Author: Feminist Majority Foundation Blog

The fight against abortion has been heating up in the states since the 2010 elections. Prior to the midterm elections, 21 governors were considered anti-choice. Now 29 governors are against a woman’s right to an abortion and 15 states have both anti-abortion governors and legislatures, up from 10 last year. Several measures have been introduced this month alone that, if passed, would limit women’s access to sexual and reproductive health services.

In Kansas, Representative Lance Kinzer (R-Olathe) introduced the Abortion Reporting Accuracy and Parental Rights bill in the state’s House of Representatives requiring the consent of two parents for girls under 18 to obtain an abortion. Proponents say the two parent notification requirement would only apply in cases in which the nuclear family was intact and without abuse but experience shows that such consent laws are extremely harmful to young girls, especially victims of abuse. The change would alter current Kansas law, in which the minor needs the consent of only one parent to have an abortion.

Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) in Florida and state Senators Annette Dub (D) and Beau McCoy (R) in Nebraska proposed bills that would ban abortion coverage in insurance policies sold in state health insurance exchanges. The state exchanges are scheduled to begin operating in 2014. Representative McCoy’s bill, which was endorsed by Nebraska Right to Life, also proposes prohibiting private health plans from covering abortion services unless the women’s life is threatened.

Nancy Northrup, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights, stated, “At a time when politicians should be focusing the country’s energy on delivering jobs and improving the economy, anti-choice lawmakers are fixated on interfering with a woman’s personal, medical decisions.”

A high school in Lancaster, Pennsylvania has adopted a pilot program that separates students by race and gender in their homeroom classrooms. The McCaskey East High School’s pilot program has sparked much controversy regarding segregation in schools.

Angela Tilghman, an instructional coach at the school, developed the program with the hope of closing the racial achievement gap at the school. Approximately 33 percent of the African American students achieved a proficient or advanced score on the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA), as compared to the 60 percent of Caucasian students who scored proficient or advanced.

The Feminist Majority Foundation is currently working to rescind the 2006 Bush-era Title IX regulations that make it significantly easier to allow single-sex classrooms in public schools (pdf).

Although the number of women participants at the World Economic Forum, beginning on January 26 in Davos, Switzerland, has nearly doubled since 2001, women are still scarce at the event. This year, women made up only 16 percent of attendees, up from 9 percent in 2001. To increase women’s presence at the forum, organizers required that top 100 member companies send at least one woman as one of their five delegates this year.

Zainab Salbi, founder of Women for Women International and one of the World Economic Forum’s Young Leaders, stated, “I know many women who already talk about no longer coming to Davos. The forum was a great 20th century event, now it needs to prove that it is fit for the 21st.”

Approximately 2,500 world and business leaders and activists gathered to discuss global economics and politics at the World Economic Forum, an annual five-day event held in January.

The Pentagon is scheduled to release a plan today that will outline the changes that must be made in the military in order to implement the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT). The plan outlines changes to regulations on recruitment, training, housing, and the discharge of troops.

The Department of Defense (DOD) announced plans to hold separate trainings for senior administrative officials and personnel officers, commanders, and personnel. Although each branch of the military will hold separate trainings, the trainings would be nearly the same in content.

Under the plan, it will take about three months to train personnel and “full implementation of the law could begin later this summer,” according to the Washington Post. Once the training is complete, the President and his top military advisors must certify that repeal of DADT won’t hurt military readiness. Sixty days after this certification, the new law goes into effect. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told the New York Times that “I’m confident we can get it done this year, and we’re shooting to get it done sooner rather than later.”

The Pentagon also reiterated that the Defense Department could not recognize same-sex marriage because the federal government does not. “As a result,” according to the New York Times, “the implementation plan does not allow a same-sex spouse to live with a partner in military housing, although it holds out the possibility that exceptions could be made. The plan also says that same-sex spouses would not be eligible for the military health care benefits of their partners.”

Researchers from the National Center for Register-Based Research, in Denmark, released a study that found no evidence to support the claim that abortion predisposes women to psychological or mental health problems. The study, published by the New England Journal of Medicine, examined the health records of 85,000 women with no previous record of mental health problems who first trimester abortions.

