Author: Hannah Irvine

State Equal Rights Amendment provides huge win for abortion access in Nevada

Posted on by Hannah Irvine

The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County has overturned the Medicaid abortion coverage ban in Nevada using the state’s Equal Rights Amendment. Following the overturning of Roe v Wade in 2022, the people of Nevada overwhelmingly voted for adding the Equal Rights Amendment to the state’s constitution. The lawsuit challenging the coverage ban was filed by the Silver State Hope Fund and represented by the ACLU, who cited the state’s ERA as its leading legal argument. 

The Silver Spring Hope Fund is a Nevada based nonprofit that provides financial aid to help low-income individuals pay for abortion care. Medicaid is meant to help low income people achieve equal access to quality healthcare. However, the abortion coverage ban denied anyone who relied on Medicaid from receiving abortion funding, except in cases of rape or incest or life-threatening health complications. Instead, they had to turn to organizations like the Silver Spring Hope Fund to fund their treatment.  

The state ERA played a massive role in this win for reproductive health. The judge on the case overturned the ban on the basis of it being a sex driven inequality. There has never been a clearer reason why we must enshrine the ERA in the United States Constitution. It is the single most important tool at our disposal to ensure that women’s rights are protected, enforced, and taken seriously.  

The grassroots fight for equality in Nevada has been pushed forward by State Senator Patricia Spearman, who also led the successful movement to ratify the federal ERA in 2017. The state ratified the federal ERA in 2017, thanks to groups such as NOW and Emerge Nevada, who trained Democratic candidates to run for office. In 2018, Nevada became the first state to have a majority of women elected to the state legislature — a testament to the organizing power of women and feminists throughout the state.

The Persistent Wage Gap: When Education and Hard Work Still Aren’t Enough

Posted on by Hannah Irvine

March 12th marks Equal Pay Day, a sobering reminder of the persistent gender pay gap in the United States. Across the country, women typically earn just 84 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts in equivalent roles. This disparity translates to a sum of $9,900 less in annual income for women. 

The Pay Gap describes the persistent wage disparity between men and women performing equivalent work. Despite its pervasiveness, this issue garnered little substantive action from Congress until the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The roots of legislative efforts trace back to the 1940s when the first bill was introduced to outlaw “discrimination against any employee, in the rate of compensation paid, on account of sex” as an unfair labor practice. However, this bill never passed.

It took until the 1960s for the breakthrough Equal Pay Act to finally become law, prohibiting employers from paying unequal wages to male and female workers for “jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.” This groundbreaking act represented the initial federal stride toward mandating pay equity between genders performing commensurate labor.

However, the Equal Pay Act still allowed loopholes for pay disparities based on factors like seniority and merit-based compensation structures. The campaign for pay equity expanded in the 1980s to encompass racial dimensions, as it became clear women of color faced even wider pay gaps. The language shifted from the “pay gap” to “comparable worth,” scrutinizing pay discrepancies between jobs requiring comparable levels of responsibility and value, even if not identical roles. These inequities were linked to long-standing discrimination.

The pay gap’s compounding effects reverberate far beyond the workplace. With lower lifetime earnings, women continue to receive diminished Social Security benefits and pensions upon retirement. Consequently, their overall retirement income amounts to a mere 70% of what men receive, perpetuating economic inequity into their golden years. Despite claims of progress toward equality, this day underscores the deep-rooted inequalities ingrained in our society. 

Even higher education offers no refuge from the pervasive gender pay gap, a recent U.S. Census Bureau report finds. Women still earn a mere 71 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts at equivalent levels of educational attainment, and yet women are now comprising over half of college-educated workers and are participating in the labor force at unprecedented rates. 

Closing the gender pay gap requires a multi-faceted approach to address the various factors contributing to the disparity. Raising the minimum wage would have an immediate impact, as women are overrepresented in low-wage jobs. Increasing pay transparency by allowing open compensation discussions and prohibiting retaliation for wage disclosures can narrow the gap by up to 30%, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. Implementing fair scheduling policies that provide predictability and flexibility is important for working mothers and those with caregiving responsibilities, while expanding paid family and medical leave would allow more women to remain employed after having children. Finally, conducting pay audits and correcting any gender-based disparities within the workplace is crucial for promoting pay equity.

The Tragic Death of Nex Benedict and the Battle for LGBTQ+ Rights in Oklahoma

Posted on by Hannah Irvine
Ted Eytan, Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED

The death of Oklahoma student Nex Benedict has left many across the country reeling with grief, fear, and anger. Nex, a 16 year old non-binary teen, died the day after they were beaten by a group of students at Owasso High School after enduring a year of bullying due to their identity. 

Over the past few days, the incident has amplified discourse around LGBTQ+ rights in heavily Republican states, such as Oklahoma, that have laws that directly hinder the freedom LGBTQ+ youth in schools. Nex was unable to go to school, a place that should be safe for all students, without being bullied and harassed. The attack took place in a bathroom and resulted in Nex receiving a head injury that led them to the emergency room. They passed away the next day. 

