Colorado Abolishes the Death Penalty

Colorado abolished the penalty on Monday, making it the twenty-second state to do so. Governor Polis signed a bill after it passed the State House and Senate earlier this year.

Capital punishment was halted in 1972 through Furman v. Georgia as “cruel and unusual punishment,” but then reinstated through Gregg v. Georgia in 1976. Since this reinstatement, only one person in Colorado has been executed, with 1,517 executions occurring nationally since 1976. When Governor Polis signed this bill into law, there were three inmates on death row that were given new sentences of life in prison without the ability to parole.

Further, people of color are disproportionately put on death row, as they represent 55% of those who are currently awaiting execution. On the federal level from 1995-2000, “805% of all the federal cases recommended by U.S. Attorneys to the Attorney General seeking the death penalty involve people of color.” Governor Polis noted this when signing this bill, stating that “the death penalty cannot be, and never has been, administered equitably in the State of Colorado.”

Sources: New York Times 3/23/20; Supreme Court 1971; Supreme Court 1976; NBC News 3/23/20; American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 2020

Obamacare Turns 10 This Week. Here’s How It Has Changed Healthcare in the US.

The Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act was signed into law a decade ago by former President Barack Obama, but even after being signed into law it faced countless attacks from political opponents, Supreme Court cases, and even found itself at the center of election debates on the topic of healthcare. However, the biggest challenge the ACA faces might be right now in light of the coronavirus pandemic, which has tested the American healthcare system in ways many could not have foreseen. Meanwhile, conservative politicians and the current Trump administration are calling into question the constitutionality of the law in the Supreme Court, and left wing Democrats are calling for more radical change, in the form of a “single-payer government-run health insurance system.”

So, while facing the reality of a great deal of opposition to the ACA, let’s consider what this law has done for the American people and what its shortcomings may be. For one thing, it has greatly expanded coverage. Whether or not you are a fan of Obamacare, it has increased insurance coverage for 20 million people who were previously without any insurance at all. While this is certainly an improvement, for many Americans the ACA hasn’t gone far enough to curb medical costs, when faced with paying high premiums, deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs, which is ultimately considered by creators of Obamacare to be its biggest flaw.

Despite this major affordability setback, the ACA has made healthcare insurance more affordable for people with pre-existing conditions–one of the most well-known protections offered by the ACA. Considering all of these factors, a recent series of studies have indicated that Obamacare has made people in the United States healthier overall. Though it undoubtedly has imperfections, “at this point now there is enough evidence that we can say confidently that giving people health insurance produces health impacts and positive health changes,” according to a physician and researcher at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. While the ACA may not be around forever, it has introduced protections that many Americans will refuse to go without, moving forward.

Sources: NY Times 03/23/2020; NY Times 03/02/2020; National Center For Health Statistics 2019; ASPE 2017; NY Times 03/23/2010

TX, OH, LA Attempt to Ban Abortion in Midst of Global Pandemic

Abortion has been included as a nonessential surgery in Texas and Ohio in yet another attempt by lawmakers to ban abortion in the midst of a global pandemic. While the states pointed to a desire to save personal protective equipment for healthcare workers fighting COVID-19, abortion rights activists claim that abortion is, in fact, essential because potential patients are unable to wait until this indefinite pandemic ends.

The attorney general of Texas, Ken Paxton, announced Monday that “any abortion that is not medically necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother” will result in fines up to $1,000 or 180 days in jail. Texas followed the lead of Ohio after similar actions taken by authorities last week and has historically been a site of attempts to severely restrict abortion access.

The actions taken by state officials are clearly political stunts attempting to capitalize on the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, particularly in light of the fact that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended that abortion not be on the list of medical procedures that should be postponed due to the outbreak.

After Ohio issued a mandate to delay all nonessential surgeries on Wednesday, the office of Ohio’s attorney general sent letters to abortion clinics ordering them to cease “performing all nonessential and elective surgical abortions.” Despite complaints to the state’s Department of Health from anti-abortion groups such as Ohio Right to Life, abortion clinics remain open after negotiations with the attorney general. The CEOs of two different Planned Parenthood affiliates in Ohio said in response that their clinics are in complete compliance and had already begun to cut back on the use of equipment.

“Abortion care is a time-sensitive medical situation that cannot be significantly delayed without profound consequences,” NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio Executive Director Kellie Copeland said in a statement. “Ohio’s elected officials should not stand between patients and their doctors.”

Ohio was the first state in the U.S. in 2011 to introduce a so-called “heartbeat” bill that would ban abortion after six weeks of pregnancy–before the time many women even know they are pregnant. Though heartbeat bills have gained popularity in conservative states such as Iowa and Georgia, they have been largely struck down by the courts.

Louisiana also issued a similar order last weekend, and as of now clinics have temporarily suspended abortion services.

