promote the restrictive anti-abortion Stupak/Pitts amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act (HR 3962) In December 2009, the Stupak/Pitts amendment passed by a 240-194 vote of the House of Representatives, but it was not included in the final health reform package. The amendment would have banned abortion coverage for women in both the public option and private insurance, even if the were to pay out of pocket in the public option or through private plans in the insurance exchange.

Transvaginal ultrasounds, a new screening test, may be able to detect early signs of uterine cancer in asymptomatic, postmenopausal women with over 80 percent accuracy. The study, published in The Lancet, notes the increasing rates of uterine cancer worldwide resulting from increased obesity and decreased fertility. The screening tests for abnormal levels of thickness in the walls of the uterus, correlated with higher levels of endometrial cancer. Nevertheless, the researchers recommend these screenings only for women at high risk of endometrial cancer. The researchers cite the risk of false-positives and the expensiveness and invasiveness of follow up testing as the reason for not offering the test for low-risk women.

The National Defense Authorization bill failed to receive the necessary 60 votes to overcome the Republican filibuster yesterday. Aubrey Sarvis, Executive Director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, powerfully stated, “Today a band of Senators voted to continue the discrimination against gay and lesbian service members who are fighting and dying for our country…History will hold these senators accountable and so will many of their constituents.” Following the vote, Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) announced their plans to introduce a stand-alone bill to repeal DADT. Both US Secretary of Defense Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mullen have urged Congress to repeal DADT and endorsed the Pentagon study on DADT released at the beginning of this month. The report included a comprehensive survey of military service personnel and their spouses on their views of gays and lesbians openly serving in the military and found that the repeal of DADT would pose low risk to military effectiveness. Seventy percent of those surveyed stated they thought repeal would have a positive, mixed, or no effect. In May, the Defense Spending bill passed in the House but was filibustered in the Senate. DADT was instituted by former President Bill Clinton in 1993 and prohibits the military from inquiring about a service member’s sexual orientation, and also calls for the discharge of anyone who acknowledges being lesbian or gay.

The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM) passed in the House by a vote of 216-198 late yesterday. The Senate is expected to vote on the act today. The DREAM Act, introduced by Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) in 2001, would give eligible immigrants conditional permanent resident status and the opportunity to attend college or join the military. Those eligible must be between the ages of 18 and 34, have entered the United States prior to age 16, have obtained a high school diploma, and must attend college for at least two years or joined the military. Dolores Huerta, co-founder of United Farm Workers, stated “70 percent of the American public supports the DREAM Act. We want Congress to do the will of the American people and pass the DREAM Act.” The DREAM Act is particularly important for undocumented women and their children, whose median income is $16, 562 lower than US citizens. Without access to legal immigration status, undocumented women are increasing vulnerable to a vicious cycle of poverty. Leslye Orloff, Legal Momentum’s Vice President and Director of the Immigrant Women Program, stated, “The DREAM Act will greatly improve the lives of immigrant women and their children and particularly immigrant girls, enhancing their safety, well0being and economic capacity.”

The Senate cancelled the vote scheduled on the Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM) Act today, raising possibility that it will not be voted on this year.

A study conducted by Yale University and released by the American Academy of Pediatrics on Monday found that lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) students are 40 percent more likely to be punished by schools, police, and the justice system than heterosexual students. Notably, its findings indicate that lesbian and bisexual girls are two to three times more likely to face unequal punishment than heterosexual girls. The report studied over 15,000 heterosexual and nonheterosexual students from grades 7 to 12 between 1994 and 1995 and then again in 2001 and 2002. The study found substantially higher rates of school expulsions, juvenile arrests and convictions, police stops, and adult convictions for nonheterosexual students, as compared to punishments faced for similar misconduct by their heterosexual peers. The study also found that the disparity in punishment is not a result of higher rates of misbehavior among nonheterosexual youth. Violent behavior was actually less prevalent among nonheterosexual students than heterosexual students. “Our numbers suggest that school officials, police and judges, who should be protecting LGB youth, are instead singling them out for punishment based on their sexual orientation. LGB teens can’t thrive if adults single them out for punishment because of their sexual orientation,” commented the study’s lead author Kathryn Himmelstein in a statement.

In a meeting last night, House Democrats criticized President Obama’s tax proposal. Both House and Senate Democrats have voiced frustration at the extension of Bush-era tax for an additional two years, which would add $900 billion to the deficit. Many Democrats also expressed concern about the estate tax exemption for inheritances of up to $5 million. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) clarified in her statement, “The Republican demands would provide tax cuts to the millionaires and billionaires, fail to create jobs and increase the deficit. And to add insult to injury, the Republican estate tax proposal would help only 39,000 of America’s richest families, while adding about $25 billion more to the deficit.”

This week, Congress is expected to take up the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM) of 2009.The DREAM Act, introduced by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) in 2001, would give eligible immigrants conditional permanent resident status and the opportunity to attend college or join the military. Those eligible must be between the ages of 18 and 34, have entered the United States prior to age 16, have obtained a high school diploma, and must attend college for at least two years or joined the military. Dolores Huerta, co-founder of United Farm Workers, stated “70 percent of the American public supports the DREAM Act. We want Congress to do the will of the American people and pass the DREAM Act.” Huerta is currently in Arizona with student supporters who have been fasting for seven days in front of Senator John McCain’s office. The DREAM Act is particularly important for undocumented women and their children, whose median income is $16, 562 lower than US citizens. Without access to legal immigration status, undocumented women are increasing vulnerable to a vicious cycle of poverty. Leslye Orloff, Legal Momentum’s Vice President and Director of the Immigrant Women Program, stated, “The DREAM Act will greatly improve the lives of immigrant women and their children and particularly immigrant girls, enhancing their safety, well0being and economic capacity.”

