One in seven Americans will be immediately affected as cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) take effect today. The temporary benefits from the 2009 economic stimulus, which had increased food stamps by around $24 per person and gave an immediate boost to the economy, have come to an end.
The across-the-board cuts mean that a family of four receiving food stamps will receive $36 less per month. The average benefit per person in 2012 was only $133 per month, so this is a significant decrease for individuals and families struggling to make ends meet.
“People are living at the margins,” Ellen Vollinger, legal director and SNAP advocate at the anti-hunger organization the Food Research and Action Center, told Reuters. “It’s not an abstract metric for people. It’s actual dollars to keep food in the refrigerator.”
Despite the importance of SNAP for keeping 47 million Americans out of poverty – especiallychildren, the disabled, and the elderly – Republicans in the House of Representatives are pushing for more cuts. The House recentlyvoted to cut $4 billion annually from SNAP for the next ten years, which would total a $40 billion loss for the program.
Media Resources: Feminist Newswire 9/10/13, 9/20/13, 10/17/13, 10/25/13; Reuters 10/30/13
A federal appeals court of three judges granted the Texas Attorney General’s request yesterday to reinstate restrictions on abortion providers after a federal district court had blocked the implementation of the restrictions earlier this week. Proponents of abortion rights will appeal the decision either to a full Court of Appeals En Banc or to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, some 12 Texas clinics that cannot meet the unnecessary requirement of the doctor having admitting privileges at a nearby hospital will close today.
Clinics, because of the intense harassment of their doctors, have been forced to have doctors travel a distance to the clinic. These long-distance doctors generally do not have local admitting privileges which are unnecessary because in the rare case of an emergency the local hospital would have to admit the patient.
“The immediate impact will be felt by low-income women who will not only lose services to abortion but also to birth control, STI testing, and cancer screening as these clinics close,” said Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal. The closest facility for some Texas women will be three to four hours, especially in the southwestern part of the state.
This is a “deeply disturbing court decision tonight that will hurt a lot of women — this fight [is] far from over,” Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, wrote on her Twitter account last night.
While the appeals court left in place Yeakel’s decision on medical abortion, it disagreed with the hospital admitting privileges decision. The appeals court claims that the ruling overlooked the interests of the state in regulating the medical profession, and that the US Supreme Court has held that having “the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate a law that serves a valid purpose,” reports NPR .
Media Resources: Feminist Newswire 9/5/13, 10/3/13, 10/29/13; NPR 10/31/13
The Oklahoma Board of Health voted in early October to update the state’s previous parental notification laws. The laws will now require girls seeking abortions to have their parents provide government-issued identification and written documentation that proves he or she is the parent, has been notified, and consents to the procedure. The board voted to require that in cases of emergency, a doctor can go ahead and perform an abortion, but the parents must be notified afterwards by mail.
Minors may receive a judicial waiver of the parental notification requirement only under three circumstances: if there is a medical emergency, if the minor is a victim of abuse or neglect, or if a judge finds by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is sufficiently mature and well-informed to decide whether to have an abortion. These circumstances are open to interpretation, and they can put vulnerable teens in danger.
Earlier this month, a 16-year-old girl in Nebraska’s foster care system was denied an abortion when a lower court judge – who had previously been an attorney for anti-abortion extremist group Operation Rescue – found that the girl was not mature and informed enough to make the decision to have an abortion, despite strong evidence to the contrary. She will be forced to carry her pregnancy to term.
“Quite ironically, the legislature seems to be saying that an immature teen cannot have an abortion but can become a parent,” Martha Skeeters, president of the Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, told RH Reality Check.
Media Resources: The Oklahoman 10/9/13; Open States; Feminist Newswire 10/7/13; RH Reality Check 10/18/13
Today marks the 35th anniversary of the passing of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). In 1978, after mounting pressure from the National Organization for Women, Congress amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act – which bans sex discrimination – to include protections for pregnant women.
“One of the most significant gains for women’s rights was the Pregnancy Discrimination Act,” said President of Feminist Majority Foundation Eleanor Smeal, who was instrumental in getting Congress to pass the act. “It results in valuable financial benefits for women every year.”
