Author: Feminist Majority Foundation Blog

On Thursday afternoon, the US House of Representatives passed a severely reduced version of The Farm Bill. This version of the bill eliminated the food stamp program and the supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP). The bill passed in a close vote of 216 to 208 along stark party lines.

In 2013, 48 million Americans, approximately 1 in 7, utilized the Food Stamp program. Between April of 2012 and April of 2013, 39 states and the District of Columbia saw an increase of SNAP beneficiaries, with Maryland, Illinois, and Wyoming recording SNAP caseload increases of 8% or higher.

The food stamp provision was originally added to the farm bill 50 years ago in an effort to bring partisan support to legislation for farm subsidies during an era when rural congressional members were decreasing in numbers. Since that time the amount of spending within the farm bill for SNAP benefits account for 80% of the bill.

The separation of the Food Stamps program from the Farm Bill was protested formally by a collection of 532 farming organizations that drafted a letter to House representatives stating their desire for the two pieces of legislation to remain together.

Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) stated that the House would try to draft a separate bill for the Food Stamp program. Earlier this year, both the House and Senate passed other versions of the Farm Bill with the SNAP program intact, but with significant reductions.

Yesterday, Duke University announced that the “preferred sanction” for attackers in cases of sexual assault will now be expulsion. The previous precedent for sexual assault was suspension for three to six semesters. However, this change does not mean that every student found guilty of sexual misconduct will be expelled because the University does not have any minimum sanction requirements.”

President of Duke Student Government Stefani Jones, who helped change the sanction policy, noted that “In the past, the average sanction for similar offenses has been three to four semesters” including summer “which was really insufficient, considering the severity of the violation,” and “What this does, though, is set the standard for the discussion so that expulsion is essentially the rule and suspension is the exception, rather than the other way around.”

This change comes less than a year after Duke agreed to eliminate the statute of limitations on sexual assault misconduct. Until October of 2012, there was a one-year statute of limitations on cases of sexual misconduct.

These changes are also part of a larger movement in higher education to change sexual assault policies to address growing concerns about rape culture on campuses in light of recent legal challenges to universities across the country. The Duke policy decision comes shortly after it was announced that University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill will be facing a third investigation into allegations of retaliating against sexual assault survivors.

On Tuesday, the Texas House of Representatives tentatively passed restrictive abortion bill HB2 in the second special session, two weeks after Senator Wendy Davis’ filibuster on SB5. With this vote of 98 to 42, the House approved HB2 which includes multiple abortion restrictions such as a ban on abortions after 20 weeks. The ban does not include exceptions for cases of rape or incest, as was proposed in an amendment by Representative Senfronia Thompson.

HB2 also imposes stricter safety regulations on clinics providing abortions, even if they only perform medication abortions. These restrictions would force the closure of all but five of Texas’ abortion clinics due to such requirements as admitting privileges for doctors providing abortions to a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic and regulations that force clinics to become ambulatory surgical centers. The new requirements are in addition to already-present Texan laws for abortion, including parental consent, a 24-hour waiting period, and a mandatory ultrasound that must be shown and described to the person seeking an abortion.

HB2 will come to a final House vote on Wednesday, and then move to the Senate if it passes. The bill has considerable support in the Senate and from Texas Governor Rick Perry.

On Friday, Governor Scott Walker (R) of Wisconsin signed into law a bill that would require all abortion providers to attain hospital admitting privileges. In addition, the law will now require women seeking an abortion to first receive an ultrasound before undergoing the procedure. The law is scheduled to take effect July 8.

The regulations for abortion clinics outlined in the law will decrease access to abortions, closing all clinics in Wisconsin north of Madison, and eliminating access to abortion after 19 weeks throughout the entire state.In addition, women seeking an abortion will be forced to “view an ultrasound” and have a physician or ultrasound technician describe the fetus and its stage of development in detail. For women who are early in a pregnancy, this could mean having to go through a “transvaginal ultrasound“to even view the fetus. There are no provisions in the bill about funding for the mandatory ultrasounds, creating an additional barrier for some women. Supporters of the bill argue that women can find clinics that offer free ultrasounds before their procedures. Many of these clinics are Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) which use medically inaccurate information and religious ideology to pressure women to carry their pregnancies to term.