The evidence revealed that the women who had an abortion were no more likely to seek mental health treatment than women who carried the pregnancy to term. However, 25 percent of new mothers experienced post-partum depression.

Robert Blum, former President of the Guttmacher Institute, clarified, “There is no post-abortion trauma, post-abortion syndrome, or anything of the like.”

Today the Virginia General Assembly is considering a bill introduced by Senator George Barker (D-Prince William County that would alter Virginia’s existing laws to make it easier for individuals in dating relationships to obtain protective orders. Under current Virginia law, an individual who does not reside with her/his abuser can only obtain a restraining order in cases of stalking or sexual and other offenses if a criminal warrant had been issued.

According to the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance, Virginia is the only state that requires criminal charges be filed against the abuser prior to the issuance of a protective order. Under Barker’s bill, individuals could seek a stalking order against anyone with whom they had been “involved in a substantive, intimate dating relationship” regardless of whether criminal charges had been filed if they could demonstrate that they had experienced violence or threats of violence.

Gena Boyle, an advocate at the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance, stated, “Every moment they wait to act on this, there are people who are at increased risk of homicide.”

Tens of thousands anti-abortion rights supporters gathered yesterday on the National Mall and marched to the Supreme Court for the annual March for Life to commemorate the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the US. Pro-abortion rights supporters, including activists from the Feminist Majority Foundation, the National Organization for Women (NOW), and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), also attended the event to peacefully show their support for sexual health and reproductive rights.

The March for Life was once again dominated by parochial school children, who were bussed into Washington DC from across the country. The Knights of Columbus, a fraternal organization of the Catholic Church, helped to organize the march. Prior to the march, thousands of youth and Roman Catholic priests and bishops gathered at the Verizon Center and the D.C. Armory for the Youth Rally and Mass for Life celebrated by Cardinal Donald Wuerl and hosted by the Archdiocese of Washington DC.

Approximately a dozen anti-abortion rights lawmakers also addressed the March for Life. Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ), the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus Co-Chair who recently introduced the No Tax-Payer Funding for Abortion bill (HR 3) spoke first and “vowed to press forward” on the bill. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) also delivered a speech in which he promised to institute a “permanent government-wide prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion.” Representative Cantor described the new Republicans in Congress as the “biggest and the most pro-life freshman class in memory.”

Last Friday, the Virginia House of Delegates voted 61-33 to overturn the 2007 Virginia law mandating that girls be vaccinated against the human papillomavirus (HPV) prior to entering the sixth grade. Currently in the US, only Virginia and Washington D.C. require that girls be vaccinated against HPV. It is unlikely that the bill will pass in Virginia’s Senate, which has a Democratic majority.

Virginia Delegate Christopher Stolle (R-VA), an obstetrician and gynecologist, asserted that if passed, the bill could result in the deaths of approximately 1,3000 women per year.

The Journal of the American Medical Association (AMA) reports that over one-third of American women are infected with the human papillomavirus (HPV) by the age of 24. While the majority of HPV strains are benign, some strains can cause cervical cancer and genital warts. About 2.2 percent of infected women have a strain that is high-risk for cervical cancer, the recent research finds. Gardasil, which prevents cervical cancer and genital warts caused by HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18, was approved by the FDA in June 2006.

Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Thompson v. North American Stainless that the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to any individual who has experienced retaliation, regardless of whether he/she personally filed the discrimination complaint. The Supreme Court’s decision overturns the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that retaliation claims could only be made by the individual who filed the initial discrimination claim.

In this case, Eric Thompson filed charges that he had been retaliated against after he was terminated by North American Stainless (NAS) three weeks after his fiance filed a sex discrimination complaint with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against NAS.

Jacqueline Berrien, Chair of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, stated “We are very pleased with the Supreme Court opinion issued today. The unanimous decision reaffirms the importance of preventing retaliation against those seeking to protect their civil rights.” Over the past year, EEOC reported that the majority of its claim were based on alleged retaliation, making it the first year in the 45 year history of the organization that the number of retaliation claims exceeded the number of racial discrimination charges.