The act was passed in response to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Geduldig v. Aiello and General Electric Company v. Gilbert, finding that Title VII’s prohibition against “sex” discrimination did not include a ban on pregnancy-based discrimination. To reverse this, the PDA asserted that pregnant women should be “treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs.” Firing, demoting, reducing pay, or refusing reasonable accommodations for pregnant women were all made illegal.
Protections for pregnant workers are vitallyimportant. Almost two-thirds of first-time mothers work while pregnant, and 90 percent of those women continue to work into their last two months of pregnancy. Low-income women and women of color are more likely to be affected by pregnancy discrimination, because they are more likely to hold low-paying jobs with limited flexibility.
Although the act has had a huge positive impact, there is still room for improvement. Courts around the United States have been interpreting the act narrowly, often allowing employers to fire, force unpaid leave, or refuse reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers.
“Today, the act must be strengthened,” Smeal adds. “But it was a major leap forward for women in employment in the United States.”
Media Resources: US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Feminist Newswire 10/2/13, 10/30/13; Feminist Majority Blog 10/31/13
Domestic violence survivors, advocates, and members of Congress will convene today in Washington, DC to mark the end of Domestic Violence Awareness Month and to urge passage of federal gun reform laws to protect domestic violence victims. They are calling especially for background checks for all gun sales.
For many victims of domestic violence, whether their abusive partner has a gun or not is a question of life or death. There is a five-fold increase in the risk of women being murdered by an intimate partner when that partner owns a firearm [see PDF]. In states that require background checks for all sales of handguns, 38 percent fewer women are murdered by intimate partners.
The New York Women’s Equality Coalition rallied yesterday morning on the steps of New York City’s city hall to celebrate the 35th anniversary of the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the recent passage of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act by the New York City Council. They also called on state legislators to take action to ensure that the New York Women’s Equality Agenda – which contains an important measure to strengthen pregnancy discrimination protections – does not die on December 31, 2013.
Protections for pregnant women are vitally important. Almost two-thirds of first-time mothers work while pregnant, and 90 percent of those women continue to work into their last two months of pregnancy. Low-income women and women of color are more likely to be affected by pregnancy discrimination, because they are more likely to hold low-paying jobs with limited flexibility.
A recent report by the National Women’s Law Center showed how pregnant women are often fired or forced to take unpaid leave from jobs because employers fail to make reasonable accommodations that they would make for other workers.
“Women make up almost half of the labor force, but all too often they are forced to make an impossible choice: risk their own health and pregnancy to keep a job or lose their income at the moment they can least afford it,”said NWLC Vice President and General Counsel Emily Martin. “Pregnant workers are ready, willing and able to continue working but they are often forced out by employers who refuse to make minor accommodations. These women and their families pay a steep price when they’re pushed out of jobs. There’s no reason for pregnancy to be a job-buster.”
Currently only a handful of states provide protections for pregnant workers. A federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was reintroduced in Congress last May.
Media Resources: New York Women’s Equality Coalition 10/29/13; Feminist Newswire 5/15/13, 10/2/13; New York State Governor; National Organization for Women NYC 10/29/13; National Women’s Law Center 6/18/13
Just one day before restrictive abortion laws in Texas were to take effect, a federal district court struck down a provision of the law that would require abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges and ruled that restrictions on medication abortion could not be enforced in certain circumstances.
Judge Lee Yeakel ruled that the admitting privileges requirement was unconstitutional after finding that the provision had no rational relationship to improving patient care, treatment, or outcomes [see PDF]. The court also found that the requirement would force abortion clinics to close as the majority of providers do not have admitting privileges and would, for a variety of reasons, be unlikely to get them. As a result, the provision would place an undue burden on women seeking abortion services in Texas.