Sources: New York Times, 3/23/20; New York Daily News, 3/23/20; The Guardian, 3/23/20; Vox, 3/22/20.

Afghan Woman Mayor Survives Attack

Updated 3/25/20 @ 12:46pm

The mayor of Maidan Shar, a city some 28 miles in the southern outskirts of Kabul, was attacked by four armed men, believed to be members of the Taliban. The armed men opened fire at her car while she was on her way home last Sunday. Mayor Zarifa Ghafari was recently awarded the International Women of Courage Award by the State Department in early March. She returned to Kabul last week after spending some time in the U.S. receiving the award and advocating for women’s human rights, democracy, and preserving the achievements of the nearly last two decades in Afghanistan.

Ms. Ghafari was appointed to the position of the mayor of Maidan Shar city in July 2018. She faced Taliban threats and opposition from other local politicians for her appointment because of her sex that a woman could not lead a city. She could not begin her tenure until March of 2019. On her first day in office, a mob chased her away, refusing her authority as a woman. However, after her hard work in office and working closely with the local people, she has since been welcomed and much admired by the locals for her hard work in urban development. Her city has over half a million residents.

Despite continuous death threats to Mayor Ghafari, she has continued to do her job as well as raise her voice against extremism and the rights of women. Shortly after the attack, she tweeted for safely escaping the attack and that she will continue to speak up for the “republic, democracy, human rights and women’s rights,” and that she will not give up speaking for these values.

The attack on Mayor Ghafari was condemned by many Afghans as well as Sec. Pompeo of State Department and U.S. Charge d’Affaires, Ross Wilson . Mr. Wilson added that “Americans stand with you and all others working for a peaceful, tolerant, forward-looking Afghanistan.” Mr. Wilson has largely been criticized by ignoring the killing of Afghan security personnel late last week at the hands of the Taliban despite entering a so-called peace deal with the U.S.

Early this month, during her speech at the State Department, Mayor Ghafari emphasized that she and the women of Afghanistan do not want to go back to the Taliban rule when all basic human rights were taken from women. In her speech, she called on the Trump Administration to ensure that women’s rights are protected in talks with the Taliban. She appeared alarmed by the so-called peace deal between the U.S. and the Taliban that does not recognize the Afghan government or guarantee human rights, women’s rights and preserving the Constitution of Afghanistan that establishes a republic.

Mayor Ghafari pursued her bachelors and masters’ in Economics and Urban Development. At 26, she is the first of two women and the youngest mayor in Afghanistan and has become a role model for the local women as well as women across the country.

Twitter, 3/23/20 and 3/24/20

Schools Offer Drive-Thru and Pick-Up Lunches for Vulnerable Students

For nearly 30 million children across the United States, the closure of schools to slow the spread of coronavirus created a critical disruption: no more lunch.

These children benefit from the National School Lunch Program, the nation’s second largest food and nutrition assistance program behind SNAP. But with hundreds of thousands of schools closing, kids may not be able to access lunches (and sometimes breakfasts, snacks, and dinners) that they previously were entitled to. Millions of families must now figure out how to feed their kids in a time where money is especially scarce due to lay-offs, cut hours and more during the pandemic.

School staff and volunteers have organized one option to help: drive-thru lunches. The meals, often bagged or boxed, might include sandwiches, milk, fruit cups and Goldfish.

For many school districts, mobilizing drive-thru lunches, a popular option to continue providing food assistance during the summer months, has been hectic on short notice and with no known end to the crisis. Katie Wilson, executive director of the Urban School Food Alliance, said, “I’ve never been in a situation like this where we really are at a crisis point and where it’s going to be very difficult for children to get access to food,” Wilson says. “I mean, we’ve had some situations — natural disasters, things like that — where we’ve dealt with things, but nothing like this where we don’t see any end in sight or how we’re actually going to manage it all.”

Federal waivers issued by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) relaxed rules on what kinds of sites can be used for meal distribution, allowing for the drive-thru model in New York, Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Washington, D.C. Schools, churches, parks and other community locations are all being used for pick-up.

Some students still won’t be able to get lunches via the drive-thru model, unfortunately. These might include children with parents who can’t take time off from jobs that don’t offer teleworking and children staying with elderly grandparents who are self-isolating. For some school districts and cities, if students can’t come to pick up their lunch, their lunch will be brought to them by a familiar yellow school bus. The nutrition services director for a Tacoma, Washington school district described the innovation: “Make the food, put it on school buses and then have our bus drivers drive routes. Take it to our highest-needs apartment complexes and housing areas so that way the kids can just come to the bus rather than find a way to get to the school.”

For 33-year-old Summer Mossbarger, a disabled Army veteran in Brenham, Texas, the continuing provision of lunches for her six children has been crucial: “If we didn’t have this, I probably would have a mental breakdown with stress.”

Sources: Food Research and Action Center 03/24/20; NPR 03/20/20; CNN 03/11/20; New York Times 03/20/20.

