Feminist Newswire, Author at Feminist Majority Foundation

US-Africa Leaders Summit Closes With Funding Commitments and Focus on Women

Posted on August 7, 2014 by Feminist Newswire

After three days of unprecedented meetings between the US and leaders from nearly 50 African countries, the US Africa Leaders Summit ended Wednesday. In addition to public and private commitments of up to $33 billion for trade and investment, the United States called on leaders of the African continent to make a considerable investment in advancing the status of women and girls.

via Shutterstock

Before the summit kicked off, First Lady Michelle Obama addressed the Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders, part of the President’s Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI). There, she emphasized the need to address the status of women and girls across the African continent and commit to making girls’ education a priority. “We all know that the problem here isn’t only about resources, it’s also about attitudes and beliefs. It’s about whether fathers and mothers think their daughters are as worthy of an education as their sons. It’s about whether societies cling to outdated laws and traditions that oppress and exclude women, or whether they view women as full citizens entitled to fundamental rights,” she said.

Mrs. Obama acknowledged the advances made in decreasing maternal mortality, and increasing female legislative representation, but she explicitly condemned gender-based violence, including female genital mutilation (FGM), forced child marriage, human trafficking, rape, and domestic violence, calling the practices “serious human rights violations” not “legitimate cultural practices.”

“These practices have no place in our shared future, because we all know that our future lies in our people – in their talent, their ambition, their drive,” Mrs. Obama said. “And no country can ever truly flourish if it stifles the potential of its women and deprives itself of the contributions of half of its citizens.”

President Barack Obama echoed the same sentiment when he announced an infusion of $3.3 billion to support the first of four regional leadership centers being established across the continent to spur youth cultural and economic development. “If you’re a strong man, you should not feel threatened by a strong woman,” he told the group during a town hall. The leadership centers – which will launch first in Kenya in 2015, then expand to Ghana, Senegal, and South Africa – will provide leadership training and professional development opportunities to young Africans who aspire to leadership roles across the continent, most of whose population is under the age of 35 and predominantly female in many countries.

Wednesday, the last day of the official Summit, First Lady Michelle Obama and her predecessor, Laura Bush, turned the focus to the health needs of African women and girls. The two called on first ladies to maximize their role for the benefit of the continent’s females. Former President George W. Bush also addressed women’s health needs, announcing commitments of $2.2 million from drug maker GlaxoSmithKline and the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation to expand the Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon health partnership program on the continent.

Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon is a joint effort founded by the Bush Institute in Dallas, along with PEPFAR, Susan G. Komen, and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). The program works to reduce the rate of breast cancer and cervical cancer, the top cancer killer of women in sub-Saharan Africa.

The White House called this week’s summit the largest event any US President has held with African heads of state and government.

Media Resources: White House 8/5/14, 7/30/14; AllAfrica 7/29/14; Dallas Morning News 8/6/14

Study Finds Sexual Health Education Should Begin As Early As Age 10

Posted on August 7, 2014June 10, 2020 by Feminist Newswire

Children should begin receiving formal education about sexual health as early as age 10, according to a new study published in the journal Global Public Health.

via Shutterstock

The study’s researchers note that although sexual health programs typically focus on older adolescents, sexuality and gender identity begin emerging between the ages of 10 and 14. Programs should therefore be refocused to to help ensure that this age group has the opportunity to learn about sexual health, contraception, and healthy relationships well before they begin experimenting with sexual activity.

“As younger adolescents experience rapid transitions to unfamiliar experiences and face life-changing situations such as leaving school, having sex, becoming parents or acquiring HIV, parents, teachers and concerned others have a narrow window of opportunity to facilitate their healthy transition into later adolescence and adulthood,” the researchers write. “If programs, based on the healthy adolescent framework, rooted in human rights and gender equity, are implemented at a time when adolescents are still malleable and relatively free of sexual and reproductive health problems and gender role bias, very young adolescents can be guided safely through this life stage, supported by their parents, families and communities.”

These findings call into question the wisdom of sex education, even in the US, that starts well-after most teenagers have already become sexually active as well as abstinence-based programs. But, the study authors emphasize that formal sexual education is especially important in lower- and middle-income countries, where 90 percent of the world’s adolescents live.

The World Heath Organization reports that complications from pregnancy and childbirth is the second leading cause of death for adolescent girls, and each year, an estimated 529,000 women and girls die worldwide – some 70,000 from unsafe abortion – with millions more left maimed or injured. Ninety-nine percent of these pregnancy-related deaths occur in the developing world. While there are many other factors compounding this issue, including child marriage and lack of access to modern contraception, improved sexual health education for adolescents could help to prevent some of the thousands of maternal deaths worldwide, as well as the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Media Resources: Global Public Health Journal 7/18/14; ThinkProgress 8/5/14; Feminist Newswire 12/3/13, 5/9/14, 6/2/14; Feminist Majority Foundation

Florida Lawmakers Hold Special Session to Redraw Gerrymandered Maps

Posted on August 7, 2014June 10, 2020 by Feminist Newswire

Florida lawmakers are in Tallahassee today for a special nine-day session to redraw the state’s congressional districts after a state court ruled last month that Republicans had illegally redrawn the districts for their own benefit.

Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis found in July that state Republicans had created “a shadow redistricting process” that violated the state constitution and “made a mockery of the Legislature’s transparent and open process of redistricting.” He continued, “they might have successfully concealed their scheme and their actions from the public had it not been for the Plaintiffs’ determined efforts to uncover it in this case.”

The League of Women Voters of Florida brought the lawsuit challenging the redistricting plan, arguing that state Republicans had drawn congressional districts with the purpose of favoring GOP-candidates in violation of the Fair Districts Amendments to the state constitution, specifically intended to prohibit this kind of gerrymandering. Judge Lewis agreed, finding that the congressional redistricting plan was constitutionally invalid and ordering two districts, District 5 and District 10 to be redrawn as well as any other district affected by the redrawing. District 5 is currently held by Democrat Corrine Brown, and District 10 is held by Republican Dan Webster.

Florida state legislators now have until Aug 15 to redraw a map. Judge Terry, in a subsequent order, stressed that “time is of the essence,” and noted that Florida’s 2014 election could be delayed. “Even if a revised map was in place today,” Lewis wrote, “the legal and logistical machinations it would take to have the election take place on November 4th under that revised map is not something justified by law or common sense. There is just no way, legally or logistically, to put in place a new map, amend the various deadlines and have elections on November 4th, as prescribed by Federal law.”

