Migration Category: news-10001-15000-national

The Ohio Ballot Board approved the language purposed by anti-abortion rights groups for a personhood amendment, which proposes to give constitutional rights to a fertilized egg. The petitioners must now collect 385,245 signatures from 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties in order for the initiative to appear on the state’s November ballot. If the personhood initiative appears on the ballot, emergency contraception, birth control pills, IUDs, and abortions – even in cases of rape and incest or to save the life of the woman or girl – would be threatened. The initiative would even go so far as to eliminate medical choices for women, including some cancer treatments, in vitro fertilization, and could allow the state to investigate and even prosecute a woman for a miscarriage. In November, Mississippi voters defeated the Personhood Amendment by a vote of 58% to 42% with 96 percent of precincts reporting. Anti-abortion and anti-birth control extremists have indicated that they intend to put a similar measure on five state ballots in 2012.

District Judge James Wilson Jr. ruled that a fetal personhood ballot initiative in Nevada, which proposes to give constitutional rights to a fertilized egg, is misleading and fails to provide an explanation of its effects on voters, as required by Nevada law. Judge Wilson ruled that the Nevada Prolife Coalition, which filed the initiative, must indicate on the ballot initiative that it “will impact some rights Nevada women currently have to utilize some forms of birth control, including the ‘pill’; and to access certain fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization. The initiative will affect embryonic stem cell research, which offers potential for treating diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, and others.” In order for the initiative to appear on the Nevada ballot next year, the Nevada Prolife Coalition must collect 72,352 signatures by June. Elisa Cafferata, president and CEO of Nevada Advocates for Planned Parenthood Affiliates, stated, “Nevadans deserve to know that this initiative seeks to outlaw women’s health services like abortion, the birth control pill and treatment for complicated pregnancies, just to name a few. Nearly 20 years ago Nevada voters affirmed the tenets of Roe vs. Wade and a women’s right to privacy. Nevadans do not support interfering in women’s personal and private decision making.” In November, Mississippi voters defeated the Personhood Amendment by a vote of 58% to 42% with 96 percent of precincts reporting. Anti-abortion and anti-birth control extremists have indicated that they intend to put a similar measure on six state ballots in 2012. So far, reproductive rights supporters have defeated anti-choice state ballot measures in South Dakota, Colorado, and California in 2006 and 2008; in Colorado in 2010, and now Mississippi in 2011.

Governor Scott Walker’s administration recently announced that it will no longer contract with Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin (PPWI) as a part of the Wisconsin Well Woman Program. Under the Well Woman Program, in which PPWI has served as a state contractor for the past 16 years, women without insurance between the ages of 45 and 64 can get referrals for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and multiple sclerosis screenings at no cost.

PPWI indicated that this will effect over 1,000 women seeking cancer care from the organization. Teri Huyuck, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, stated, “The politics behind Governor Walker’s plan to end Planned Parenthood’s service to the Wisconsin Well Woman Program, both in care coordination and direct provision of cancer screenings and referral is becoming clearer. We urge Governor Walker and Secretary Smith to hear the voices of our patients and our community partners, asking them to put women’s health above their personal politics and maintain Planned Parenthood’s role in providing access to life-saving cancer screenings.”

The change is expected to go into effect in January 2012.

According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute’s Rachel Jones and Lawrence Finer entitled, “Who Has Second-Trimester Abortions in the United States?,” women with lower educational attainment, teenagers, women who have “experienced multiple disruptive events in the last year,” and African American women are more likely to have second trimester abortions-at 13 weeks gestation or later. This is the first comprehensive study of second-trimester abortion patients in the United States.

The researchers recommend that “removing the many existing barriers to early abortion services could reduce the number of second-trimester abortions, particularly among black women and those with less education. For women needing second-trimester procedures, having health insurance or other financial resources to pay for abortion services is especially important…Growing restrictions on public and private insurance coverage for abortion may paradoxically increase the need for second-trimester abortion by further delaying women’s access to services early in pregnancy, while also reducing access to second-trimester abortion services for poor and low-income women who need them.”

The study indicates that 90 percent of women who get an abortion do so during the first trimester and is based on a sample of over 9,400 women.