The court also considered the law’s restrictions on medication abortion, which would force physicians to follow the FDA protocol on the use, dosage, and administration of mifepristone. The court found that the FDA protocol, written in 2000, no longer represents the medical standard of care for abortion providers, and that physicians have developed a new standard – endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists – that requires a significantly lower dosage of mifepristone [see PDF]. This new standard of care, the “off-label” protocol, also allows medication abortion to be used “safely and reliably” up to 63 days following a woman’s last menstrual period (LMP), versus the FDA protocol which limits medication abortion to 49 days LMP.
Although finding that the new off-label protocol is safe, effective, and more comfortable for women, the court determined that “individuals do not have a constitutional right to a preferred medical option, so long as a safe, medically accepted, and actual alternative exists” – in this case, surgical abortion.
But, Judge Yeakel also found that surgical abortion is not a medically sound option for certain women who are between 50-63 days LMP. For these women, the Texas law would be an undue burden on their ability to obtain an abortion. The court therefore ruled that the medication abortion restrictions were unconstitutional “to the extent those provisions prohibit a medication abortion where a physician determined in appropriate medical judgment, such a procedure is necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother,” meaning that the law cannot be enforced in these situations.
“Today’s decision has averted a catastrophic health crisis for women across the state of Texas,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “Politicians, not doctors, pushed for both of these unconstitutional restrictions – despite the best medical standards for women’s health care.”
Judge Yeakel was appointed to the federal district court by President George W. Bush in 2003 on therecommendation of Republican Senators Kay Bailey-Hutchison and John Cornyn. He previously served, at the appointment of then-Governor Bush, as a justice on the Texas Third Court of Appeals.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on whether an Oklahoma law that forces physicians to use the FDA protocol for medication abortions is constitutional. The Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down the law late last year. The Supreme Court has asked the the Oklahoma justices to provide more information on the state law before the case proceeds.
Media Resources: Federal Judicial Center; US District Court for the Western District of Texas 10/28/13; Reuters 7/18/13; Planned Parenthood 10/28/13; Congressional Record on Google Books; Feminist Newswire 9/16/13; SCOTUS Blog
Virginia Attorney General and current candidate for Governor Ken Cuccinelli recently filed a summary of his tax returns, revealing that he has given over $4,000 to crisis pregnancy centers (CPC) in the past few years. Crisis pregnancy centers have been found to purposefully use inaccurate medical information, false statements, and emotional manipulation to dissuade women from receiving abortion care.
Cuccinelli gave $1,340 to a Manassas-area CPC called AAA Women for Choice, and he helped them raise an additional $4,000 by letting them raffle off a Gadsden flag that he had autographed. An investigation by NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia found that employees at AAA Women for Choice incorrectly informed visitors that abortion could cause infertility and breast cancer, gave misinformation about surgical abortion, and told one woman that the decision to have an abortion would “haunt” her for the rest of her life. The AAA Women for Choice website, however, does not reflect its anti-choice practices. The website misleads online visitors by listing abortion as an option for pregnant women.
Cuccinelli also gave $2,678 to Divine Mercy Care, the fundraising component of the pro-life medical center Tepeyac Family Center in Fairfax, and $20 to EMC Frontline Pregnancy Centers, an organization that runs CPCs in New York City and has been found to tell patients there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.
Cuccinelli’s support for crisis pregnancy centers goes beyond individual charitable giving and into the realm of politics. As a state senator, he amended a bill to make the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles offer “Choose Life” license plates to drivers. Each time a license plate is purchased, $15 is donated to a CPC. Since the plates have become available, they have raised $223,000 for state CPCs. As the state’s attorney general, Cuccinelli has also tried to prevent a women’s health clinic’s appeal of unnecessary and onerous TRAP regulations from proceeding in court. The regulations have already forced two clinics to close.
Media Resources: Document Cloud; Mother Jones 10/22/13; NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia; Feminist Newswire 7/2/13, 7/16/13, 10/14/13
Currently, the state’s law is silent on the issue. As a result, some counties in the state have allowed same-sex couples to marry, while others have refused. To date, same-sex couples have married in eight of the state’s 33 counties, and at least two judges have upheld marriage equality under the state constitution. Over 900 marriage licenses have been issued across the state, but some Republican lawmakers have voiced opposition.