Trans Community Uniquely Affected by COVID-19 Pandemic

The spread of the COVID-19 virus will affect everyone in the country in a number of tangible ways, such work closures, shelter in place mandates, and empty toilet paper aisles in grocery stores. Marginalized communities are particularly affected by this pandemic, and the trans community is no different.

Closures and strained health care systems make it difficult for some people to obtain their hormone replacement therapy (HRT). “Many trans women use oral doses of hormones, but everyone’s body responds in a different way to the hormone treatments and some, like myself, are unable to metabolize the hormones effectively via pills,” author Molly Landgraff said. Receiving shots at a hospital puts even more strain on healthcare workers and results in dramatically increased risk for exposure of COVID-19.

The risk of losing insurance coverage has also increased for trans workers because of the virus. Fewer than one-third of employers in the United States provide for transgender inclusive healthcare benefits, and with a multitude of workers forced to stay at home, even transgender workers who have insurance are at risk of losing coverage.

Dr. Alexis Chávez of The Trevor Project, an organization aiming to prevent suicide among LGBTQ youth, pointed to less tangible effects of the pandemic on the trans community. “We know that trans people are less likely to have a primary care provider. They are more likely to delay necessary health care, because of all the negative outcomes that they and their peers have experienced: providers using the wrong names, or genders, or refusing to serve them,” Chávez told Newsweek. “People really need a relationship with their primary health provider; more than any other time, people need that. So it’s something that can be really difficult for trans people.”

Transgender people often grow up with feelings of isolation, so social distancing from supportive communities can bring back this sense of aloneness. The LGBTQ community also has higher rates of HIV and cancer as well as higher rates of smoking, making them more vulnerable to COVID-19.

Sources: Newsweek, 3/23/20; National Center for Transgender Equality, 3/13/20; WBUR, 3/18/20.

Coronavirus Threatens Rural Hospitals Already On The Brink of Closure

Hospitals across America are rapidly losing profits as they prepare for COVID-19. With normally lucrative services like elective surgeries and routine visits cancelled or delayed and the price of basic medical supplies like masks and ventilators soaring, more and more hospitals are being pushed towards the red zone. For already strained rural hospitals, coronavirus might mean financial ruin.

Last Thursday, The American Hospital Association responded to COVID-19 by asking Congress for $100 billion to offset coronavirus costs. The Association cited rural hospital’s inability to provide life-saving services while withstanding huge losses.

“If we’re not able to address the short-term cash needs of rural hospitals, we’re going to see hundreds of rural hospitals close before this crisis ends,” Alan Morgan, the head of the National Rural Health Association, warned. “This is not hyperbole.”

The National Rural Health Association, which represents 21,000 health care providers and hospitals, is lobbying for immediate cash assistance, no-interest loans, Medicare reimbursement adjustments, and other suggestions to alleviate stress.

Rural health care providers were struggling long before the pandemic hit. A combination of narrowing Medicare reimbursements, more patients without insurance, and the hollowing of rural America have placed financial stress rural hospitals– so hard that over the past decade, over 120 rural hospitals have been forced to close.

Elective surgeries, physical therapy, and lab-tests have helped rural hospitals stay afloat. However, a majority still operate in the red. Coronavirus may be the last push needed to shut down these rural hospitals.

Rural hospital providers warn that if nothing is done, rural communities are set to lose vital service providers.

“We can talk all we want about the cost of health care in this country in this ridiculous health care system we have,” Robin Rau, CEO of Miller County Hospital in Colquitt, Georgia, stated in an interview with Kaiser Health News. “But at a time like this, who for a minute would think about getting rid of rural hospitals?”

[The Chartis Group, Chartis Center for Rural Health, February 2020] [Time, 3/18/2020] [American Health Association, 3/19/2020] [Kaiser Health News, 3/21/2020] [ABC News, 3/23/2020] [National Rural Health Association, accessed 3/23/2020]

Despite a Peace Deal, Taliban Kills Numerous Afghan Security Personnel

Amidst the efforts of peace negotiations, Taliban members have accelerated their attacks on Afghan government targets as well as Afghan civilians. In a major blow today, the Taliban targeted an Afghan army base in the southern part of Afghanistan, Zabul province, and killed between 17-25 members of the Afghan army and police. The details of the attacks are still to emerge, but it is reported that the Taliban had an insider in the base that coordinated the attack. This attack also happens on the eve of New Year in Afghanistan that starts with the arrival of the spring season. While New Year is widely celebrated in Afghanistan, the Taliban committed yet another crime by killing Afghan army personnel in their base while asleep.

The Afghan government and NATO condemned the attack. The spokesperson for President Ashraf Ghani condemned the attack and tweeted that, “This heinous act of the Taliban is a clear example of their commitment for continued violence and against the AFG [Afghanistan] peace process.”

