Author: Feminist Majority Foundation Blog

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.

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris claimed her victory on Tuesday in the November 2 race for California State Attorney General. She is not only the first woman to be elected to this position in California, but also the first Indian American and African American. Harris defeated her opponent, Republican Steve Cooley, by a narrow margin, one percentage point, in what was considered an important win for environmentalists, health care reform advocates, same-sex marriage proponents, and medical marijuana supporters. Harris will be sworn in on January 3, 2011. Her victory is a win for feminists. Raised by a staunch feminist mother, as district attorney, Harris co-sponsored a law making human trafficking illegal in California and fought to strengthen services for victims of domestic violence. Her tough stance on enforcing California’s environmental regulations have made her popular with environmentalists, as well. Katherine Spillar, Feminist Majority Foundation Executive Vice President clarified, “Feminists have a long track record of working with Kamala. She is a courageous, committed, hard-fighting feminist, who I believe will make history.” She has also been a long-time defender of marriage equality and declared in her acceptance speech that she “will not defend Prop 8,” the law banning same-sex marriage in California. The current Attorney General, Jerry Brown (D), now the governor-elect, also took the position that he refused to defend Proposition 8 in court. Geoff Kors, Director of Equality California, stated, “Harris has long championed full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Californians, and we are extremely fortunate to have a true friend in the attorney general’s office working to make California a state where everyone is treated equally under the law.”

Yesterday, the Illinois Senate passed the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act. The bill allows same-sex couples to enter into civil unions and attain some of the same benefits enjoyed by married couples, such as the right to visit a partner in the hospital and the right to make decisions about the partner’s medical care. Sponsored by Representative Greg Harris (D-13), the bill passed by a vote of 32-24 in the Senate and has already passed in the House. The bill does not, however, allow for same-sex marriages in Illinois. Joe Solomonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign, stated “HRC applauds the Illinois Senate for recognizing that our families need the security of legal recognition now by swiftly passing a civil unions bill.” Currently, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington DC give marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. Five states, California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington, allow same-sex couples to form civil unions or domestic partnerships.

US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen released the Pentagon study on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) yesterday. The study, which included a comprehensive survey of military service personnel and their spouses on their views of gays and lesbians openly serving in the military, found that the repeal of DADT would pose low risk to military effectiveness. Nevertheless, Republicans have announced plans to block DADT and the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM) until the Senate votes on bills to extend the Bush tax cuts. Seventy percent of those surveyed stated they thought would have a positive, mixed, or no effect. Combat troops expressed the most opposition to the repeal, with 40 percent who thought the repeal of DADT would have negative consequences. Moreover, 46 percent of Marines were against the repeal. Both Gates and Mullen endorsed the report and urged Congress to repeal DADT. In mid November, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced his plan to bring the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes an amendment that repeals the so-called policy “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” to the Senate floor for a vote in December. In May, the Defense Spending Bill passed in the House but was filibustered in the Senate. The Bill contains an amendment by Representative Patrick Murphy (D-PA) that repeals “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” if the repeal is consistent with military readiness, effectiveness, and unit cohesiveness and the Department of Defense “has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to implement its repeal.” 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. Thus far, the policy has led to the expulsion of more than 13,000 troops.

Federal unemployment insurance benefits expired last night after Congress failed to pass an extension for the upcoming year, cutting over two million people off from benefits in December alone and a predicted seven million in the next 12 months. Moreover, if the unemployment insurance benefits are not extended, 750,000 women will lose their coverage in the upcoming month and an estimated two and a half million over the course of the next year. With five people looking for work to every one open job, federal unemployment benefits were a major source of family income to millions of unemployed Americans. Jason Furman, Deputy Director of the National Economic Council, described the unemployment benefits as “one of the most effective ways to stimulate the economy.” By giving money to lower income households who will in turn spend the money, he stated that the benefits will create jobs and drive the economy forward. The soon-to-be Speaker, Republican John Boehner of Ohio, has actively opposed extending jobless benefits unless the cost of benefits is offset by other spending cuts – although he supports extending billions of dollars of Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest among Americans, without any reduction in spending offset. But according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, increasing aid to the unemployed is at least four times more effective in stimulating the economy than extending the Bush tax cuts to wealthy Americans. Although current negotiations between Obama Administration officials and Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders are not public, news reports indicate that Republicans are insisting on extending tax breaks for wealthy individuals in exchange for extending unemployment benefits.