Roman Catholic priests and anti-abortion rights advocates gathered this morning for a Mass at the Verizon Center in Washington DC before participating in the annual March for Life. Operation Rescue, based in Wichita, Kansas, is also holding a series of anti-abortion protests in Germantown, Maryland today against Dr. Lee Carhart, who works at the clinic there. The Feminist Majority Foundation and other pro-choice supporters carried signs and silently showed their support for the clinic throughout the demonstration.

Even as abortion rights advocates mark the 38th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, the Feminist Majority Foundation draws attention to the rising tide of anti-abortion violence in the US. In 2010, the Feminist Majority Foundation National Clinic Violence Survey report found that the number of clinics experience severe violence has increased to 23.5 percent compared to 20 percent in 2008 and 18.5 percent in 2005. Moreover, the types of violence shifted to more intensive harassment of selected doctors and clinic personnel and staff. For example, the incidence of stalking of personnel reported by clinics grew from 4 percent in 2008 to 6.2 percent in 2010.

Reflecting on these statistics, Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority Foundation, said, “It’s tragic on this 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade that we must work to protect doctors and health care workers from violence and harassment by anti-abortion extremists. Moreover, we are fighting not only to preserve access to a woman’s right to choose an abortion but also access to birth control. A prominent Republican leader, Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) recently introduced legislation in the House that would deny family planning funding to any reproductive health facility that provides abortion services.”

Under the current Public Services Act, Title X money is allocated to grantees to fund family planning services and preventive health services and may not be used on abortion services.

Late last week the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced its proposed housing regulations that would protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people from discrimination. At this time, federal protections against housing discrimination do not cover gender identity and sexual orientation. A 60 day public comment period is required before the changes can be implemented.

If adopted, the proposal would prevent owners and landlords in HUD assisted or HUD insured housing from inquiring about applicants’ sexual orientation or gender identity. The proposed rules would also prohibit mortgage lenders insured by HUD from discriminating on the basis of gender orientation or sexual identity.

Rea Carey, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, asserted, “These are critically important reforms given that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people remain particularly vulnerable in seeking or retaining housing due to widespread bias, discrimination and a lack of housing protections. We’re talking about one of the most fundamental needs a person can have: shelter.”

Kansas Representative Lance Kinzer (R-KS) introduced the Abortion Reporting Accuracy and Parental Rights bill in the state’s House of Representatives last week requiring the consent of two parents for girls under 18 to obtain an abortion. Proponents say the two parent notification requirement would only apply in cases in which the nuclear family was intact and without abuse but experience shows that such consent laws are extremely harmful to young girls, especially victims of abuse. The change would alter current Kansas law, in which the minor needs the consent of only one parent to have an abortion.

Sarah Gillooly, the Public Affairs Manager for Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, stated, “I think if the legislators were interested in reducing the number of abortions in the state of Kansas, they would stop mandating intrusion into the lives of Kansas families and start focusing on reducing the number of unintended pregnancies through affordable birth control and sex ed.”

Representative Kinzer introduced the bill following Governor Sam Brownback’s request for new abortion restrictions. In his State of the State message in mid January, Kinzer stated his goal to establish “a culture of life in Kansas.” These provisions in the bill had been passed by both chambers of the Kansas legislature over the past three years but were vetoed by then Democratic Governors Kathleen Sebelius and Mark Parkinson.

Reproductive Rights groups, including the Feminist Majority Foundation, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the National Abortion Rights League, will oppose the No Tax-Payer Funding for Abortion bill (HR 3), introduced yesterday by Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ), Congressional Pro-Life Caucus Co-Chair with the support of House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA). The No Tax-Payer Funding for Abortion Act would prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions and would ensure that healthcare reform law does not cover the cost of abortions.

Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO) stated that the Smith bill “would be the biggest intrusion on a woman’s right to choose in our lifetime. This is not the will of the American people.” Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, explained, “The Smith bill even goes as far as to take existing protections away from women whose lives are in danger from serious medical conditions.”

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) described the bill as “one of our highest legislative priorities.” During the 2010 campaign, Boehner made promises to be the most “pro-life speaker in history.” Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, countered, “The 2010 elections were about jobs and the economy. It was not an endorsement of an anti-choice agenda.”