After the deadline, Judge Terry will consider evidence concerning the “legal and logistical obstacles to holding delayed elections for affected districts in 2014.” Legislators expect to close the special session by Tuesday, August 12, according to a report by the Tampa Bay Times.

Media Resources: Tampa Bay Times 8/7/14, 7/10/14; Scribd; Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit (Leon County, FL)

Supreme Court Decision Affects Buffer Zone Laws Around the Nation

Posted on August 6, 2014June 10, 2020 by Feminist Newswire

Cities and states across the United States have been responding differently to the US Supreme Court’s decision in June to strike down Massachusetts’ 35-foot abortion clinic buffer zone in McCullen v. Coakley, with some jurisdictions suspending their buffer zone laws and others continuing to enforce the protective measures.

via Workers Solidarity Movement

The McCullen decision invalidated only one statute: a fixed, 35-foot buffer zone law in Massachusetts. In making its decision, the Court found that this specific Massachusetts law was unconstitutional, not that state and local governments could never enact measures to protect patients, doctors, and staff from harassment and intimidation outside of reproductive health clinics. In addition, the Court did not overturn a previous buffer zone case, Hill v. Colorado, that upheld a statute prohibiting a person – within 100 feet of a clinic entrance – from approaching within 8 feet of another person, without that person’s consent.

After the ruling, the Attorney General of New York, Eric Schneiderman, issued a statement clarifying that the McCullen decision did not implicate his state’s clinic buffer zone laws. Seventeen counties in New York state have buffer zones as a result of a court injunction. Additionally, New York City, encompassing 5 additional counties, has a 15-foot buffer zone law. Noting that anti-abortion activists had attempted to assert that McCullen invalidated all buffer zones, Schneiderman issued an open letter to clarify the law.

“We will not allow activists to use a narrowly targeted Supreme Court decision as an opportunity to create confusion about the critical protections here in New York,” wrote Schneiderman. “Not only do New York State’s clinic protection laws remain completely in place, I am committed to working with our partners in law enforcement to ensure they are fully enforced.”

Other state and local governments, however, have – reluctantly and often in the context of ongoing legal disputes – either repealed, in the case of Portland, Maine, or suspended enforcement of their buffer zone laws. The city of Madison, Wisconsin recently announced that it would not enforce its buffer zone law, one that is similar to that in Hill v. Colorado, and New Hampshire has stopped enforcing its 25-foot buffer zone. Both jurisdictions are in the middle of legal challenges to their laws.

In the wake of the ruling in McCullen, the state of Massachusetts enacted a new state law to protect access to reproductive health facilities. The new law, signed by Governor Deval Patrick last week, went into effect immediately.

“Patients, doctors, and healthcare workers are under siege at clinics across the nation,” said Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal in a press release issued on the day of oral argument in McCullen. “Simply put, safety buffer zones help prevent violence and allow women to safely access critical reproductive health services.” Clinic safety zones have been a vital tool to help ensure that patients, doctors, and healthcare workers can enter reproductive healthcare facilities without harassment, intimidation, or violence.

For over 20 years, the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF) has tracked incidents of violence, harassment, and intimidation at women’s health clinics in the US. FMF brought the first lawsuit in the nation on buffer zones to the US Supreme Court in 1994. That case, Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, established the constitutionality of an injunction creating a clinic safety buffer zone in Florida.

Take Action! Keep women’s clinics safe and open! Support the Fe nist Majority Foundation’s National Clinic Access Project.

Media Resources: Feminist Newswire 7/31/14, 6/26/14, 1/15/14; Associated Press 7/24/14; Portland Press Herald 7/11/14; Attorney General Eric Schneiderman 7/10/14, 6/26/14; Wisconsin State Journal 7/3/14

Department of Justice Sues Pennsylvania State Police For Sex Discrimination

Posted on August 6, 2014June 10, 2020 by Feminist Newswire

The US Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit against the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania State Police last week alleging that the state police has engaged in a pattern and practice of employment discrimination against women.

via Shutterstock

In its suit, the DOJ alleges that the Pennsylvania state police excluded qualified women from consideration as entry-level troopers by requiring candidates to pass a physical fitness test that did not test for physical skills necessary to perform the job.

According to the DOJ complaint, the test “disproportionately screened out female applicants, resulting in a disparate impact against those applicants” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Between 2003 and 2012, the female pass rate for the physical exam was less than 80 percent of the male pass rate. That gap kept 45 qualified females from becoming state troopers despite the physical fitness test being unrelated to the performance of the job.

The DOJ is seeking a court order to end to the physical fitness test and to require defendants “to provide make-whole relief, including backpay with interest, offers of employment, retroactive seniority, and other benefits to women who have suffered losses or will suffer losses” because of the state police’s policies. A spokesperson for current Gov. Tom Corbett (R) said lawyers for the state are reviewing the DOJ’s lawsuit.

“The Department of Justice is deeply committed to eliminating artificial barriers that keep qualified women out of public safety work,” said Jocelyn Samuels, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. She reiterated the Department’s overall commitment to challenge all discriminatory hiring practices on the basis of sex.

“Despite overwhelming evidence that women and men are equally capable of police work,” a 2002 report by the Feminist Majority Foundation found “widespread bias in police hiring, selection practices and recruitment policies keeps the numbers of women in law enforcement artificially low.” According to data collected by the DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the number of women within state police departments has traditionally been sparse. Nationwide, in 2007, only about 6.5 percent of full-time state police and highway patrol officers were women, representing only a small increase from 1987 when women were only 3.8 percent of state police departments.