A group of same-sex couples represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of New Mexico, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and several local attorneys sued in March after initially being denied marriage licenses. A New Mexico judge ruled in favor of the couples in September. Thereafter, the New Mexico Association of Counties, joined by every county clerk, requested that the New Mexico Supreme Court immediately review the decision in order to settle several open cases around the state.
A recently released report from the Guttmacher Institute reveals that births resulting from unintended pregnancies cost federal and state governments $12.5 billion in 2008 – but without current publicly supported family planning services, those costs would double to $25 billion.
According to the report, the “authors warn that chronic underinvestment and ideological attacks on the programs and providers that make publicly supported family planning services accessible to millions of women have been counterproductive,” actually causing increases in public spending. The authors recommend that “substantial new public investments in family planning services and comprehensive sex education” would help to reduce the $12.5 billion in public costs.
Mississippi had the highest percentage of publicly funded unplanned births at 83 percent. This is the same state that expanded abstinence education in March 2011.
Media Resources: Guttmacher Institute; Colorlines 10/22/13
The law will require Texans to show one of a narrow list of acceptable government-issued photo IDs in order to vote. The list includes expired gun licenses from out of state, but does not allow voters to present student IDs or social security cards. These laws are enacted under the guise of protecting against voter fraud, which is extremely rare. In reality, they strip voting rights from students, women, people of color, and low-income voters who are less likely to have an eligible ID.
In an Op-Ed for MSNBC, Feminist Majority President Eleanor Smeal and Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law President and Executive Director Barbara Arnwine discussed how the war on voting is part of the war on women. “Given the potential impact of minority voters in the next election, and the persistence of a gender gap in voting that tends to favor progressive candidates, Republican-controlled state legislatures have resorted to using voting laws to dilute the voices of women and people of color,” they wrote.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice [PDF], 25 percent of eligible African-American voters, 18 percent of people aged 65 and up, and many students do not have a current government-issued photo ID card. In addition, 34 percent of women voters do not have an ID that reflects their current name.
Media Resources: Feminist Newswire 8/23/13; ThinkProgress 6/25/13, 10/21/13; MSNBC 10/19/13; Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law
The Kansas Supreme Court has indefinitely suspended the law license of former state Attorney General Phill Kline for launching a fraudulent legal prosecution against Dr. George Tiller, a Wichita abortion provider. Tiller was murdered in May 2009 – shortly after being acquitted of all charges – by anti-abortion extremist Scott Roeder.
Over the course of six years, Kline had subjected Dr. Tiller and a Planned Parenthood clinic in Overland Park to a baseless and politically motivated criminal investigation and prosecution, in which Kline alleged that Dr. Tiller had performed illegal abortions and failed to report the sexual abuse of minors who had sought abortions. Over 100 criminal charges were filed in all. A jury found Dr. Tiller not guilty of all charges against him. All charges against Planned Parenthood were also dismissed or dropped.
In 2010, disciplinary proceedings commenced against Kline for professional misconduct related to his investigation and prosecution of Dr. Tiller and the Planned Parenthood clinic. Among the charges against Kline were mishandling patient medical records, misleading the court, misrepresenting the law, disobeying a court order, and providing false testimony.
The Kansas Supreme Court found that Kline had committed 11 violations of the rules of professional conduct and had breached his duty to the public by engaging in dishonest conduct. The Court also found that Kline had acted with a selfish motive, had exhibited a substantial pattern of misconduct, and had refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his actions.
Appearing on the Rachel Maddow Show after the decision was rendered (watch here), duVergne Gaines, Legal Coordinator of the National Clinic Access Project at the Feminist Majority Foundation, called the decision to suspend Kline “a moment of justice.” Gaines later commented, “The damage caused by Kline’s personal vendetta against Dr. Tiller was significant because it contributed to a climate of extremism that helped lead to Tiller’s murder. Kline’s unethical prosecution provided a veneer of legitimacy to anti-abortion zealotry.”
“The murderer Scott Roeder thought the injustice was that Dr. Tiller wasn’t convicted,” said President of the Feminist Majority Foundation Eleanor Smeal, “but the real injustice was that Tiller was tried at all.”