NATO senior representative to Afghanistan also condemned the “savage Taliban attack” and stated that, “What kind of people can order and do this to fellow Afghans on the day of Nowruz [New Year], in the midst of a global pandemic & after professing commitment to peace? Shameful.”

Many Afghans have also questioned the Taliban’s will toward peace and have directed their frustration at the U.S. special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, for failing to acknowledge Taliban’s terror and crimes after they have entered the peace deal.

One Afghan tweeted that the “Taliban celebrated the 1399 Nowruz [New Year] by killing 35 AFG soldiers in Zabul. What kind of ideology/greed can justify this madness?”

Another wrote, “I have no words. I am utterly disgusted and heartbroken. Don’t tell me to be happy about peace with the Taliban @US4AfghanPeace if you have any sign of a heart you will take this seriously.”

The Afghan Ministry of Defense has pledged to respond to the Taliban’s attack in a statement that, “The Afghan National Security and Defense Forces will not let the attack go without a response and will avenge the bloods of the martyrs.”

In the so-called peace deal between the U.S. and Taliban each side saw their own dividends. The Taliban committed to reduction in violence for a period of seven days, which they have repeatedly violated since the signing of the agreement , the release their prisoners, and a commitment from the Taliban that the security of the United States will not be threatened from Afghanistan. Yet despite the deal, the Taliban has continued to attack the Afghan army, the Afghan government, and the Afghan civilians. They have continuously engaged in violence and destruction, causing terror among civilians.

 

Sources: Twitter 3/20/20; Tolo News, 3/20/20

COVID-19 Spending Measures Stalled by Anti-Choice Lawmakers

On March 13, a Facebook post went viral, which claimed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stalled a coronavirus relief package in an attempt to authorize federal abortion funding. On the contrary, most evidence suggests that conservative lawmakers were focused on inserting the issue of abortion in the bill.

A number of conservative lawmakers demanded that the coronavirus relief package must include “Hyde language” in the text. The Hyde Amendment was passed in 1976 to prohibit federal funding of abortion, which, most significantly, prevents low income women from using Medicaid coverage to pay for abortions.

Lawmakers have included Hyde language in many government health programs in the past, such as the Indian Health Service, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act. Thus, conservative lawmakers argued that leaving Hyde language out of coronavirus relief could lead to federal funding for abortion in the future.

Specifically, President Trump stalled approval of coronavirus relief, urging Pelosi to include Hyde language.

Rewire argues that “Trump would rather stall efforts to mitigate the coronavirus’ impact in order to appease the anti-choice radicals that make up his political base. That tells us he’s fine gambling with the lives of the disabled, elderly, and immunocompromised communities who are most at risk of developing complications when contracting coronavirus. That tells us that not only does Trump believe a fetus has rights, but he believes those rights matter more than anyone else.”

If anything, liberal lawmakers took the opportunity to amplify efforts to pass paid sick leave, and other important proposals related to healthcare, that have been in the works for over a decade.

Sources: USA Today, 3/18/20; Mother Jones, 3/13/20; Rewire 3/13/20

Transgender Navy Officer Sues Pentagon Challenging Trump Transgender Military Ban

This week, a transgender Navy officer referred to as Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against the Pentagon regarding the Trump administration’s transgender military ban. Doe is seeking emergency relief to continue to serve in the military on the same terms as her cisgender peers, faced with involuntary discharge on the basis of her gender identity.

Under the Obama administration, the Pentagon lifted the longtime ban on transgender people serving openly in the military. The policy change in June 2016 allowed transgender people already serving in the military to come out, receive medically appropriate health care, and change their gender in Pentagon personnel systems. Additionally, the policy change barred the military from discharging transgender service members on the basis of their gender identity. Lastly, it allowed transgender individuals to join the military openly, starting in January 2018.

The Trump administration’s attempts to prevent transgender troops from serving in the military went into effect in April 2019. The ban prevents transgender people from joining the military openly and hinders any current troops from undergoing gender transitions. The ban allows existing transgender troops who came out under the Obama administration’s policy to continue serving, but under discriminatory conditions.

Lieutenant Doe was commissioned as a naval officer in 2010, and served two extended tours of duty as a surface warfare officer. In June 2019, a military doctor diagnosed her with gender dysphoria, prompting her to come out as transgender, and face involuntary discharge from service. Because Doe came out as transgender after April 2019, she is not protected by the ‘grandfather clause’ included in the ban.

Doe v. Esper will be the first major challenge to the transgender military ban since it went into effect. Transgender rights advocates argue that Doe’s case represents the clear injustice in denying troops from serving on the basis of their gender identity, who are otherwise fit to serve and pose no significant medical costs to the military.

The Hill, 3/18/20; GLAD, 3/18/20; HRC 3/2/20

US Homeless Population Highly Vulnerable to Coronavirus

Homeless shelter staff and public health experts have raised concerns about the potential spread of coronavirus among the 550,000 people experiencing homelessness in the United States. Medical researchers estimate that homeless people are twice as likely to contract COVID-19 than the general population due to limited access to hand sanitizer or clean water and crowding in shelters.