The dismissal of respect for a human’s identity did not begin in the high school bathroom, but rather the hallowed halls of state government. An Oklahoma Republican senator called LGBTQ+ people “filth” when questioned about Nex’s death. Around 40 anti LGBTQ+ bills have been filed in the last year by Oklahoma lawmakers, including measures that end the right to self expression, healthcare access and inclusion in school. What happened to Nex proves that these bills have not only structural implications, but also extremely dangerous social ones. The systems in place in Oklahoma provide a breeding ground for hatred to fester in schools. 

Oklahoma law already bars transgender students from using the bathroom of the gender with which they identify. It is extremely difficult for trans youth to receive gender affirming care in the state, with a law making it a felony for doctors to provide medical treatments such as puberty-blocking drugs or hormones for those younger than 18, currently under review in court.

Alabama Supreme Court rules frozen embryos qualify as “children”

Posted on by Hannah Irvine
Janine and Jim Eden, Licensed under CC BY 2.0 DEED

The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that embryos outside of the womb qualify as children in a ruling that further thwarts reproductive freedom in the state. In the 131 page opinion, Alabama judges quoted the Bible before ultimately coming to a 7-2 decision that threatens access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments. 

The case comes after two Alabama couples pursuing IVF sued the Alabama Mobile Infirmary Medical Centre after a patient was able to break into the hospital’s cryogenic facility and subsequently dropped two embryos. The embryos at this stage have been chosen as suitable for possible transfer into the uterus. Even though they have passed this hurdle, they are still 50% likely to fail when transferred. 

The two plaintiffs filed their complaints under Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. The judges used this act as the legal basis for their decision, citing that the “Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies on its face to all unborn children, without limitation.” This landmark ruling is not only a clear product of a pro-life agenda strengthened by religious beliefs but also serves as a reminder of the strict control that Alabama lawmakers want over reproductive decisions in the state. The ruling goes so far as to suggest that a woman who does not use all of her embryos, if she were to have a successful IVF, could be charged with the manslaughter of the embryos left over after her successful pregnancies. 

CNN reported on February 22nd that a second fertility clinic in Birmingham, Alabama has “halted” part of its IVF program due to legal concerns as it evaluates the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision. The process of egg retrieval is still available to patients, but “egg fertilization and embryo development” has been paused. In these stages, the viability of eggs and embryos is considered and is necessary if these future eggs and embryos are to be transferred. This pause in the process inevitably places limits on the window of pregnancy but also continues to raise severe concerns about whether IVF is a realistic option for families in Alabama. 

This ruling further tightens regulations surrounding reproductive healthcare decisions and it will also serve as a barrier to the people of Alabama who wish to go through the IVF process. Hospitals view the ruling as a huge risk, making it almost impossible to run an IVF clinic without the constant fear of causing a “death.” One thing is clear – the state of Alabama has offered women yet another haunting warning, they can and will take control of their reproductive choices as they see fit.

Abortion Emerges as Decisive Factor in New York’s 3rd Congressional District Special Election

Posted on by Hannah Irvine
Eric Wagner, Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 DEED

In the recent special election held on February 13th for New York’s 3rd Congressional District, the victory of Democrat Tom Suozzi over Republican Mazi Pilips underscored the significance of abortion as a pivotal issue this election season. Suozzi’s triumph, with 53.9% of the vote against Pilips’ 46.1%, reflected a strategic campaign focus on reproductive rights and women’s health.

Suozzi’s Embrace of Abortion Rights

Throughout his campaign, Suozzi strategically centered his platform on defending reproductive rights. His website prominently featured a “10 Point Plan,” highlighting his commitment to safeguarding abortion access and countering what he termed “extreme attacks on reproductive freedom.” Suozzi’s unequivocal support for abortion rights earned him endorsements from prominent organizations like Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America. He emphasized the urgency of codifying Roe v. Wade into law and condemned recent attempts to curtail abortion rights in various states.

Moreover, Suozzi’s social media campaign extensively criticized his opponent’s stance on abortion, highlighting her perceived ambiguity on the issue. Clips from televised debates, particularly those focusing on abortion, were widely circulated, emphasizing the clear divergence between the candidates on this critical issue.

Gender Dynamics and Voting Trends

Analyses of voting trends revealed a significant gender gap, with women constituting a substantial portion of Suozzi’s support base. A poll conducted by the Siena College Research Institute indicated that a majority of women favored Suozzi. This gender disparity, with 51% of women supporting Suozzi compared to 44% of men, proved the salience of reproductive rights as a decisive factor in the election outcome. On the issue of abortion, 58% of women said they thought Suozzi would be the better candidate to address the issue, and 52% of males said the same.