Media Resources: US Department of Justice 7/29/14; Reuters 7/29/14; DOJ Bureau of Justice Crime 6/10; Feminist Majority Foundation 4/02

Federal Court Rules Alabama TRAP Law Unconstitutional

Posted on August 5, 2014June 10, 2020 by Feminist Newswire

Federal US District Court Judge Myron Thompson ruled yesterday that an Alabama TRAP (targeted regulation of abortion provider) law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges is unconstitutional.

via Mirsasha

In his 172-page opinion, Judge Thompson detailed the history of violence against Alabama abortion providers, explaining that the context of violence could not be overlooked in deciding whether the admitting privileges requirement placed an undue burden on a woman’s right to obtain a legal abortion. Specifically, Judge Thompson recounted the 1993 murder of Dr. David Gunn, an Alabama resident who provided abortion services in Alabama and Florida; the 1997 arson of a clinic in Tuscaloosa, Alabama; the 1998 bombing of the Birmingham, Alabama clinic by extremist Eric Robert Rudolf; and more recent incidents of violence, harassment, and intimidation, including an incident five or six years ago when someone drove through the front of the Tuscaloosa clinic. In addition, during the 10-day bench trial, doctors – who were identified by pseudonyms and had to testify from behind a black curtain – described their “daily fears” as abortion providers in the state, explaining how they had not only experienced threats to their professional reputations but also to their personal safety.

In this climate, none of the doctors involved in the case – many of whom travel into the state to provide services at the Alabama clinics – could obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals, leading Alabama’s clinics – already dwindling in number – to close.

“At last sanity,” said Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal. “The Feminist Majority Foundation has been defending the abortion clinics in Alabama since 1989, and Judge Thompson’s account of the violence was spot on. In the hostile climate created by extremists, it is no wonder that doctors have to be flown in to provide care. The TRAP law had only one purpose: to close comprehensive reproductive health clinics for women.”

Judge Thompson found that hostility toward abortion providers created significant obstacles to recruiting local doctors, who could perhaps – though not certainly – obtain admitting privileges, including “that the number of abortion doctors nationally and throughout the South is declining; the decision to perform abortions carries detrimental professional consequences in Alabama; violence against and harassment of abortion providers, beyond run-of-the-mill political protest, persist in the State.” Also “prior attempts to recruit local doctors have failed dramatically; and there are significant regulatory barriers to entry for a new doctor to begin providing abortions at any scale.”

Given this situation, and finding that the law was unnecessary to protect patient health and safety, Judge Thompson ruled that Alabama’s admitting privileges requirement places a needless difficulty on a woman’s right to an abortion. “The evidence compellingly demonstrates that the requirement would have the striking result of closing three of Alabama’s five abortion clinics, clinics which perform only early abortions, long before viability.”

Alabama passed the admitting privileges requirement in 2013. The law was immediately challenged by Reproductive Health Services and Planned Parenthood Southeast which operate comprehensive women’s health clinics in Montgomery, Birmingham, and Mobile. As a result, the law has not been enforced.

Judge Thompson asked the parties in the case to provide more information to determine whether a permanent injunction of the law is necessary. In the meantime, the law will continue to go unenforced against the plaintiffs.

After the ruling, CEO and President of Planned Parenthood Southeast Staci Fox issued a statement saying, “Politicians passed this law in order to make it impossible for women in Alabama to get abortions, plain and simple. … This victory ensures that women in Alabama can make their own private health care decisions without the interference from politicians.”

Judge Thompson, an African-American judge appointed to the bench by President Carter, delayed his decision in order to review a ruling by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholding a preliminary injunction against a similar Mississippi TRAP law. The Fifth Circuit opinion, written by District Court Judge E. Grady Jolly, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, was decided 2-1.

Media Resources: US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division 8/4/2014; Alabama Media Group 7/31/2014; Federal Judicial Center; Feminist Newswire 7/29/2014, 6/12/2013; US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 7/29/14

Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Union Limits and Voter ID Laws

Posted on August 5, 2014June 10, 2020 by Feminist Newswire

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Thursday to uphold a 2011 law, championed by Governor Scott Walker (R), that significantly decreased collective bargaining rights for workers in public employee unions. The Court also ruled in favor of the state’s 2011 voter identification law – the same law that was found unconstitutional by a federal district court judge in May.

In the collective bargaining case, the Court ruled 5-2 that the law did not violate the constitutional freedom of association. “No matter the limitations or ‘burdens’ a legislative enactment places on the collective bargaining process,” wrote Justice Michael J. Gableman for the majority, “collective bargaining remains a creation of legislative grace and not constitutional obligation.”

The anti-union law, known at Act 10, sparked giant protests in Madison, Wisconsin in 2011. Tens of thousands rallied against the bill, with some camping out in the state Capitol Rotunda. Schools were closed during the protests, and students at the University of Wisconsin in Madison staged a walk out, marching from campus to the Capitol. The law ultimately led to recall efforts against Governor Walker.

Also on Thursday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled to uphold a law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls. A federal district judge had ruled earlier this year that the same law unjustifiably targeted minority voters, who were less likely to have qualifying identification than whites, and would result in less opportunities for minorities to participate in the political process, a finding that District Court Judge Lynn Aldelman found particularly troublesome given “the disproportionate impact of the photo ID requirement results from the interaction of the requirement with the effects of past or present discrimination.” Judge Adelman also found that Wisconsin had experienced virtually no voter fraud that would justify the law.

The impact of the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling on voter ID is limited, though the state hopes to use it in the federal case. The federal court decision on the voter ID law is pending appeal in the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Media Sources: The Wisconsin State Journal 8/1/14; The New York Times, 7/31/14; Washington Post 7/31/14; Feminist Newswire 5/5/14, 2/22/11; Wisconsin Supreme Court; US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

Anniversary of Family Medical Leave Act Comes With Few Improvements

Posted on August 5, 2014August 5, 2014 by Feminist Newswire

The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) went into effect twenty-one years ago today. On this anniversary, many are calling to expand the law to meet the needs of today’s families.

via Shutterstock

Signed by President Clinton, the FMLA requires that certain employees receive job-protected unpaid leave to care for themselves, an immediate family member, a newborn, or a newly adopted child. Since taking effect, some 100 million US workers have been able to take unpaid leave, and most employers have reported no negative impact on business profitability or productivity because of the law.

Now, 21 years later, the US Department of Labor (DOL) is seeking to update the law to extend FMLA benefits to eligible same-sex and common law couples. The DOL proposal to change the definition of “spouse” follows the US Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, which found section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), prohibiting state recognized same-sex married couples from receiving federal benefits, unconstitutional.

Although the proposed change would extend current FMLA benefits to some, there are no immediate plans, legislative or otherwise, to expand coverage or to mandate paid leave.

Most worksites are still not covered by the FMLA. The law applies only to public agencies and private sector employers with 50 or more employees. And many workers are not covered by the law. A 2012 study found that around 40 percent of the workforce is not eligible. FMLA only covers employees who have worked for the same employer for at least one year and who worked 1,250 hours the previous year.