As Attorney General, Kline had subpoenaed medical records of 90 women and girls who had sought late-term abortions. The court issued the subpoena but directed the redaction of patient-identifying information. Shortly thereafter, Kline lost his reelection bid for state Attorney General and went on to serve as the Johnson County District Attorney. It was later revealed that Kline had the medical records, which were in the possession of the state Attorney General’s office, copied for his use as District Attorney, without receiving approval from the court. The medical records were also not kept in a secure location – copies were kept in a staffer’s apartment – and Kline directed staff to prepare handwritten “summaries” of medical files that contained specific information about each patient. In addition, Kline used other records subpoenaed for his investigation to identify patients by name.
An undocumented woman who was shackled before and after giving birth in Tennessee will receive $490,000 in a settlement and now has the prospect of a U-visa.
Juana Villegas, a mother of four – all U.S. citizens – who moved to the United States from Mexico in the 1990s, was arrested in 2008 after she failed to show a driver’s license during a traffic stop in Nashville. She was detained for being in the United States illegally by police officers who had immigration enforcement powers as part of a controversial Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) program – called the 287(g) program – that allows local police departments to question people about their immigration status and detain them until ICE can take custody.
Villegas gave birth only three days after her arrest and was taken back to the jail without her newborn son. She was not allowed to use her breast pump in the jail, and she developed a painful breast infection.
Villegas filed a lawsuit in 2009 asserting that her eighth amendment rights to protection from cruel and unusual punishment were violated. In 2011, a federal judge in Tennessee ruled in Villegas’ favor on the basis that the officers were deliberately indifferent to her medical needs, but the government of Nashville and Davidson County, TN appealed. A dispute over the amount of damages was making its way through court when officials decided to settle.
Villegas will receive $100,000 from the settlement and the rest will go to her lawyers. The U-visa she may receive is usually reserved for victims of crime, but the judge said it was in order because her civil rights were violated. It will allow her to live and work legally in the country for four years and apply for permanent residency in her third year.
Other families in similar situations have not been as lucky with the legal system. Approximately 5.5 million children in the U.S. have an undocumented parent, and about 4.5 million of these children are U.S. citizens. In the first six months of 2011, the federal government deported over 46,000 parents of U.S.-citizen children. TheApplied Research Center has estimated that there are at least 5,100 children living in foster care whose parents have been either detained or deported, and in counties with 287(g) agreements – like the kind operating in Villegas case – children in foster care were about 29 percent more likely to have a detained or deported parent than in other counties.
Davidson County has since discontinued the 287(g) program, and the Obama administration has reduced it nationwide after criticism by immigrant advocate groups.
Media Resources: The Tennessean 10/12/13; The New York Times 10/17/13; More Law 3/5/13; CBS News 10/18/13; Applied Research Center
Dozens of gay couples across New Jersey are holding wedding ceremonies and applying for marriage licenses today as the state becomes the 14th U.S. state to legalize gay marriage. Mayors began officiating weddingsthis morning at 12:01 AM.
“We are very excited that now, finally, we get to marry,” New Jersey resident Allen Kratz, who plans to marry his partner of 28 years on Thursday, told Reuters. “I know some political leaders think it’s too soon. But civil rights always come too soon for those in a position of power and never soon enough for those who have been denied, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
The state’s Supreme Court ruled Friday against a request by Governor Chris Christie to delay a lower court’s September ruling allowing gay marriage until the top court could hear the state’s appeal and make a final decision. “The State has advanced a number of arguments, but none of them overcome this reality: same-sex couples who cannot marry are not treated equally under the law today,” wrote Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, “The harm to them is real, not abstract or speculative.”
The earlier ruling stated that the current civil union system deprives same-sex couples of equal protection under the law, and that gay marriages could start on October 21. It is the first time a state has lifted a ban on gay marriage as a result of United States v. Windsor, which struck down the federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman in June.
The state’s appeal of the ruling was scheduled to be heard by the state Supreme Court in January, but Christiedropped the legal challenge after the Court issued its decision allowing marriages to proceed.