Standard precautions to reduce the spread of COVID-19—social distancing, working from home, and frequently washing your hands—are nearly impossible for people living in homeless shelters or outdoors. Shelters are low on supplies like hand sanitizer and face masks, and many of the people living in them are older, longtime smokers or chronically ill—high-risk categories for COVID-19.

“People experiencing homelessness not only have a set of challenges that make it really hard to do what we ask—stay home when you are sick, wash your hands frequently, talk to your medical provider if you are feeling ill—but they are in worse health than many other people,”  said Barbara Ferrer, Los Angeles County’s director of public health.

In the past, cities with large homeless populations have seen deadly outbreaks of Hepatitis A and typhus, but the coronavirus pandemic presents a new challenge. New York City has instructed shelters to screen residents for symptoms and isolate those with COVID-19 “as much as possible.” Dallas has opened a new temporary overnight shelter to aid in social distancing efforts. Los Angeles, a city with nearly 45,000 people counted as unsheltered, is considering increasing the number of outdoor hand-washing stations. San Francisco plans to use motor homes to house quarantined people.

But these limited measures have not reassured shelter staff. “We’re just saying our prayers,” said Bob McElroy, head of a San Diego homeless shelter. “If it gets in here it would be a disaster.”

Sources: New York Times 3/12/20; The Texas Tribune 3/18/20; USA Today 3/14/20

Marie Newman Defeats Longtime Incumbent Anti-Choice Democrat in Illinois Primary

On Tuesday night, Democratic primary candidate Marie Newman beat out longtime incumbent Democrat Rep. Dan Lipinski for a chance at becoming the next Congressional representative from Illinois’ 3rd district.

Lipinski is well known as one of the Democratic party’s anti-abortion members. He opposed two landmark pieces of progressive legislation in recent years: the Affordable Care Act and the 2010 Dream Act. He also refused to endorse Barack Obama in his 2012 re-election race. Lipinski defeated Newman when she ran in 2018, but she decided almost immediately to run again in 2020. She defeated him on Tuesday night with 47 percent of the votes tallied. She ran on feminist issues like reproductive rights, immigration, healthcare, and gun control.

“For many years, Dan was one of the most conservative members of the Democratic Party bar none — if not the most,” said Newman in an interview with The New York Times. “Our district is a deeply blue Democratic district, so I ran on the platform that I’m a real Democrat with a real plan. And it’s kind of that simple. I believe in working families, health care for all, and making sure that we have a livable wage.”

Newman has a background as a marketing and advertising executive and ran her own consulting firm, but created a national nonprofit with an anti-bullying mission in partnership with Sears. She also served as the state spokesperson for the gun control group Moms Demand Action.

Newman has been endorsed by women’s rights and other organizations such as Feminist Majority, EMILY’s List, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Indivisible, SEIU, and the Illinois Federation of Teachers.

Sources: NYT 3/18/20; Politico 3/18/20; CNN 3/19/20

ICE Continues Arrests as California Faces Coronavirus Pandemic

In the midst of California’s COVID-19 lockdown, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers are continuing to make arrests, despite calls from immigration advocates for a suspension of enforcement activities.

To limit the spread of COVID-19, Los Angeles has shut down a range of public services and business, including libraries, movie theaters, clubs, gyms, and concert venues. Governor Gavin Newsom has called for all restaurants statewide to suspend dine-in services and expects schools to remain closed until the fall. But ICE officers are continuing to operate almost as normal.

Immigration advocates have raised concerns about the potential spread of the coronavirus in crowded detention centers. In Colorado, ten people have been isolated at the Aurora detention center due to possible COVID-19 exposure. “I am honestly horrified at the thought that the virus could spread uncontrollably in this and other detention facilities,” said Ana Rodríguez, an organizer with the nonprofit Colorado People’s Alliance. “Detainees and their loved ones shouldn’t have to worry about whether their loved ones will survive detention.”

Those arrested by ICE worry about how their families will fare without them as the coronavirus pandemic progresses. “I’m the head of the house,” said Pedro Castillo Bravo, detained by ICE officers as he left his house for work and a trip to the grocery store. “If they have me here locked up, what about rent and food?”

ICE has stated they are taking precautions—officers have been issued protective N95 respirator masks, visitation by family members has been suspended at detention centers, and officials are considering delaying people’s monthly in-person ICE check-ins. But they have no plans to stop arrests.

Other immigration agencies have seen more dramatic changes as officials scramble to reduce the spread of the virus. The Justice Department has closed 11 immigration courts around the country, including the Los Angeles Olive Street Immigration Court, and has postponed all hearings for immigrants who are not currently in detention. US Citizenship and Immigration Services has halted all in-person services, including naturalization ceremonies and asylum interviews.