In response to this newly passed legislation, Wisconsin clinics that currently offer abortion services have filed a lawsuit in federal court against all members of the Wisconsin Medical Examining Board. They are challenging the law as unconstitutional by arguing that doctors providing abortion services (which have been decried as legal medical procedures by the Supreme Court) will now lack the guarantee of due process within the state.

According to the Guttmacher Institute (http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_TRAP.pdf), Wisconsin is the 8th state to pass hospital admitting laws for abortion clinics. Guttmacher also found that in the first six months of 2013, state legislatures enacted 106 provisions related to reproductive health, 43 of which restricted access to abortion as many as were passed in all of 2012.

Sources: Guttmacher Institute 7/8/2013, 7/1/2013; Journal Sentinel 7/5/2013; Feminist Newswire 6/13/2013; Senate Bill 206

An investigative study conducted by NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia has found that Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) in Virginia purposefully use inaccurate medical information and emotional manipulation to dissuade women from receiving abortion care (see study). The study, which was conducted undercover over the course of a year, details the methods used by Virginia’s 58 CPCs to block women from receiving proper medical services, including a two-part sub-report that specifically outlines the medically-inaccurate information given to the pregnant women who receive “treatment” at any of the CPCs.

The study enlisted and trained volunteers who conducted the research both over the phone and with in-person visits. Volunteers learned of common strategies used by CPCs to attract pregnant women, including the use of mainstream review services [PDF] and websites that allowed the CPCs to masquerade as abortion providers. The CPCs avoided any mention of what services are or are not provided in the way of reproductive care on these mediums, and did the same when phoned. CPCs also purposefully establish themselves near university campuses and in urban centers [PDF]. Once a woman enters a center, the CPC volunteers take care to “outlin[e] conception in non-medical and emotional terms,” mislead women about the length of their pregnancies, and place strong emphasis on disproven facts about abortion, such as breast cancer and loss of fertility [PDF].

In addition, the report discusses how recent anti-choice legislation requiring any woman seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound 24 hours [PDF] before the procedure drives women to seek out care at CPCs which often advertise free ultrasounds and pregnancy tests. In a press release, Tarina Keene, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, said “No matter how a person feels about abortion, everyone can agree that women should never be misled when seeking information about pregnancy, birth control, abortion, or sexually transmitted infections. Yet not only is this happening in CPCs across the Commonwealth, but the Virginia Department of Health is actually endorsing this dangerous practice. These centers are a threat to women’s health and they must be treated as such “not legitimized by the highest medical institution in the Commonwealth.” NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia offers policy recommendations [PDF] in the study, such as requiring CPCs to obtain pre-certification by the Virginia Department of Health in order to confirm that only medically-accurate information is being given to patients.

For more information on actions you can take to expose CPCS, visit Feminist Campus’ Campaign to Expose Fake Clinics.

Yesterday the Ohio state legislature passed a $62 billion budget that includes multiple anti-abortion provisions that could all but eliminate abortion access in the state.

The budget strips $2 million in family planning funds from Planned Parenthood. The budget then redirects family planning funds toward deceptive crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). CPCs are often owned and operated by churches or anti-abortion groups that pose as legitimate health centers. CPCs are not required to provide medically accurate information and often convey religious beliefs in an attempt to convince women to carry their pregnancies to term. The Ohio budget also includes a provision that would deny federal funding to rape crisis centers who provide information on abortion to rape victims.

Another provision of the Ohio budget as passed by the Senate could potentially close multiple abortion clinics throughout the state. The provision prohibits abortion clinics from having transfer agreements with public hospitals in cases where a patient needs additional care. However, in order for ambulatory surgical centers to be licensed by the state, they are required to have such transfer agreements in place. If a clinic is unable to locate or receive an agreement with a private hospital they will be forced to shut down.