Media Resources: CNN 10/21/13; NJ.com 10/21/13; Reuters 10/21/13; The New York Times 10/21/13; Feminist Newswire 9/30/13
A new report by the Southern Education Foundation reveals that for the first time in 40 years, a majority of public school students throughout the Southern and Western United States are low-income.
The analysis is based on the number of preschool through 12th-grade students who were eligible for the federal free and reduced-price meals program in the 2010-11 school year, which requires that a family of four earn no more than $40,793 annually to qualify.
Around 48 percent of the nation’s 50 million public-school students qualify for the program, but the number reaches 53 percent in southern states and 50 percent in western states. Mississippi has the highest percentage, with 71 percent of students in the state qualifying for the meal program. In contrast, 25 percent of New Hampshire students qualify.
Low income students are more likely than students from wealthier families to have low test scores and dropout of school. While programs have been implemented over the past few years to improve education, such as No Child Left Behind, they focus too much on standardized test scores and teacher accountability, leaving poverty and its detrimental effects on academic performance unaddressed.
“We have an education system that continues to assume that most of our students are middle class and have independent resources outside the schools in order to support their education,” said Steve Suitts, vice president of the Southern Education Foundation. “The trends and facts belie that assumption. We can’t continue to educate kids on an assumption that is 20 years out of date. We simply have to reshape our educational system.”
The report explains that the 2008 recession likely contributed to the growth in the number of low income students, especially in areas where the housing markets and local economies collapsed, but there has been a steady increase in the number of low income students for a longer period of time.
Media Resources: Southern Education Foundation; The Washington Post 10/16/13
A new study by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley reveals that 52 percent of fast-food workers are forced to enroll their families in public assistance programs to get by, costing American taxpayers almost $7 billion annually.
Funded by Fast Food Forward, the report shows that fast food workers in front-line positions, like cooks, are enrolled in public assistance programs, such as Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, at more than twice the rate of the overall workforce.
The fast food industry is a $200 billion-a-year industry, but most jobs pay at or near minimum wage, and only 13 percent of jobs provide health benefits. The low wages and benefits, combined with an average workweek of only 30 hours, contribute to the need for public assistance–although even full-time fast food workers working 40 hours per week or more have to turn to assistance programs.
On top of that, two-thirds of fast food workers are adults over the age of 20, with 68 percent acting as the main wage earners in their families, and a quarter raising at least one child. Seventy-three percent of all front-line workers are women, and 43% are black or Latino.
The report was based on an examination of industry workers not in management positions who worked at least 10 hours per week for at least 27 weeks a year between the years of 2007 and 2011. It comes at a time whenfast food workers around the nation are campaigning for $15 hourly wages.
Media Resources: NPR 10/16/13; UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education 10/15/13; UC Berkeley News Center 10/15/13; Feminist Newswire 5/13/13, 7/31/13, 8/27/13
Anti-abortion activists have collected enough signatures to include a “personhood” measure on Colorado’s next state ballot in November 2014, even though Colorado voters have twice rejected personhood initiatives.
This latest initiative will appear on the ballot as Amendment 67. It is worded misleadingly, not mentioning the word abortion. The measure would amend the definition of “person” and “child” in the Colorado Criminal Code and Wrongful Death act to include “unborn human beings.” Supporters claim that the measure will help pregnant women get justice if crimes committed against them cause them to miscarry. However, Coloradoalready has a law, the Crimes Against Pregnant Women Act, that addresses that very issue.
Women’s rights activists worry the language in Amendment 67 could lead to investigations of any woman who has an abortion or miscarries. “The 2014 ballot initiative, again, has slightly different language than years past in an effort to deceive the voters,” said Cathy Alderman of Planned Parenthood Votes Colorado. “But it has the same dangerous outcomes which would lead to more government intrusion in our personal lives, including: getting into our medical records to investigate miscarriages, dictating the kinds of birth control we use, and interfering with medical decisions made by women with their doctors in treating fertility problems.”