Testifying last week before a Senate Subcommittee hearing on the need for paid leave, Jeannine Sato, explained that as an employee of a federally-funded nonprofit, she expected to use FMLA to cover her maternity leave. “I drafted a multi-page document about how I was going to cover my job responsibilities during my 12 weeks of maternity leave, which I assumed was covered under the Family and Medical Leave Act.” When she presented the plan to her employer, she learned that she was not covered by FMLA.

“In addition to refusing my leave, my employer denied me a flexible work environment after the birth. That meant no working from home, and no compressed workweek. So I had to return to work full-time after only six weeks of medical leave, after using all my vacation and sick time, or risk losing my job. I am the breadwinner in my family, and I needed my job,” explained Sato in her written testimony. “So, after six weeks of round the clock baby care, I reluctantly dragged my exhausted, sore, depressed body back to work to sit in an office writing documents and checking emails, while my newborn baby was at home. This was an incredibly difficult time physically and emotionally for me, my marriage and my family.”

Even if someone is eligible for FMLA leave, it may not be affordable. Nearly half of workers with an unmet need for leave explain that they cannot afford to take time off. Only 12 percent of US workers have access to paid family leave, and fewer than 40 percent have paid medical leave. That means some workers – particularly women and low wage workers – are just one illness or birth away from financial disaster.

The Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act, or FAMILY Act, introduced by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) in December 2013, would allow employees to earn up to 12 weeks of paid family leave each year through the creation of a national insurance fund. Employers and employees would contribute to the fund through a new Office of Paid Family and Medical Leave, which would be a subdivision of the Social Security Administration. Anyone eligible for Social Security benefits would also be eligible for the new paid family leave benefit.

“Motherhood should not lead to poverty,” Feminist Majority Policy and Research Director Gaylynn Burroughs wrote on the Feminist Majority blog. “Caring for a loved one should not mean insurmountable debt and bankruptcy. Lost income combined with new medical costs can be financially devastating to a family at a time when they may be most vulnerable and unable to recover.”

Media Resources: US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, Subcommittee on Children and Families 7/30/14; Feminist Newswire 6/26/14, 2/5/14, 12/12/13; Abt Associates 9/13/13; Feminist Majority Blog 12/12/13; National Partnership for Women & Families 12/12/13; US Department of Labor; Congress.gov

Take Action! Urge your representatives to support the FAMILY Act.

Congress Introduces Legislation to Protect Students from Sexual Assault

Posted on August 4, 2014June 10, 2020 by Feminist Newswire

A bipartisan group of Senators introduced a bill Wednesday that aims to address the issue of sexual assault on college campuses.

via Chase Carter

The Campus Accountability and Safety Act, cosponsored by Senators Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Dean Heller (R-NV), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Mark Warner (D-VA), and Marco Rubio (R-FL), focuses on steps colleges can take to proactively protect students. The bill specifically aims to establish new campus resources and support services for student survivors, ensure minimum training standards for on-campus personnel, create transparency requirements, increase campus accountability and coordination with law enforcement, and establish enforceable Title IX and Clery Act violation penalties. It will require colleges to designate a Confidential Advisor, conduct annual surveys to identify the scope of the problem, and use a uniform process for campus disciplinary proceedings, among other requirements.

“To curb these crimes, students need to be protected and empowered, and institutions must provide the highest level of responsiveness in helping hold perpetrators fully accountable,” said Senator McCaskill in a press release. “That’s what our legislation aims to accomplish.”

To develop the bill, McCaskill surveyed 440 institutions of higher education, held roundtable discussions with key stakeholders, and produced a survey report of her findings. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced a bipartisan companion bill in the House on Thursday.

Several other pieces of legislation have been introduced to protect students and hold attackers accountable. The Survivor Outreach and Support Campus Act (S.O.S. Campus Act), sponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Congresswoman Susan Davis (D-CA) in the House, focuses on requiring colleges and universities to establish an independent, on-campus advocate to support survivors. The advocate would be responsible for ensuring that survivors of sexual assault have access to emergency care and information on their legal rights. Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-CA) with Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-PA) also introduced the Hold Accountable and Lend Transparency (HALT) on Campus Sexual Assault Act.

Media Resources: Senator McCaskill Press Release 7/9/14, 7/30/14; The Center for Public Integrity 7/31/14; USA Today 7/31/14; Senator Barbara Boxer Press Release 7/30/14; Congresswoman Jackie Speier Press Release 7/30/14; Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney Press Release 7/31/14

President Obama Signs Executive Order Promoting Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces

Posted on August 4, 2014June 10, 2020 by Feminist Newswire

President Obama signed an executive order last week aimed at promoting fair pay and safe workplaces for workers employed by federal contractors.

via Shutterstock

The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order is intended to hold corporations accountable by requiring prospective federal contractors to disclose labor law violations from the previous three years and to collect that information from subcontractors. It will also crack down on repeat violators, protect responsible contractors, offer guidance to companies on how to improve, and streamline implementation and contractor reporting, which will promote the efficiency of federal contracts. The order will also give employees more power by giving them information about their paychecks and giving them “a day in court:” it will prevent companies from requiring them to enter into a pre-dispute arbitration agreement for problems that arise from violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or torts related to sexual assault or harassment.

More than one in five American workers is employed by a firm that contracts with the federal government, and nearly one in three companies with the worst safety and wage violations are federal contractors. According to a recent US Senate Committee report, wage theft by federal contractors cost American workers $82 million between FY 2007 and FY 2012, and 42 American workers died during this period as a result of workplace violations by companies holding federal contracts in 2012.

“Our tax dollars shouldn’t go to companies that violate workplace laws. They shouldn’t go to companies that violate worker rights. If a company is going to receive taxpayer money, it should have safe workplaces. It should pay its workers the wages they’ve earned. It should provide the medical leave workers are entitled to. It should not discriminate against workers,” President Obama said when he signed the Order. “The vast majority of the companies that contract with our government, they play by the rules. They live up to the right workplace standards. But some don’t.”

The Executive Order, part of President Obama’s “Year of Action,” will apply to new federal contractors valued at over $500,000 and will be implemented in stages throughout 2016. President Obama previously signed executive orders banning LGBT discrimination in the workplace for federal contracts and promoting pay equity for women in the workplace.