Events have been scheduled around the country to commemorate the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. For those living near the nation’s capital, please join the Feminist Majority Foundation for several events in the next few days.

— National Organization for Women (NOW) Vigil at the Supreme Court Bring battery-operated candles (note: traditional candles are not allowed outside the Court)

S. Supreme Court Sidewalk, 1 First Street NE, Washington, D.C. 20543 Friday, January 21, 2011. 4-6 pm

–Join Feminist Majority Foundation to support the Germantown Clinic and help keep it open

Bring pro-choice signs and meet at Roy Rogers

Restaurant, 12907 Wisteria Drive, Germantown, MD

Monday, January 24, 2011. 8am

–Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) Vigil at the Supreme Court

1 First Street NE, Washington, D.C. 20543

Monday, January 24, 2011. 3:30pm

A coalition of pro-reproductive rights groups, including the National Organization for Women (NOW), NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland, Catholics for Choice and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, have joined to encourage the Maryland Health Care Commission to reject Holy Cross Hospital’s proposal to build a hospital in Montgomery County, Maryland. The coalition objected to the construction of a hospital with religiously sanctioned restrictions on publicly owned land.

The groups expressed concern that Catholic hospitals’ refusal to provide certain reproductive health cervices, such as tubal ligations, surgical sterilization, and abortions even in life-threatening situations, could restrict women’s and teens’ access to medically necessary services. Melissa Kleder, the Interim Director at NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland, stated, “Not all women know they can’t get these services at Catholic hospitals until it’s too late. In emergency situations, time is of the essence.”

Conflicts between hospitals and church authorities have been on the rise recently. Last May, a Catholic nun in Arizona was excommunicated following controversy after she approved an emergency abortion to save the life of a woman who developed pulmonary hypertension during her pregnancy. Sister Margaret McBride was a senior administrator at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix.

Yesterday the House voted 245 to 189 in favor of the Patients’ Rights Repeal Act that if it becomes law wills have particularly negative consequences for women. Three Democrats and 242 Republicans voted in support of the bill.

The bill is unlikely to come up for a vote in the Senate, however, which has a Democratic majority. The Feminist Majority Foundation and other women’s rights groups, including the National Partnership for Women and Families and Emily’s List, have expressed their outrage at the proposed repeal bill.

Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY) explained, “Health care reform was a major victory for women and any attempt to repeal or defund it is simply unfair to our daughters, our mothers, and our grandmothers. It took us decades to finally make it illegal for insurance companies to charge women 48 percent higher premiums just for being a woman and to stop the egregious practice of discrimination against domestic violence victims.”

Currently under the Affordable Care Act, Medicare recipients no longer have to share costs for preventive care including mammograms, cancer screenings, annual physicals and immunizations. Other provisions will begin to close the so-called “doughnut hole,” or gap between the initial coverage limit and the threshold for receiving catastrophic coverage. In 2010, young people were permitted to remain on their parents’ health insurance policies until age 26 unless they have other coverage.

Health and Human Services stated in a press release yesterday that nearly 130 million non-elderly Americans who have preexisting conditions could lose coverage if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office indicated that the Patients’ Rights Repeal Act would increase the deficit by $230 billion over the next ten years.

President Obama signed the final version of the Affordable Care Act in March. If the law is not repealed, it would eventually add coverage for 32 million people.

The House is scheduled to vote on the Patients’ Rights Repeal Act that if passed would have particularly negative consequences for women. The bill is unlikely to come up for a vote in the Senate, which has a Democratic majority. The Feminist Majority Foundation and other women’s rights groups, including the National Partnership for Women and Families and Emily’s List, have expressed their outrage at the proposed repeal bill.

Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY) explained, “Health care reform was a major victory for women and any attempt to repeal or defund it is simply unfair to our daughters, our mothers, and our grandmothers. It took us decades to finally make it illegal for insurance companies to charge women 48 percent higher premiums just for being a woman and to stop the egregious practice of discrimination against domestic violence victims.”