(correction from original story) FBI Director Rober Mueller told a Senate panel Wednesday that the FBI National Crime Information Center Advisory Board recommended to update the current Uniform Crime Report definition of rape that many say is too narrow. He also said his “expectation is it will go into effect sometime this spring.” Currently, the FBI defines rape as “the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”

“This is a very positive development,” says Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation. “I’m excited to hear that the next steps are being taken toward a new definition, and I’m looking forward to hearing the details. We believe that updating and broadening this archaic definition to count the vast majority of rapes will result in more resources to curb what has been an intolerable level of violence, especially against women.” The new definition, adopted by various committees of the FBI, no longer includes the requirement that the victim must be a woman and takes out the the word “forcible.” The new definition says that “rape is penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Following a massive grassroots feminist activism campaign, Senate hearings, and many meetings with various levels of the FBI, as well as over 160,000 emails to the Department of Justice and FBI, the FBI’s Criminal Justice Advisory Policy Board voted to recommend that the FBI update its 82-year-old definition.

The “Rape is Rape” campaign, launched by the Feminist Majority Foundation and Ms. magazine, went viral on the petition website Change.org, generating tens of thousands emails to the FBI and the Department of Justice urging this change. The update to the definition comes after years of urging by feminist organizations, spearheaded for more than a decade by the Pennsylvania-based Women’s Law Project. “Ultimately, accurate data is a fundamental starting point to improving police response to sex crimes and improved practice should led to increased victim confidence in police and reporting,” said Carol E. Tracy, Executive Director of the Women’s Law Project.

On Wednesday, Ohio Senate President Tom Niehaus (R-OH) announced that he will suspend hearings on the “heartbeat bill” due to the confusion created by the 20 amendments to the bill submitted by its supporters. He stated, “These eleventh hour revisions only serve to create more uncertainty about a very contentious issue. We’ve now heard hours of testimony that indicate a sharp disagreement within the pro-life community over the direction of this bill, and I believe our members need additional time to weigh the arguments.”

The bill has already passed the Ohio House and would ban abortions as early as 6 weeks following conception, before many women are even aware they are pregnant, and includes no exceptions for rape or incest. If passed by the Republican controlled-state Senate and signed by the Governor, the law would directly challenge the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which allows women to obtain abortion services until fetal viability at 22-24 weeks . Gary Doughtery, legislative director for Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Ohio, stated, “Ohio senators should take notice: Women are watching this waste of time and money that is making a bad situation worse for Ohio women and families.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Ohio has indicated that it will sue if the bill becomes law.

A survey released yesterday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 1 in 4 women in the United States, or 24 per minute, experienced intimate partner violence by either a husband or boyfriend. Moreover, 1 in 5 women stated that they were victims of rape and 1 in 6 of stalking.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius stated, “This landmark report paints a clear picture of the devastating impact these violent acts have on the lives of millions of Americans. The information collected in this ongoing survey will serve as a vital tool in the Administration′s efforts to combat domestic violence and sexual abuse.”

The survey also found that “as many as 29 million women say they have suffered severe and frightening physical violence from a boyfriend, spouse or other intimate partner. That includes being choked, beaten stabbed, shot, punched, and slammed against something or hurt by hair-pulling.” The rates of intimate partner violence were highest in Alaska, Oregon, and Nevada, while Virginia and Tennessee had the lowest rates. The information in the survey was gathered from a national phone survey of 16,507 U.S. adults.

Yesterday US District Judge Edward Korman ruled that he would allow the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) to refile a case against the FDA for “imposing unnecessary age restrictions on emergency contraceptives, and seek immediate relief to allow broader access to available drugs.” Judge Korman will also permit CRR to add Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius as a defendant after she overruled the FDA’s decision to lift the age limit for emergency contraception and permit the over-the-counter sale of the Plan B One-Step last week and instructed the FDA Commissioner to deny the request for over-the-counter sales with a prescription for Plan B One-Step.

Nancy Northup, president and CEO of CRR, stated, “We intend to take every legal step necessary to hold the FDA and this administration accountable for its extraordinary actions to block women from safe, effective emergency contraception. It has been ten years of battling to bring emergency contraception out from behind the pharmacy counter. The FDA cannot simply continue moving the goal posts down the field for women’s reproductive healthcare.”

Judge Korman nevertheless denied the Center for Reproductive Right’s (CRR) request to hold the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in contempt of court for delaying a decision on nonprescription drug sales for Plan B. He indicated that the request was “moot” given the FDA recently issued its decision regarding Plan B.

Currently Plan B is available to women 17 years and older without a prescription. But because of the restriction that females under 17 must have a prescription to buy Plan B, it is only available for all women behind the counter of a pharmacy. Levonorgestrel, sold under the brand name Plan B, is a form of emergency contraception that must be taken within 72 hours of sexual activity.