Sources: Los Angeles Times 3/17/20; New York Post 3/17/20; Amnesty International 3/17/20; Colorado Independent 3/17/20; CNN 3/18/20

New Zealand Decriminalizes Abortion

On Wednesday, March 18, New Zealand lawmakers voted on and passed a bill that treats abortion as health care and not as a crime, with a vote of 68 to 51.

In Nick Perry’s Associated Press release published by ABC news, Margaret Sparrow, 84-year-old doctor and advocate for reproductive rights, said that, “it’s been a long time coming.” Before the vote abortion was “regulated under the Crimes Act, requiring women to prove to a doctor that their pregnancy presented a danger to their physical or mental health before they could get an abortion.”

In response to the bill, Jackie Edmond, chief executive of Family Planning, said that, “it’s fantastic Parliament has addressed something that they should have addressed 40 years ago.” And according the release, “the law stayed on the books for so long because people found a work-around and lawmakers worried about the political consequences of opening up a debate about it.” However, that all changed once “Jacinda Ardern was elected prime minister in 2017 and followed up on a campaign promise to bring the issue to a vote.”

 

Sources: ABC News 3/18; Associated Press 3/18; familyplanning.org 3/2020

Need for Universal Paid Sick and Family Medical Leave More Urgent Than Ever

The global pandemic caused by COVID-19, also commonly referred to as coronavirus, has revealed a number of systemic flaws in the United States that must be addressed, including paid leave. While the nature of this medical crisis draws attention to the lack of paid sick leave, paid family leave is a benefit that should also be universal. Statistics reveal the huge gap in this country in access to paid leave that reveal the adverse effects on women in particular, especially in the midst of a crisis such as COVID-19.

Seven in ten of the lowest income workers do not have the ability to take even one day of paid sick leave, and greater than 25 percent of private sector employees can’t afford to take one day off either. Overall, the United States has over 32 million workers who are unable to access paid sick leave. These staggering numbers also disproportionately affect women and people of color. For example, 48 percent of Latinx workers and 36 percent of black workers reportedly have no paid leave of any kind.

In a 2017 report by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), 68 percent of low-wage workers who make less than $11 are women; unsurprisingly, black and Latinx women overrepresent low wage workers. Thirty-five percent of the workforce overall in the United States have at least one child at home while 25 percent of women in the lowest wage workforce have at least one child at home as well. Even when there is not a global pandemic, women have challenges accessing food security and economic stability. In a time where schools are closing, and companies and organizations are being mandated to keep crowds down and people at home, women are facing more struggles to feed their families and keep their families–and themselves–safe.

These reports of the lack of paid leave in the U.S. are problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which being the public health risk this poses. Due to fear of workplace discipline or fear of losing their jobs, workers without access to paid sick leave are 1.5 times more likely than those with paid sick leave to go to work while sick, such as with the flu or a viral infection. Employees in professions who interact with the public frequently, like workers in food service or child care, are often the ones who have the least access to paid sick leave. These employees are more likely to both be exposed to a contagious illness as well as spread a contagious illness. According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, the general flu rate in areas with paid sick leave legislation decreased by 5.5 percent. Lack of paid leave poses a public health risk.

Ultimately, there is an abundance of research clearly showing the benefits that paid family leave has on the economy as a whole as well as for employees. The research clearly supports that low-income women are disproportionately affected by the absence of paid family leave in the United States.

Sources: National Partnership for Women and Families, 2/20; National Women’s Law Center, 8/17; Ms. Magazine, 3/12/20.

Immigration Courts to Stay Open During Coronavirus Pandemic

The Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review declared “operations as usual” for proceedings involving non-detained immigrants on Sunday night.

The decision comes after Seattle’s immigration court was shut down last week after a report of second-hand exposure to coronavirus; it will remain shut until April 10. The order states that master calendar dates, which often include dozens of people in a single courtroom, will be postponed until April 10 as well. Filings and hearings in the 67 other immigration courts across the country will operate as scheduled, including in coronavirus-affected cities such as San Francisco and New York City. Such proceedings include asylum interviews and green-card applications.

A collective of immigration judges and lawyers, as well as the union representing Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutors, have called for the immediate shutdown of immigration courts for at least two to four weeks.

“Our nation is currently in the throes of a historic global pandemic. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) current response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its spread is insufficient and not premised on transparent scientific information. The DOJ is failing to meet its obligations to ensure a safe and healthy environment within our Immigration Courts,” the groups said in an official statement. An epidemiologist and public health expert the groups consulted said, “It is irresponsible to do anything other than close our courts until sufficient testing has been conducted.”