Media Resources: The White House 7/31/14; Center for American Progress Action Fund 7/29/14; Senator Tom Harkin 12/11/13; Feminist Newswire 4/7/14, 7/22/14; Feminist Majority 1/29/14

New Bills Would Advance Reproductive Healthcare Gains of Affordable Care Act

Posted on August 4, 2014June 10, 2020 by Feminist Newswire

Two new bills introduced in Congress could help improve health outcomes for people of color, low income communities, and female members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Authors of both bills are using the legislative gains of the Affordable Care Act to increase access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare.

via Shutterstock

In the House, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA-40), Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Health Task Force, introduced the Health Equity and Accountability Act (HEAA) of 2014. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and the Congressional Black Caucus have all supported the bill, which seeks to “eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare access and health outcomes.”

The HEAA is intended to build on the advancements of the Affordable Care Act by making federal resources available to target inequitable health access in vulnerable communities; creating federal guidelines for data collection and reporting; increasing cultural and linguistic-appropriate health care; and improving federal efforts to better health outcomes for women and families.

“We believe that no one’s life expectancy should be determined by the color of their skin, or the zip code in which they are born,” said Rep. Roybal-Allard in a statement announcing the introduction of the bill. “By adopting HEAA’s wide spectrum strategy of racial, ethnic, ability, language, and gender health disparity elimination initiatives, we hope to dramatically reduce the disproportionately high rates of premature death and preventable illness in our minority communities.”

The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH) issued a release on Wednesday highlighting the HEAA’s specific impact on reproductive wellness. The bill would increase “access to comprehensive sexuality education and emergency contraception for communities of color” and help reduce unintended pregnancies for disproportionately impacted young people of color “including rural, LGBTQ, immigrant, and youth in the juvenile justice system.”

In the Senate, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) introduced the Access to Contraception for Women Servicemembers and Dependents Act of 2014. The bill would dump existing Department of Defense policy on contraceptive health coverage and family planning counseling and replace it with a health care policy that matches civilian offerings under the Affordable Care Act. If passed, female service members would be entitled to FDA-approved contraception with no health insurance co-pays, like civilian populations.

“Female service members deserve access to the same basic health care as the women they protect,” Sen. Shaheen said in a statement. “It’s unacceptable that they don’t.” The bill is meant to build on the “Shaheen Amendment” which was signed into law last year. The Shaheen Amendment extends reproductive health services to females in the Armed Forces.

Currently, only service members on active duty have full coverage of prescription contraceptives without co-pays through the military health insurance program, TRICARE. Service members who are not on active duty do not have similar coverage through TRICARE. According to recent report by the Center for American Progress, the rate of unplanned pregnancy in the military is up to 50 percent higher than in the civilian population because of insufficient access to contraceptive care services.

Media Resources: Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard Press Release 7/30/14; National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health 8/1/14; Senator Jeanne Shaheen Press Release 7/30/14; Center for American Progress 7/30/14

A Call for Action to Reduce Gun Deaths Among Victims of Domestic Violence

Posted on August 1, 2014August 5, 2014 by Feminist Newswire

Over 250 people gathered inside the Dirksen Senate building on Wednesday to support legislation aimed at decreasing intimate partner homicide through gun violence.

via Shutterstock

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) chaired the standing-room only Senate Judiciary Committee hearing – which required an overflow room – and was joined by Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).

“As a former prosecutor, I have seen firsthand how domestic violence and stalking can destroy lives and tear apart families,” Klobuchar said. “My legislation would help protect victims and keep our families safe, and I will continue to work to pass this commonsense bill.”

Current federal law restricts domestic violence offenders’ access to firearms, but loopholes in the law have allowed abusers to gain access to guns – often with tragic results. Elvin Daniel, a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his sister Zina who was murdered by her estranged husband and abuser. Zina had a restraining order against her murderer, who “continued to terrorize Zina, slashing her tires while she was at work, and threatening her physically.” Then, in 2012, he purchased a gun – without a background check –through an online gun seller. The very next day after receiving the weapon, he “stormed into the spa where Zina worked in Brookfield, Wisconsin,” where “he shot and killed Zina, murdered two other women, and injured four others before killing himself.”

The national gun lobby defeated bipartisan legislation last year that would have expanded background checks to gun shows and internet sales. Websites like the one Zina’s shooter used to purchase a gun often connect buyers with unlicensed sellers, a problem still in need of a solution.

Women fleeing domestic violence are particularly vulnerable to increased violence and death. Senator Blumenthal introduced the Lori Jackson Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act (S. 2483) in June to prevent domestic violence abusers served with temporary orders of protection from owning firearms. Blumenthal named the law after Lori Jackson, a mother of two, who was shot and killed by her estranged husband. Jackson had fled her home and obtained a temporary order of protection. She was murdered by her husband with a legally-possessed firearm only one day before the court was to hold hearings on a permanent order of protection, that if granted would have prevented him from possessing the gun.

Senator Blumental, along with Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) has also introduced legislation to strengthen the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, which prevents abusers convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence assault from owning a firearm. Legislation has also been introduced by Senator Klobuchar that would provide victims of dating violence and stalking with the same legal protections as victims of domestic violence. Senator Blumenthal commented at the hearing that “federal law is a shadow of what it should be,” and called on Congress not only to set the standard but to give incentives and punishments to states to ensure that federal legislation aimed at preventing domestic violence homicide, is enforced.

According to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, women in the United States are 11 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than women in other high-income countries, and victims of domestic violence who live in homes with guns have an 8-fold increase in homicide risk.

Media Resources: US Senate Judiciary Committee; Congress.gov; National Network to End Domestic Violence; Senator Tim Kaine 7/29/14; Huffington Post 6/17/14; Ms. Blog 3/26/14; New York Times 4/17/13;

Constitutional Court Invalidates Uganda’s Anti-Gay Law

Posted on August 1, 2014June 10, 2020 by Feminist Newswire

Uganda’s Constitutional Court today struck down – on procedural grounds – a package of anti-gay policies signed into law this February by President Yoweri Museveni, but left room for lawmakers to attempt to pass the law, or another version of it, again.

via Kaytee Riek

Ten petitioners, including activists, academics, advocates, and MPs, challenged the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Act in court, claiming that it was passed improperly and violated the constitutional rights of Ugandans to live free from discrimination and with privacy and dignity. Although the five-judge panel ruled that the legislation was “null and void” because it had been passed illegally – without a proper quorum in the Parliament – the Court did not address the claims that it violated Uganda’s constitution.