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case, Arizona v. United States, concerning whether Arizona can impose its own stringent immigration law, given that immigration enforcement is typically under the purview of the federal government.Arizona’s SB 1070 mandates that police investigate and detain anyone believed to be undocumented and make arrests without warrants if they believe that the person has committed a crime that would make them deportable. After Arizona passed the law last year, the Obama Administration filed a lawsuit to block four provisions of the law.

In October, US District Court Judge Susan Bolton dismissed Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s (R) lawsuit against the federal government charging it with inadequate enforcement of immigration laws. Judge Bolton indicated that the state cannot sue the federal government over immigration enforcement because immigration law is the jurisdiction of Congress, not the courts. She stated, “It is well-settled that federal response to insurrection and rebellion in the states is appropriately determined by the political branches.”

In July, Judge Bolton ruled against multiple sections of the Arizona law, including a requirement that police check the immigration status of criminal suspects that they had stopped while enforcing other laws and a provision that would make it a crime not to carry immigration papers. She also ruled against a section that would make it a crime for undocumented workers to seek a job.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the case likely because she was working as Solicitor General in 2010 at the time the US decided to sue the state of Arizona.

A report published by Human Rights Watch, entitled “‘We’ll Show You You’re a Women’: Violence and Discrimination Against Black Lesbians and Transgender Men,” revealed a high rate of discrimination against black lesbians and transgender men in South Africa. The report includes data from over 120 interviews performed in six provinces of South Africa. Many of those interviewed indicated that they were reluctant to report cases of sexual or physical violence to the police for fear of harm or harassment.

Dipika Nath, a researcher on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights at Human Rights Watch, stated, “Legal rights are important and can be empowering, but they are meaningless in the face of the abuse, intimidation, and violence that people with unconventional gender and sexual expression face on a daily basis. The government’s job does not end with passing rights-protecting legislation but also lies in ensuring that the laws translate into substantive rights for everyone, including the most marginalized groups and individuals.”

The report recommended that the South African police document incidents of homophobic and transphobic violence; that the national prosecuting authority “ensure that all cases of sexual and physical violence against women and transgender people come to trial in a timely manner;” and that the Department of Education “establish monitoring systems to ensure effective implementation of non-discrimination policies, such as a toll free help line for students to report discrimination and verbal, physical, and sexual abuse by teachers and other school authorities.”

Homosexuality is illegal in most African countries with the exception of South Africa, which recognizes gay marriage, but even there, anti-gay practices such as “corrective rapes” of lesbians, are commonplace.

Beyond Birth Control: The Overlooked Benefits of Oral Contraceptive Pills, a study conducted by Rachel Jones of the Guttmacher Institute, revealed that 14 percent of birth control pill users in the United States, or approximately 1.5 million women, take the pill exclusively for purposes other than preventing pregnancy. Moreover, 58 percent of birth control pill users take the pill, “at least in part,” for purposes other than contraception.

Rachel Jones, the study’s author, stated, “It is well established that oral contraceptives are essential health care because they prevent unintended pregnancies. This study shows that there are other important health reasons why oral contraceptives should be readily available to the millions of women who rely on them each year.”

The study found that thirty-one percent of women on the pill used it to ease menstrual pain, 28 percent for menstrual regulation, and 14 percent for reducing acne. According to the study, “762,000 women who have never had sex use the pill, and they do so almost exclusively (99%) for noncontraceptive reasons.”

Senate leadership indicated yesterday that they will not permit a vote on an amendment to the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act introduced by Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), which would remove the military’s ban on health coverage for abortions in instances of rape or incest.

Senator Shaheen stated, “This policy is fundamentally unfair to the more than 200,000 women serving in our military. They are fighting to protect our rights, and they should have the same rights to reproductive health care as our civilian employees.”

Currently, Department of Defense policy does not permit military health insurance to cover abortions, even in cases of rape. It also prohibits military women from using their private money to obtain abortion services in US military facilities. According to a 2003 study by the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, at least one-third of all women veterans have experienced rape or sexual assault during their service, primarily from US service personnel, and thirty percent of military women experience domestic violence. Moreover, rape occurs in the military nearly twice as often as in the civilian world.

Ohio Senate President Tom Niehaus (R) announced that the Senate Republicans plan to advance a “heartbeat bill” that has already passed the House. If passed by the Senate and signed by the Governor, the law would ban abortions after the fetal heartbeat is detected. This could occur as early as 6 weeks following conception before many women are even aware they are pregnant. The bill, which passed the Ohio House in June by a vote of 54-44 has no exceptions for rape or incest.