The efforts to stop the spread of coronavirus in immigration courts has been lackluster, as also evidenced by confusion and outrage over CDC posters placed in courtrooms last week. The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) suggested that their judges place posters, which identified common symptoms of coronavirus and explained steps to stop the disease’s spread, up in their courtrooms last Monday. The acting chief immigration judge, Christopher A. Santoro, sent an email to judges expressing the Trump administration’s stance on the posters: “Per our leadership, the CDC flyer is not authorized for posting in the immigration courts.” The directive has since been reversed, allowing the posters to be put up.

Immigration courts already have a backlog of about 1 million cases, and the response to coronavirus’ toll on the existing backlog and future proceedings will be seen in the months to come.

Sources: Department of Justice 03/15/20; Associated Press 03/13/20;  Buzzfeed News 03/15/20; National Association of Immigration Judges 03/15/20; Slate 03/10/20.

Richest 10% Using 20 Times More Energy than Bottom 10% of the Global Population

An international study led by researchers from the University of Leeds studied global energy inequality of income classes from 86 countries. The study concluded that the richest ten percent of people consume nearly 20 times more energy than the bottom ten percent.

The researchers combined World Bank and European Union data to analyze how diverse economic classes spend their money. The collective information was used to calculate the distribution of carbon footprints, along with the type of energy-intensive goods and services the different groups pay for. Researchers claim that this is the first study of its kind.

The study reveals that “energy footprints grow with expenditure” as a result – energy consummation is economically unequal. In simple terms, as an individual’s income rises the individual spends more of this increased money on energy-intensive goods mainly in travel.

The study concluded that the majority of energy consumption came from Gulf travel. The results indicate that just from the wealthiest 10% transport, this exclusive group consumes more than half the energy expended in transportation of the 86 countries. To present this in comprehensible numbers, the top 10% economically consume 187 times more fuel than the poorest 10%.

Julia Steinberger, a co-author of the study and leader of the Living Well Within Limits project stated, “There needs to be a serious consideration to how to change the vastly unequal distribution of global energy consumption to cope with the dilemma of providing a decent life for everyone while protecting climate and ecosystems.”

Sources: Environment Journal 3/17/20; BBC News 3/16/20

Biden Pledges to Pick a Woman for VP; Will Appoint a Black Woman to SCOTUS

During Sunday night’s CNN-Univision debate, former Vice President Joe Biden said that he would choose a woman to be his vice-presidential running mate.

According to Biden in a piece by CNN, “If I’m elected president, my Cabinet, my administration will look like the country, and I commit that I will, in fact, appoint a, pick a woman to be vice president,” as, “there are a number of women who are qualified to be president tomorrow.”

Kate Sullivan, Politics Reporter for CNN, explains that, “on the campaign trail, Biden has expressed openness to choosing one of his former 2020 rivals, including Klobuchar, Harris, and Warren. Harris and Klobuchar have both endorsed Biden for president. Biden has also talked about former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, New Hampshire Sen. Maggie Hassan, New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates in conversations about a potential vice presidential pick.”

During the debate, Biden also reiterated a pledge to appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court if he is elected this November. Vox Senior Correspondent Ian Millhiser notes that, “only two African Americans, Justices Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, have served on the Supreme Court. And only one woman of color, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, has joined the Court. If Biden is elected and follows through on that promise, his nominee would be the first black woman to serve as a justice.

According to Millhiser, “if a seat were to open up on the Supreme Court early, one obvious contender for such a nomination is Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who currently serves on the US District Court for the District of Columbia.” Other potential appointees include Justices Leondra Kruger, Michelle Alexander, Sherrilyn Ifill, and Melissa Murray.

Since the presidency of George H.W. Bush, there have been thirteen Supreme Court nominations. Out of those thirteen nominees, only four have been women – Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Harriet Miers, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Out of those four women, three were appointed and only one was a woman of color.

Sources: CNN 3/15; Vox 3/15; senate.gov 3/2020; supremecourt.gov 3/2020

Women Face Food Insecurity in the Wake of Coronavirus Outbreak

Abby J. Liebman and Liza Lieberman are the President and CEO and Director of Public Policy at MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger. Learn more about their important and vital work here.

Many of us are stunned by the coronavirus outbreak, unsure exactly what to do or how to proceed. Should we stockpile food? Work remotely from the couch? Cancel weekend plans?

But what if you don’t have enough money to feed your family in the first place? What if you can’t afford not to show up for work? What if you work in the service industry, where you can’t just work remotely? What if your community is still struggling to recover from the last financial crisis, and you have been out of work for months or years? What if your children’s school closes and they don’t have access to their usual free or reduced-price meals?

These are questions facing millions of low-income Americans—and particularly women—as we face growing uncertainty and tumult.

Urgent Need for Thoughtful Policy Responses

We know that women will be particularly impacted by the coronavirus crisis because the feminization of poverty is a persistent reality playing out every day in communities across the country.