“The ideal situation would have been to deal with the other issues of the law, to sort this thing out once and for all,” said Nicholas Opiyo, a Ugandan lawyer and one of the petitioners.

The decision was met with cheers in the courthouse. Frank Mugisha, a gay-rights activist Uganda, said the ruling was a “step forward.”

The government has not yet determined whether it will appeal the ruling. The Anti-Homosexuality Act expanded the scope of a colonial-era law, still in place in Uganda, that criminalized “sex acts against the order of nature.” The now defunct law included lesbians for the first time and implemented extreme punishments for anyone who engaged in “aggravated homosexuality” or “attempted to commit homosexuality.” It also imposed punishments of imprisonment and fines on organizations that promoted or supported the LGBTQ community.

The court’s ruling comes in advance of next week’s US-Africa Summit in Washington. Activists and legislators from the United States had asked President Obama to speak out against anti-gay laws in Nigeria and Uganda at the Summit, which will be attended by Uganda’s President. Several European countries and the United States restricted or ended aid programs with Uganda after the Anti-Homosexuality Act became law.

Uganda saw an increase in discrimination and violence against gay people directly after the Anti-Homosexuality Act was proposed. As reported by Jeanne Clark in “Unholy Alliance” in the Fall 2013 issue of Ms. magazine, David Kato, a leader of the gay rights movement in Uganda, was beaten to death shortly after the introduction of the bill. In addition, “The attacks against gays in the country have further demonized condom usage,” Clark writes – a tragedy in a country where HIV prevalence rates for gay men, in the capital of Kampala, is at 13 percent. The bill has also interfered with HIV/AIDS programs. The AP reports that Ugandan police raided a US-funded HIV/AIDS clinic after the bill was passed.

Commenting on the Ugandan Court’s decision, Michel Sidibé, Executive Director of the UNAIDS, proclaimed, “This is a great day for social justice.”

Media Resources: NPR 8/1/14; BBC News 8/1/14; Associated Press 8/1/14; ABC News 8/1/14; The Guardian 8/1/14; New York Times 8/1/14; Feminist Newswire 2/25/14; Ms. Magazine Fall 2013

First World Day Against Human Trafficking Encourages International Action

Posted on July 31, 2014June 10, 2020 by Feminist Newswire

The first World Day Against Trafficking in Persons took place Wednesday in an effort by the United Nations to bring attention to the continuing need for international support to help trafficking victims and end impunity for perpetrators.

via United Nations

Millions of people are still trafficked every year, sold to work in brothels, fields, and sweatshops. Although men, women, and children are trafficked globally, human trafficking, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, affects women and girls more than any other group in the world, and a majority of all people trafficked – 79 percent – are sexually exploited.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, “This first World Day against Trafficking in Persons is a call to action to end this crime and give hope to the victims, who often live unrecognized among us.”

The World Day against Trafficking in Persons will be held every year on July 30. The resolution to create the World Day was adopted by the UN in 2013. The resolution stated the day is necessary to “raise awareness of the situation of victims of human trafficking and for the promotion and protection of their rights.”

The Twitter hashtag #IGiveHope was used in conjunction with the World Day against Trafficking in Persons to show solidarity with the millions of people who suffer as a direct result of the human-trafficking crisis.

Human trafficking is considered a form of modern-day slavery. It is ranked as the third greatest revenue source of organized crime after narcotics and arms, according to the UN. The people who are trafficked tend to be those who are already victims of war, poverty, discrimination and/or violence. The most common forms of trafficking are: labor trafficking, which includes child labor, child soldiering and working in sweatshops; sex trafficking, which includes child sex tourism and “mail order brides;” and domestic servitude.

Media Resources: UN News Centre 7/30/14; United Nations; UN Office on Drugs and Crime; Feminist Majority Foundation

Massachusetts Enacts New Law to Protect Access to Reproductive Health Facilities

Posted on July 31, 2014June 10, 2020 by Feminist Newswire

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D) signed into law yesterday a bill to help protect access to reproductive health care facilities in the state.

via Charlotte Cooper

The law, entitled An Act to Promote Public Safety and Protect Access to Reproductive Health Care Facilities, enables a law enforcement official to order the “immediate dispersal of a gathering that substantially impedes access to or departure from an entrance or a driveway to a reproductive health care facility.” The order would “remain in place for 8 hours or until the close of business of the reproductive health facility, whichever is earlier,” and make noncompliance punishable with a fine or jail time. The law also enacts a state-version of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), prohibiting the use of force, threats, intimidation, or other acts meant to impede access to a clinic.

“I am incredibly proud to sign legislation that continues Massachusetts leadership in ensuring that women seeking to access reproductive health facilities can do so safely and without harassment, and that the employees of those facilities can arrive at work each day without fear of harm,” said Governor Patrick.

The new Massachusetts legislation was passed in response to the US Supreme Court decision in McCullen v. Coakley, striking down the state’s 35-foot clinic buffer zone law, which had been set up to protect doctors, clinic patients, and staff from violence, harassment, and intimidation. The law will go into effect immediately.

“The US Supreme Court failed to appreciate the history of violence, harassment, and intimidation that doctors, patients, and clinic staff have had to endure,” said Feminist Majority Foundation Executive Director Katherine Spillar. “This new law will help ensure that no one will have to walk a gauntlet to exercise her constitutional right to abortion.”

Massachusetts had first enacted a buffer zone law in 2000 after repeated incidents of clinic violence and intimidation in Massachusetts, including the murders in 1994 of two clinic receptionists, Shannon Lowney, 25, and Lee Ann Nichols, 38, by anti-abortion extremist John Salvi at two separate clinics in Brookline. Five other people were wounded in those attacks. The law was subsequently strengthened in 2007 to create the 35-foot safety buffer zone after anti-abortion demonstrators continued to crowd clinic entrances, block cars from entering driveways, and intimidate patients, doctors, and healthcare workers. At the time, local law enforcement made clear that having a better-defined buffer zone would promote public safety.