Currently Republicans hold the majority in the Ohio Senate. If passed, the law would directly challenge the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which allows women to obtain abortion services until fetal viability at 22-24 weeks and would be one of the most restrictive laws on abortion in the country.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge James Fox issued an injunction temporarily blocking North Carolina from issuing anti-abortion license plates, as the new state law that allows for the production of the plates is being challenged. The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina (ACLU-NCLF) filed a lawsuit in September, arguing that the production of the plates is “unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination” and in direct violation of the First Amendment.

According to the ACLU, the North Carolina General Assembly passed a bill approving production of “Choose Life” license plates but would not pass any of the six proposed amendments to create a plate supporting abortion rights, such as the “Trust Women. Respect Choice” or the “Respect Choice” plates.

Katherine Lewis Parker, Legal Director of the ACLU-NCLF, stated , “This case is ultimately about free speech and equal treatment for all North Carolinians, regardless of their point of view on abortion. The state should not be allowed to use its authority to promote one side of a debate while denying the same opportunity to the other side.”

Morocco’s parliamentary election, to be held on November 25, will determine if new provisions, which would greatly benefit women, will be adopted in the nation’s constitution.The provisions promote women’s economic, social, and cultural rights, according to Women’s eNews. Zahra Chagaf, a Moroccan politician, stated, “Thanks to the new constitution, all of women’s rights are based on the principles of equality. Before it was just equality between husband and wife, but now it is principled at all levels of society. We will work until the constitution is completely respected.”

The constitutional reform also includes measures to address domestic violence. Morocco’s High commission for Planning found in its 2011 national study that approximately 63 percent of women between the ages of 18 and 64 had experienced violence in the previous year, and for 55 percent of those women, the violence was committed by their husbands.

Fatima Sadiqi, a lecturer at the University of Fes in Morocco and Harvard University, remarked, “People are tired of promises. They want to see things happening on the ground. In order to apply them you need the infrastructure, schools in rural areas. That’s not easy. There should be a serious thought about these issues, and this is the moment. Elections are close.”

On Thursday, California’s Supreme Court ruled that opponents of gay marriage are legally entitled to defend Proposition 8 in court, stating that Proposition 8 proponents have the legal authority to defend the measure. In September, the California Supreme Court heard arguments concerning whether ProtectMarriage, supporters of Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage in California, have standing to represent the state by defending the law in the pending case in the US Ninth Circuit Federal Appeals Court.

ProtectMarriage requested the standing to challenge Federal District Judge Vaughn’s 2010 ruling that Proposition 8 violates the federal constitutional rights of lesbians and gays because neither Governor Jerry Brown (D) nor Attorney General Kamala Harris will defend the law in the appeal. Judge Walker’s decision overturned a 6 to 1 ruling by the California Supreme Court which upheld the measure in May 2009. In 2008, Proposition 8 was passed by voters in an electoral referendum.

Gay rights activists were disappointed with the ruling, expressing fear about the larger implications of the court’s decision. “While not unexpected, this ruling means that it may be years before loving gay and lesbian couples will again be able to marry in California,” said Tom Watson, Board Chair for Love Honor Cherish, a gay rights group dedicated specifically to the repeal of Proposition 8.

The case is expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. More than 40 other U.S. states currently have measures similar to Proposition 8 that seek to outlaw same-sex marriage.

Nishimoto Trading Company, an Asian food importer based in Southern California, has agreed to pay $400,000 to 71 women in conciliation settlement with the US Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), which found the company had engaged in sex discrimination. OFCCP found that Tyson Fresh Meats violated Executive Order 11246 “by failing to meet its obligations as a federal contractor to ensure that qualified job applicants receive equal consideration for employment without regard to their sex, race, color, religion, or national origin.”

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis stated, “Those who do business with our government are expected to follow our laws. I am pleased the Department of Labor was able to work out a fair settlement with Nishimoto that will guarantee women the right to compete fairly for good jobs.”

The settlement money will cover back wages and interest for the employees, who were denied positions as sales associates at Nishimoto’s Santa Fe Springs, California facility. Nishimoto will also offer jobs to 14 women who were previously denied jobs.