Republican legislatures also added an ultrasound amendment late in the debate yesterday requiring doctors to determine if there is a fetal heartbeat and inform the woman of the likelihood it will survive to full term. The language used in the amendment reflects language from an unsuccessful attempt to ban abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected.

The budget passed on mostly party lines in both the state House and Senate. In the House, seven Republicans joined the Democrats in voting against the bill, but it was passed in a 53 to 44 vote. In the Senate only one Republican joined the Democrats in the voting no. It was passed 21 to 11, with three lawmakers who did not vote.

The only person who can change the budget now is Governor John Kasich (R), who must sign the budget by 11:59pm on Sunday. Kasich has not said whether he will do a line item veto on any of the abortion provisions. “I think the Legislature has a right to stick things in budgets and put policy in budgets,” Kasich told reporters. “I’ll look at the language, keeping in mind that I’m pro-life.”

On Thursday, the United States Senate passed an overhaul to the immigration system with bipartisan support. The piece of legislation includes a pathway to citizenship, but also requires militarization of the US-Mexico border.

68 senators – 54 Democrats and 14 Republicans – voted to approve immigration reform based on the proposal of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” senators charged with overhauling the immigration system. A key victory for progressives is the inclusion of a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million people currently living in the United States without proper documentation. However, before that path can be made open to those 11 million people, five conditions must be met, including doubling the amount of agents at the US-Mexico border, adding an addition 750 miles of fencing, and establishing an E-verify system for determining a person’s visa status. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a member of the Gang of Eight and a staunch conservative, remarked “This border-security measure blows my mind. We’ve practically militarized the border.”

President Obama applauded the Senate’s bipartisan efforts, saying in a statement “Today, with a strong bipartisan vote, the United States Senate delivered for the American people, bringing us a critical step closer to fixing our broken immigration system once and for all… The bipartisan bill that passed today was a compromise. By definition, nobody got everything they wanted. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not me. But the Senate bill is consistent with the key principles for commonsense reform that I – and many others – have repeatedly laid out.” He continued, “Now is the time when opponents will try their hardest to pull this bipartisan effort apart so they can stop commonsense reform from becoming a reality. We cannot let that happen. If you’re among the clear majority of Americans who support reform – from CEOs to labor leaders, law enforcement to clergy – reach out to your Member of Congress. Tell them to do the right thing.” Graham also applauded the Senate’s efforts, saying “This is as good as it gets in the Senate.”

However, the bill appears dead on arrival in the House of Representatives. In a released statement prior to the debate, Speaker of the House John Boehner said, “Immigration reform must – I mean must – be grounded in real border security. That’s what the American people believe, and it’s a principle that this House majority will insist upon.” He elaborated with reporters, “I issued a statement that I thought was pretty clear, but apparently some haven’t gotten the message: the House is not going to take up and vote on whatever the Senate passes. We’re going to do our own bill.”

Earlier this week, the Department of Education (DOE) released new guidance on how to assist pregnant and parenting students in their academic career.

The guidelines, in the form of a Dear Colleague letter and accompanying pamphlet, details how schools should handle the needs of pregnant and parenting students in accordance with Title IX. In the pamphlet, the DOE clarifies that any school cannot require pregnant or parenting students to complete or any paperwork or courses that are not required of other students who take hospital leave. In addition, the pamphlet dictates that schools make reasonable accommodations to pregnant students such as larger desks and elevator use in the same capacity as accommodations made to other students with medical conditions. Though the pamphlet is aimed at secondary schools, the DOE states that the legal principles behind the guidelines also apply to higher education.

Lisa Maatz of American Association of University Women commented on the changes, “Pregnant and parenting students have always been protected under Title IX, but this guidance provides much-needed clarification and concrete steps schools must take to support these students… AAUW is pleased that the Department of Education has made it abundantly clear that schools may not deny mothers and fathers educational opportunities that are provided to other students.”