Media Resources: Office of Governor Deval Patrick 7/30/14; Boston Globe 7/30/14; Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Fifth Circuit Court Rules In Favor Of Mississippi’s Last Clinic

Posted on July 30, 2014June 10, 2020 by Feminist Newswire

Mississippi’s last remaining abortion clinic will remain open after a the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction against HB 1390, the Mississippi TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) law requiring abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at area hospitals.

via The Last Clinic Film

Had the court not upheld the lower federal’s court’s injunction, HB 1390 would have shuttered Jackson Women’s Health Organization (JWHO), the state’s only comprehensive reproductive health center. After the enactment of the law, two of the three doctors affiliated with the clinic attempted to obtain admitting privileges at at least seven Jackson-area hospitals, but every hospital denied their request, citing reasons such as “the nature of your proposed medical practice is inconsistent with this Hospital’s policies” and that their medical practice would disrupt the hospital’s relationship with the community. Because the doctors could not obtain admitting privileges, Mississippi threatened to revoke the clinic’s license and shut its doors.

Mississippi’s TRAP laws have gradually eroded families’ access to comprehensive care, bringing the total number of clinics from 14 in 1981 to just one in 2014. When HB 1390 was signed into law, Gov. Phil Bryant called it the “first step in a movement” to end abortion in Mississippi.

“The Mississippi TRAP law would have closed the only comprehensive women’s reproductive health clinic in the state and necessitated women driving hundreds of miles to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion,” said Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority Foundation. “For women who could not afford to travel out of state, this ruling literally saves lives.”

Writing for the majority, Judge E. Grady Jolly said the decision boiled down to whether or not the state of Mississippi could get in the way of a woman’s Constitutionally protected right to choose an abortion. Jolly called out the state’s argument that Mississippi citizens could obtain an abortion in Tennessee, Louisiana, or Alabama. “Mississippi may not shift its obligation to respect the constitutional rights of its citizen to another state,” Jolly wrote. “Such a proposal would not only place an undue burden on the exercise of the constitutional right, but would also disregard a state’s obligation under the principle of federalism–applicable to all fifty states–to accept the burden of the non-delegable duty of protecting the established federal constitutional rights of its own citizens.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In a press release issued by the organization yesterday, President and CEO Nancy Northrup said, “For far too long, women in Mississippi have been teetering on the precipice of a reality similar to the dark days before Roe v. Wade, where reproductive health care options were limited at best and life-threatening at worst.”

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant said he will work with the state’s Attorney General, who is petitioning for the full Fifth Circuit to review the panel’s decision.

Meanwhile, three anti-abortion extremists were convicted in Jackson City Municipal court on Monday for interfering with access to the Jackson clinic. DuVergne Gaines, Director of the Feminist Majority Foundation National Clinic Access Project, was in Jackson for both the local convictions and for the Fifth Circuit decision. She called the convictions of Roy McMillan, Chet Gallagher, and Harriet Ashley, “a huge victory.” She continued, “These extremists have, literally, laid siege to this facility for the last two years since we learned its fate was in jeopardy because of Mississippi’s TRAP law. We’re thankful for the police department’s vigilance in enforcing the law.”

Media Resources: Jackson Free Press 7/29/14; Governor Phil Bryant 7/29/14; Center for Reproductive Rights 7/29/14; Feminist Majority Foundation 7/29/14; Feminist Newswire 7/29/14

Legislation Introduced to Establish Fair Work Scheduling Practices

Posted on July 30, 2014June 10, 2020 by Feminist Newswire

Representatives George Miller (D-CA) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) introduced a bill last week that aims to protect hourly workers from scheduling abuses and allow for greater flexibility and certainty around their work schedules.

via Shutterstock

The Schedules that Work Act (HR 5159) will protect employees from retaliation if they request a more flexible or stable schedule, require that retail, food service and cleaning employees receive their work schedules at least two weeks in advance, and create a process for employers to consider special scheduling requests of employees. It will also ensure that workers are compensated for at least four hours of work if they show up to work when scheduled for four hours but are sent home early, and provide them with an extra hour of pay if they are scheduled to work non-consecutive shifts in one day.

“Low-wage workers in America are too often being jerked around,” said Rep. DeLauro, Co-Chair of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. “These women – and they are usually women – cannot plan ahead, or make arrangements to see that their kids and family are being taken care of. This bill would protect low-wage workers from abuse and help ensure they can look after their families. Congress needs to ensure that people putting in a hard day’s work get a fair day’s pay and the ability to care for their loved ones.”

An improvement in scheduling practices would largely benefit women workers, who account for almost three-fourths of federally funded, low-wage workers, and people of color, who are over-represented in this workforce. According to a study released by Demos last month, 1.3 million women working in the retail industry live in or near poverty. Low-wages, unpredictable hours and lack of full-time opportunities present real obstacles to these workers’ economic security.

Companion legislation to HR 5159 is being sponsored in the Senate by Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA).

Media Resources: US House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce 7/22/14; Feminist Newswire 6/6/14; Demos 6/2/14; Think Progress 6/21/13

North Carolina Mayor Journeys 273 Miles for Medicaid Expansion

Posted on July 30, 2014June 10, 2020 by Feminist Newswire

After journeying 273 miles on foot, Adam O’Neal, Republican Mayor of Belhaven, North Carolina, arrived on the lawn of the US Capitol earlier this week for a special Moral Monday gathering. O’Neal hiked to Washington, DC to protest the closing of Vidant Pungo Hospital in rural Beaufort County, NC, and to call attention to the impact of his state’s failure to expand Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

via Facebook

“We the people need to stand together to produce health care for us all,” wrote O’Neal before embarking on his first steps of his 15-day trip to the Capitol. Over 100 members of O’Neal’s community as well as folks from the NAACP-NC chapter, including Rev. Dr. William Barber, joined him in solidarity.

Vidant Pungo Hospital in Belhaven was forced to close on July 1, in part because of North Carolina’s refusal to expand Medicaid. Only days later, Portia Gibbs, a 48-year old mother of three, died of a heart attack and other health complications while awaiting transport to the next nearest hospital – over 75 miles away. “She spent the last hour of her life in a parking lot at a high school waiting for a helicopter,” explained O’Neal on Monday.

“If the governor and the Legislature don’t want to accept Medicaid expansion, they need to come up with another program to assure that rural hospitals don’t close,” said O’Neal. “They’re allowing people to die to prove a point. That is wrong, and I’m not going to be a party to that.” He continued, “Rural citizens dying should not be soldiers of the South’s defiance to the new health care law.”