Media Resources: ThinkProgress 10/15/13; Fox31 Denver 10/14/13; Colorado Secretary of State News Release 10/14/13; Huffington Post 5/3/13; Planned Parenthood Votes Colorado
North Carolina has suspended its welfare program, called Work First, because of the government shutdown. The program is funded through the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
On Monday, social service agencies in North Carolina stopped processing all new applications for Work First because funds are expected to run out in November. Those who are already registered will still receive assistance through October.
Until the government shutdown ends, future assistance is up in the air for the 20,709 state residents in the program, 6,948 of whom are parents of dependent children and 13,761 of whom are children living with someone other than a parent.
North Carolina is the first state to suspend its welfare program. No state has received federal funding under TANF since October 1.
Media Resources: ThinkProgress 10/15/13; North Carolina Division of Social Services; News Observer 10/14/13
In a victory for the Falls Church Healthcare Center, a Virginia women’s health clinic that provides abortions, an Arlington County judge ruled last week to allow the clinic’s appeal regarding targeted regulation of abortion provider (TRAP) laws to move forward in court. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who is currently running for state Governor, had tried to have the appeal dismissed, but the judge ruled against him.
At issue was whether the Virginia Board of Health and Cuccinelli would be required to participate in a hearing about allegations that the Board violated an executive order by Governor Bob McDonnell. McDonnell’s order requires state agencies to consider how regulations impact small businesses and to make alternative options available.
The TRAP regulations in question have a detrimental impact on abortion clinics, imposing high costs for unnecessary structural and operational changes, and very little time to adhere to them. Examples of changes required by the regulations include making additional parking available, replacing existing ceilings, and adding showers to all facilities for staff members. The regulations have already forced two Virginia clinics to close since they went into effect in June. It would cost the Falls Church Healthcare Center over 60,000 dollars to adhere to them, according to its Director, Rosemary Codding.
The clinic’s appeal also claims that a hearing would show that Cuccinelli pressured the board to drop a “grandfather clause” exempting existing facilities from the new regulations.
About 30 supporters of the clinic attended the hearing in the courtroom, and around 75 attended a lively rally before the hearing outside the courthouse.
Media Resources: RH Reality Check 10/9/13; Feminist Newswire 6/14/13, 7/16/13
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Arizona could not require individuals to present proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, passport, tribal identification, or naturalization documents, in order to register to vote in federal elections. In response, Arizona joined Kansas last week to set into motion a costly plan to create a separate voter registration system, with separate ballots, for state and local elections.
The creation of two separate voter registration systems could translate into thousands of disenfranchised voters. Ninety percent of the 31,000 voter registration applications that were denied after Arizona adopted Proposition 200, the initiative requiring proof of citizenship, belonged to U.S. citizens. Nationwide, as many as 13 million Americans do not have ready access to proof of their citizenship. Many racial minorities, students, elderly, and poor individuals do not have the types of government-issued identification documents being required by Arizona. In addition, as many as 34 percent of American women, who often change their names after marriage or divorce, do not have a government issued ID that reflects their current name. These documents can be costly and difficult to obtain.
Arizona Proposition 200 passed in 2004, requiring all individuals to provide proof of citizenship when they registered to vote in the state. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, however, that with respect to federal elections, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which requires states to use a uniform federal voter registration form, controls, not the Arizona law. NVRA does not require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. The federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) creates federal voter registration forms. States can ask the EAC to approve state-specific instructions on the form, like proof of citizenship. Arizona had requested that the EAC approve its proof-of-citizenship requirement in 2005, but the EAC took no action on the request and Arizona did not challenge the EAC in federal court. In making its ruling, the Supreme Court indicated that Arizona could reapply to the EAC to approve its proof-of-citizenship requirement.
Both Arizona and Kansas are now suing the EAC to be able to amend their voter registration forms to require proof of citizenship for both state and federal elections.
Media Resources: The New York Times 10/11/13; The Wichita Eagle 10/4/13; Arizona Attorney General Press Release 10/7/13; The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law; The Supreme Court; Bloomberg 8/22/13