On Monday, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear Wal-Mart’s appeal of an April decision by the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals allowing the lawsuit to receive class-action status. Plaintiffs in the case allege that Wal-Mart systematically discriminated through lower wages and fewer promotions for women employees. The Supreme Court will not rule on whether Wal-Mart discriminated against its employees, but rather whether the 500,000 to 1.5 million women who work or have worked for Wal-Mart can sue the retailer together as a single class. Wal-Mart claims that the female employees should not be considered a class because the company does not have a company-wide discrimination policy and each outlet store acts as an independent business. The case could set a precedent for what constitutes a class. Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority Foundation clarified, “The outcome of the case will impact all women employees and their ability to take sex discrimination in employment lawsuits.” The initial lawsuit was filed in 2001 by Betty Dukes, a former Wal-Mart employee, and six other plaintiffs who worked in 13 of the chain’s 3,400 US stores. Since the lawsuit received class-action status, the women are seeking what could be billions of dollars in punitive damages and back pay for gendered wage discrepancies for all female employees of Wal-Mart since 1998.

A three-judge panel of the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear an appeal today in the ongoing Proposition 8 legal battle. The appeal challenges District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s August 2010 ruling that California’s Proposition 8 violates the federal constitutional rights of lesbians and gays. Walker’s decision overturned a 6 to 1 ruling by the California Supreme Court which upheld the measure in May 2009. Walker’s ruling is being challenged by groups such as ProtectMarriage, the Alliance Defense Fund, and officials from California’s Imperial County. The original defendants in the case, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown, have declined to appeal Walker’s decision and expressed support for his ruling. Because the case is not being appealed by its original defendants, the panel will first determine whether those challenging the law are directly harmed by Walker’s decision and have legal standing to challenge the ruling. If the judges find that the challenging groups have standing, the court will then rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Brian Raum, Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel, clarified, “What’s at stake in this case is bigger than California and bigger even than marriage. Americans are concerned about how marriage, voter rights, religious liberty, and other issues will be affected if this lawsuit is allowed to prevail.” Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, was passed by voters in an electoral referendum in 2008.

Anti-choice organizations staged a demonstration and press conference at the Reproductive Health Services clinic in Germantown, Maryland, where prominent abortion provider Dr. LeRoy Carhart began practicing today. Protestors included the Christian Defense Coalition, Family Research Council, Operation Rescue, Concerned Women for America, Students for Life, and the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. Montgomery County police and US Federal Marshals were also present. Pro-choice supporters carried signs and silently showed their support for the clinic throughout the demonstration. Pro-choice organizations such as the Feminist Majority Foundation, Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force, and Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice were in attendance. After the press conference, Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition led the protestors in a march down the block and stated that anti-choice protestors would return to the clinic every day Carhart is practicing. Protestors indicated their intent to pursue anti-abortion legislation to shut down the clinic and restrict abortion in the state. They also stated that they hope to open a crisis pregnancy center (CPC) in the same strip mall complex. Operation Rescue launched targeted demonstrations and so-called “street counseling” at Dr. Carhart’s Bellevue, Nebraska clinic in August 2009. Carhart, who will provide specialized care in late-term abortion cases at the Maryland clinic, announced plans to open three new comprehensive reproductive health clinics in Maryland, Iowa, and Indiana. Though he originally practiced in Nebraska, he has cited current Nebraska law, which prohibits abortions after 20 weeks gestation, as the reason he must travel beyond his home state to provide this specialized care.

The bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform voted this morning on a plan to reduce the federal deficit by $828 billion or cutting it in half by the year 2015. Eleven of 18 members or 61 percent voted yes on the plan, which fell short of the 14 votes required for the proposal to be definitely voted on by the House and Senate. Voting for the plan were three Democrats. Most surprisingly was progressive Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). Durbin said he was opposed to many elements of the plan and would not vote as is for final passage. But he thought, “politicians on the left and right have to acknowledge the deficit crisis our nation faces,” so he wanted to process to proceed, “to begin the debate.” The plan, introduced by commission co-chairs Alan Simpson (R-WY) and Erksine Bowles (D-NC), would disproportionately cut programs whose recipients are primarily women, such as Social Security and Medicare, while it cuts corporate taxes. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) voted no on the proposal and criticized it for its “alarming redistribution of wealth that is shrinking the middle class.” She also presented her plan that would reduce the deficit without hurting the middle class or the vulnerable. Women’s rights groups, including the National Organization for Women, OWL the Voice of Midlife and Older Women, and the Feminist Majority expressed their outrage when the initial proposal was introduced in mid November. The plan was moderated because of such criticism. For example, the plan would raise the age of eligibility for collecting social security – but now includes hardship waivers, proposed by commission member Senator Durbin, for seniors whose jobs require physical labor. The waivers, it is estimated, would affect some 20 percent of seniors.