Rural hospitals in states such as Virginia, Georgia and Tennessee – which have all refused Medicaid expansion – will soon be closing or cutting vital health care services. Many of these hospitals serve poorer populations with higher numbers of uninsured individuals. In North Carolina, according to O’Neal, the rejection of Medicaid expansion costs the state’s health care system $2 billion a year, denying hundreds of thousands of low-income individuals access to care.

A recent study released by George Washington University found that community health centers in states that have expanded Medicaid subsidies have seen 2.9 million patients gain health coverage in 2014. O’Neal is calling for this kind of progress to occur in North Carolina, explaining that the situation has become “do-or-die”.

Twenty-seven states and Washington, DC have already expanded Medicaid, leading to a 15.3 percent increase in Medicaid enrollment in those states. Medicaid is our nation’s health insurance program for low-income families and individuals. The program – celebrating, along with Medicare, its 49th anniversary today – also funds health centers that provide care for under-served communities. Historically, the majority of Medicaid beneficiaries – over 22 million in 2009 – have been women. Though programs differ by state, before the ACA Medicaid expansion, Medicaid covered only pregnant women, children under 8, adults with dependent children, the elderly, the differently-abled and the blind. The ACA, however, now allows states to expand Medicaid eligibility to all Americans with incomes below 138% of the federal poverty level. There is no deadline for states to opt into ACA Medicaid expansion and eligible individuals can enroll in Medicaid at any time.

Media Resources: McClatchy Washington Bureau 7/28/14; Washington Post 7/28/14; The Carolina Mecury 7/14/14; Kaiser Family Foundation 6/10/14, 5/15/13; US Department of Health and Human Services 6/4/14; Feminist Newswire 5/15/14; Think Progress 7/15/14; 4/30/14; Healthcare.gov

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Marriage Equality in Virginia

Posted on July 30, 2014July 31, 2014 by Feminist Newswire

In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on Monday upheld a lower court decision overturning Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage.

via Loewyn Young

The panel ruled that both the Virginia ban on same-sex marriage, as well as the ban on state recognition of same-sex couples married elsewhere, were unconstitutional.

Writing for the majority, Judge Henry Floyd said, “We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable. However, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate bases for denying same-sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws.” He continued, “The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual’s life. Denying same-sex
couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance.”

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals covers Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia , North Carolina and South Carolina. Following the ruling, the Attorney General of North Carolina Roy Cooper, a Democrat, indicated that his office would no longer defend his state’s marriage equality ban, saying, “There are really no arguments left to be made” in favor of the ban. A spokesman for South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, a Republican, said that office would continue to defend the South Carolina marriage equality ban, cautioning that “Ultimately, this will be a decision for the U.S. Supreme Court. People should not rush to act or react until that time, when a decision is made by the highest court in the land.” A spokesman for South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (R) stated that the governor would continue to support the ban. In West Virginia, perhaps awaiting an appeal of the Fourth Circuit’s decision, state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, also a Republican, asked a federal judge to delay action on the legal challenge to his state’s marriage equality ban until the Fourth Circuit issues its formal order in the Virginia case.

Two federal appeals courts have now decided that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. Other federal appeals courts are still reviewing appeals of trial court decisions overturning state bans. Commentators believe it is likely the the US Supreme Court will consider marriage equality soon, perhaps in the next Term that begins in October.

In a news conference in Richmond, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D) said, “Sometimes battles have been fought in the legislature, sometimes in the courtroom, sometimes even in the streets, but inevitably no effort to restrict the rights or limit the opportunities of our fellow Americans has ever succeeded in the long term.”

Herring, however, suggested that couples wait until the Fourth Circuit issues its formal order – technically when the decision goes into effect – to get married. The order implementing the decision – the “mandate” – is usually issued 21 days after the decision.

Media Resources: SCOTUS Blog 7/28/14; US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; The Washington Post 7/28/2014; Huffington Post 7/28/14; Charleston Post & Courier 7/29/14; West Virginia MetroNews 7/30/14

Three Anti-Abortion Extremists Sentenced In Mississippi

Posted on July 29, 2014July 29, 2014 by Feminist Newswire

Last night, three of four anti-abortion extremists were found guilty by a Jackson, Mississippi court for activities carried out during protests against the state’s last-standing abortion clinic, Jackson Women’s Health Organization (JWHO).

Roy McMillan was found guilty for obstructing the sidewalk entrance to a Mississippi clinic. McMillan is already subject to a federal injunction that bars him from entering a certain radius of the clinic. Harriett Ashley was found guilty for obstructing the sidewalk entrance of the abortion clinic and for failing to obey a police officer. Ashley cannot attempt to make contact with the clinic or use the clinic sidewalk. Chet Gallagher was found guilty for interference with a lawful business. Gallagher was also barred from making contact with the clinic and charged a $500 fine. Charges against Cal Zastrow, a fourth defendant and anti-abortion activist, were dropped last night.

The Feminist Majority Foundation’s National Clinic Access Project (NCAP) Executive Director, duVergne Gaines, was in Jackson City Court last night for the proceedings. “This was a huge victory,” Gaines said. “These extremists were held accountable for obstructing access to the last remaining clinic in the state of Mississippi, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization,” she said. “They have, literally, laid siege to this facility for the last two years since we learned its fate was in jeopardy because of Mississippi’s TRAP law.” Gaines continued, “We’re thankful for the police department’s vigilance in enforcing the law.”

Each of the convicted defendants has a notorious past in clinic aggression and intimidation. Chet Gallagher was fired by the Las Vegas, NV Police Department after participating in an Operation Rescue demonstration in uniform, using his uniform to gain access to a clinic, then destroying clinic property. Gallagher later served time in prison for those offenses. Another defendant is a supporter of justifiable homicide. Harriett Ashley has ties to anti-abortion extremists that have championed justifiable homicide of doctors, clinic workers, and supporters.

Over the past two days, NCAP has been training local volunteers, clinic escorts and legal observers countering the Operation Rescue/Operation Save America protests aimed at JWHO. Patients visiting the facility were able to safely enter the clinic despite dozens of anti-abortion demonstrators who staged a service outside of the clinic on Sunday.

Media Resources: Feminist Newswire; NCAP Newsletter #32 8/13/01