Even on a good day, women face heightened barriers to food security and economic stability due to a variety of longstanding issues ranging from employment discrimination to caregiving responsibilities to long-term effects of the wage gap. With a stunning 40 percent of single mothers in the U.S. currently struggling to afford food for their families, these women are now facing new pressures to patch together plans to keep their children safe and fed in the wake of school closures.

So far, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Sonny Perdue has said, “If schools are closed, we are going to do our very best to make sure kids are fed.”

However, currently, USDA will only grant flexibility for areas where the majority of children receive free or reduced-price lunch. In the face of a pandemic, this is unacceptable: No child should be going without food because their school is closed. To address this, several Members of Congress have introduced bills to encourage broader use of USDA’s waiver authority—so that more children and families can get the nutrition assistance they need.

Several of these proposals were included in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (H.R. 6201)—which also provides additional funds for nutrition assistance programs for women, infants and children (WIC), as well as home-delivered services for seniors and other programs. While this is a vital initial proposal, many questions remain about whether this legislation will be voted on by both chambers and whether the president will actually sign it into law.

Harsh Realities of Women Facing Food Insecurity

The reality is that women struggle with food insecurity for a variety of reasons. Our lives are laced with complex intersections, and it would be myopic to suggest that the only answer to help women and their children thrive is to shore up the nutrition safety net.

We must also address the various circumstances and systemic challenges that push millions of low-income women to need the safety net in the first place. The issues are intersectional, and our government’s response must be comprehensive. Even among anti-hunger advocates, we know that any discussion about poverty must acknowledge the realities of working families—particularly single parent households—including high costs of childcare, lack of paid sick leave and limited access to affordable healthcare.

As colleges and universities across the nation close, far too many students will find themselves without adequate resources to access nutritious food.

And students affected by college and university closures are not exclusively teenagers who live in dorms and can go stay with their parents for a few weeks: They are also student mothers who are trying to keep a semblance of normalcy for their children. They are women who support their families—parents, children and others—while trying to keep up with their studies. These women might regularly visit the campus food pantry just to make sure they stay awake in class. These students need consistent access to affordable food during this crisis, and we must do more to connect them to resources that can help.

Furthermore, we know that as women get older, they are more likely to age into poverty and become newly poor, often in need of government resources like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and other federal nutrition benefits.
Older women are also more likely to be adversely affected by the COVID-19 virus and have few resources to help them weather a health crisis—particularly one that by its nature requires them to be even more isolated. Older women living in rural or remote communities often live alone, without family support, where their vulnerability to illness could intensify with unique barriers to food security.

Charity is Not the (Only) Answer

Sadly, women living in or near poverty are often overlooked by policymakers, as we have seen this week with the Trump administration’s prioritization of the needs of businesses over low-income families in its coronavirus response. Consistent with this Administration’s hateful attempts to restrict SNAP and other federal assistance programs, there seems to be a mythology that the charitable sector can meet the needs of millions of hungry families.

Let’s dispel that myth right now: Charity alone cannot meet the needs of Americans facing hunger. This has never been more true than now.

Nearly 40 million Americans struggle to put food on the table on a regular basis, and the coronavirus has real potential to exacerbate their struggles. While some community-based service providers are exploring tactics like grab-and-go food packages, they will not be able to address the full scope of this problem.

A democratic society must provide for the needs of those unable to provide for themselves. Charitable organizations will continue to play a vital role in addressing hunger and poverty, but we know that the overwhelming majority of food assistance in this country has historically come from—and must continue to come from—federal programs.

Our safety net was created for moments like this. So let’s come together to expand benefits and flexibility to meet the needs of low-income women and their families.

Regardless of a person’s circumstance, nobody deserves to be hungry.

Idaho Senate Passes Bill Banning Transgender Women and Girls from School Sports

The Idaho State Senate passed a bill on March 16th which would ban transgender girls and women from playing on high school and college sports teams. The “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act” would force students to compete on teams that correlate with their sex assigned at birth rather than their gender identity. If there is a “dispute” over which team a student belongs to, the school can “provide a health examination and consent form or other statement signed by the student’s personal health care provider.” According to the bill, one’s sex could be verified through a health care provider examining the student’s physical anatomy, levels of testosterone the body produces, or genetic makeup.

Opponents of the bill argue that it subjects students in invasive exams, as well as subjecting trans students to further ostracization. Mistie Tolman, Idaho State Director at Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest and Hawaii, states that “Transgender people, and transgender youth in particular, just want to be able to live their lives free from harassment and with community…Today, instead of acknowledging their humanity, the Senate chose to give the trans community yet another cold shoulder.”

This bill is not the first that has targeted trans individuals in Idaho. There is a bill advancing in the Idaho State Legislature that prevents trans people from changing the sex on their birth certificates.

This bill will reach the Idaho House before it reaches Governor Little.

Sources: Local News Eight 3/16/20; Idaho House of Representatives 2/13/20; Idaho Press 3/16/20; The Hill 2/28/20

>