Yesterday Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-CA) introduced legislation to strengthen protections for victims of sexual assault in the military. The bill would transfer “the reporting, oversight, investigation, and victim care of sexual assaults out of the hands of the normal chain of command and place jurisdiction in the hands of an autonomous Sexual Assault Oversight and Response Office.” The Office would be staffed by both civilian and military experts. Moreover, the bill calls for the creation of a sexual assault database, maintained by the Department of Defense (DoD) for the purpose of sharing information with the Department of Justice (DoJ) sex offender database, which contains the names of civilians.

Congresswoman Speier held a press conference today regarding the legislation. She stated, “Despite 25 years of Pentagon studies, task force recommendations and congressional hearings, sexual assaults and rape in the military continue unabated…The failure to respond in a judicial manner to sexual violence, is more than an injustice, it is, according to some of our highest ranked military leaders, a threat to our military readiness. Members of military unites live on, survive on the code of watching out for each other. When sexual assaults and rapes are hushed or ignored, trust in a unit is compromised with its collective readiness to engage the enemy.”

The Pentagon’s “Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military” indicated that approximately 3,000 women experienced sexual assault in fiscal year 2008, which is a 9 percent increase from the previous year. For women in the military in Iraq and Afghanistan, the rate of sexual assaults by US military personnel increased by 25 percent.

According to a 2003 study by the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, at least one-third of all women veterans have experienced rape or sexual assault during their service primarily from US service personnel, and thirty percent of military women experience domestic violence. Moreover, rape occurs in the military nearly twice as often as in the civilian world. Members of the US House of Representatives, including Jackie Speier (D-CA), Susan Davis (D-CA), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), and former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA) have pressed the military to address sexualized violence.

Leaders of the District of Columbia rejected a legislative deal with Congress this morning that would have given DC autonomy over the city budget in exchange for a permanent measure that would ban the District from using its own funds for abortion services. The District is currently restricted by a congressionally imposed ban on DC funding of abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the woman or girl.

Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC Mayor Vince Gray, and City Council Chair Kwame Brown released a joint statement rejecting the proposal. In part, they said, “Particularly considering the many good provisions in Chairman Issa’s bill, we regret that we cannot accept it, and would have to strongly oppose it if it were introduced. We recognize that the abortion provision is what Chairman Issa believed would be necessary to get the bill passed in the House. But the views of others should not prevail over the views of our own residents. Our opposition to the provision to permanently prohibit the District from spending its local funds on abortion services for low-income women is as strong as the views of those outside our city who support it… We hope the Issa proposal represents a continuation of a conversation he started at the hearing in May, not an end, and will serve as a model for how Congress can work collaboratively with the city.”

Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, released a draft of the bill earlier this week. In addition to granting budgetary autonomy, the bill would have also allowed the District to shift its fiscal year and to avoid District government shut downs caused by funding fights on the federal level. On Monday, Issa spokesperson Frederick Hill said that the bill’s “design reflects a desire to work with District leaders on legislation that can achieve passage in both the House and Senate,” according to the Washington Post.

Georgia State Senator Barry Loudermilk (R) and State Representative Rick Crawford (D) announced plans yesterday to introduce so-called “personhood” amendments to the Georgia State Constitution that would grant full individual rights to fertilized eggs in next year’s General Assembly session. The Georgia State House of Representatives has one so-called “personhood” amendment that was introduced in the current session, H.R. 212. This bill is sponsored by State Representative Paul Braun (R) and has 63 Republican co-sponsors. Crawford told the Atlanta Journal Constitution, “I’m from rural Georgia…I have to be well in step, and people have to trust me to represent their interests. It’s not a surprise to anyone that I’m pro-life.” The present language of H.R. 212 is close to that of Initiative 26, the so-called Personhood Amendment that was defeated by Mississippi voters last week 58% to 42% percent. Initiative 26, a state constitutional amendment, would have given full rights to fertilized eggs. Personhood amendments threaten emergency contraception, birth control pills, IUDs, and abortions – even in cases of rape and incest or to save the life of the woman or girl. Initiative 26 in Mississippi would have even gone so far as to eliminate medical choices for women, including some cancer treatments, in vitro fertilization, and could have allowed the state to investigate and even prosecute a woman for a miscarriage. The group that sponsored Initiative 26 in Mississippi, Personhood USA, has announced that they will attempt to place similar initiatives on the ballot in at least five states in 2012. Targeted states for 2012 include Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Nevada, and California. In 2014, the group plans to target Florida. Prior to Mississippi, voters have defeated anti-choice state ballot measures in South Dakota, Colorado, and California in 2006 and 2008; and Colorado in 2010.