Currently under the Affordable Care Act, Medicare recipients no longer have to share costs for preventive care including mammograms, cancer screenings, annual physicals and immunizations. Other provisions will begin to close the so-called “doughnut hole,” or gap between the initial coverage limit and the threshold for receiving catastrophic coverage. In 2010, young people were permitted to remain on their parents’ health insurance policies until age 26 unless they have other coverage.

Health and Human Services stated in a press release yesterday that nearly 130 million non-elderly Americans who have preexisting conditions could lose coverage if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office indicated that the Patients’ Rights Repeal Act would increase the deficit by $230 billion over the next ten years.

President Obama signed the final version of the Affordable Care Act in March. If the law is not repealed, it would eventually add coverage for 32 million people.

Yesterday the US Supreme Court declined to hear a case filed by Bishop Harry Jackson, the National Organization for Marriage, and the Alliance Defense Fund challenging the District of Columbia’s law allowing same-sex couples to marry. The groups filed the lawsuit after the DC Board of Elections and Ethics refused a ballot measure allowing residents of the District of Columbia to vote on same-sex marriage laws. The Board maintained that adding the initiative to the ballot would have violated the city’s Human Rights Act.

Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign stated, “Today’s action by the Supreme Court makes abundantly clear that D.C.’s human rights protections are strong enough to withstand the hateful efforts of outside anti-LGBT groups to put people’s basic civil rights on the ballot. For almost two years, the National Organization for Marriage and the Alliance Defense Fund, along with Bishop Harry Jackson, have fought a losing battle to shamelessly harm gay and lesbian couples in D.C. who seek nothing more than to share in the rights and responsibilities of marriage.”

In December 2009, the D.C. Council passed the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Act, which was signed into law on March 3, 2010 and granted marriage rights to same-sex couples in the District of Columbia. Currently, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington DC allow marriage of same-sex couples. Five states, California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington, allow same-sex couples to form civil unions or domestic partnerships, which carry many of the benefits of marriage.

Proposed regulations to the Credit Card Act, issued by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in November 2010 and may go into effect in 2011 have created a firestorm. Today Congresswomen Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), chief author of the Credit Card Act, and Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the principal proponent of the act’s provision affecting younger consumers, released a public statement calling upon the Federal Reserve to revise its regulations.

The proposed “ability to pay” regulations would require that credit card companies “consider information regarding the consumer’s independent income, rather than his or her household income” before the company allows the consumer to open a new credit card or increase their credit limit.

Although the restrictions were intended to prohibit consumers under 21 from reporting their parents’ income to apply for credit cards, the rules are particularly harmful to women. Women, who on the average earn less than men, would be disadvantaged in applying for a credit card in their name. Moreover, the rules could affect spouses who are not employed (i.e. mostly wives with small children) from getting a credit card in their name.

Congresswomen Maloney and Slaughter wrote the Board of Governors protesting the proposal, which they said “goes beyond the intent behind both the specific provisions and the law itself.” Representative Maloney said in a press release today, “The intent of Congress was to curb abusive practices to young people, not make it harder for stay-at-home parents or other over-21 consumers to obtain a card. That’s why we’re asking the Fed to revise their approach.”

Representative Slaughter clarified, “While I was proud that my amendment to protect young adults was included in the legislation, we should remember that it was necessary because college students were targeted by credit card companies and too often falling into crippling debt. That provision should not be extended in a way that harms-stay-at-home mothers.”

“The proposed regulations set women back to 1975. The proposed regulations would make it much more difficult for women to get credit, especially married women who work in the home,” Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority Foundation, explained. “Once again care givers would be punished economically by a so-called neutral government regulation. There are other ways of issuing regulations that could deal with credit seekers less than 21 years of age.”

The new proposed restrictions would reduce the economic power of women and are particularly harmful for women in abusive partnerships. The Congresswomen asserted in the press release, “Women trapped in abusive marriages may be unable to work due to a controlling spouse, the hallmark of relationship characterized by domestic violence. The availability of an independent credit card may represent her best chance at establishing independence and a path out of a dangerous relationship. By not allowing these women to apply independently for a credit card, the proposed regulations represent a significant – and potentially dangerous – set-back.”