Media Oversight and Issue Prioritization

Despite the evident influence of abortion on the election, mainstream media coverage largely overlooked its significance. Reports from major news outlets such as ABC News and CNN highlighted other issues like immigration, crime, and the Israel-Palestine conflict, sidelining the central role of reproductive rights in shaping voter preferences. This oversight raised questions about their portrayal of key campaign issues.

Contrary to media narratives emphasizing immigration as a crucial issue, the data revealed a different picture. While Pilips held a lead over Suozzi specifically on immigration policy, her defeat showed the limited electoral impact of this issue. The data suggested that abortion rights, not immigration, played a defining role in Suozzi’s victory, challenging prevailing media interpretations of the election’s key concerns.

The special election in New York’s 3rd Congressional District offers valuable insights into the evolving landscape of American politics, particularly regarding the prominence of abortion rights as a mobilizing issue. Suozzi’s strategic emphasis on reproductive rights resonated with voters, particularly women, and played a role in securing his victory. 

A Win For Youth in Virginia

Posted on by Hannah Irvine

On February 13th, the Virginia House of Delegates voted to pass House Bill 994, a bill that bans child marriage in all its forms. Virginia was one of the first states to ban child marriage in 2016, but there has always been a loophole allowing emancipated children between 16-18 years old to get married. Now, Virginians have to be 18 in order to marry. The loophole has historically raised concern for many organizations who saw it as an opportunity for children, disproportionately girls, to be exploited and coerced. 

Before 2016 there was no minimum age requirement to get married in Virginia, just certain criteria that had to be met for a judge to approve the marriage. Usually, this was because a young girl was pregnant, some aged 12 and 13. Almost 4,500 minors were married between 2004 and 2013 – about 90% of those minors were girls who married adult men.

Today’s vote has resulted in a win for everyone. The bill passed with strong bipartisan support, 55 to 42, and children, in particular girls, will now be protected from being exploited. Virginia NOW tirelessly led the fight for this victory. They introduced the “End Child Marriage Now” bill into the Virginia legislature and are to thank for the facts and testimonies that helped the Virginia lawmakers reach the decision to protect their children. The organization celebrated after the vote posting on Twitter, “child marriage survivors are elated and there is some combination of crying and shaking going on among us all! Onward to the Senate.”

The Kids Are Not Alright: Mental Health and Youth Voter Turnout Rates

Posted on by Hannah Irvine

When considering the mental well-being of teenagers and young adults, it’s common for some to dismiss their challenges as mere products of excessive social media use or typical high school stress. However, this overlooks the unique political and social climate of the times we are living in, especially concerning youth voter turnout. According to the National Alliance on Mental Health, 1 in 6 U.S. youth experience a mental health disorder each year. In order to delve deeper into this issue in a political context, a recent study conducted by Common Sense examined the correlation between the mental health of America’s youth and the issues they, along with their parents, prioritize as voters.

The findings were unequivocal. Today’s youth are grappling with anxieties about their future to such an extent that it significantly impacts their mental well-being, a departure from historical trends among children and young adults. Particularly noteworthy in the data is the sentiment surrounding the economy for young individuals. A staggering four out of five voters (81%) expressed apprehension about the economic prospects for the next generation, with nearly half (46%) expressing deep concern. This marks a significant shift wherein the economic outlook of America has become so bleak that voters are now worried about the future of a generation yet to embark on their professional journey.

This economic data highlights a broader concern for young individuals: it suggests a lack of opportunities for them compared to older generations. Notably, 33% of young adults aged 19 to 24 harbor a pessimistic belief that they will fare worse than their parents—a sentiment less prevalent in earlier generations. 

Consequently, rather than gravitating toward candidates who inspire hope, the survey underscores that the majority of young people have become disillusioned with their elected leaders. In a political climate that is so unpredictable and with elections being decided by a very small number of votes, these types of problems become very severe. Only 23% of eligible young Americans cast a ballot in the 2022 midterm elections, which was one of the highest youth turnout rates in a midterm election since the voting age was lowered to 18 – but still concerningly low.  

Today’s youth have endured significant challenges: the COVID-19 pandemic, tumultuous elections, a worsening climate crisis, and conflicts in regions like Ukraine and the Middle East. The study showed that 60% of young people believe that politicians and elected officials are not reflecting the needs, desires, and experiences of younger people in this country. It’s imperative for politicians to instill hope to combat this cynicism and follow through on their promises to restore trust with their constituents as November quickly approaches.

Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment Provides Win for Abortion Access

Posted on by Hannah Irvine

On Monday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court released an opinion on abortion rights following a long legal battle in Allegheny Reproductive Health Center et al. v. PA Department of Human Services et al. The case, litigated by the Women’s Law Project under the leadership of Susan Frietsche, centered around the state statute that bans Pennsylvania’s Medicaid program from covering abortion services.  

The majority opinion, some 219 pages, details arguments why the Medicaid coverage ban for abortion violates the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment as well as the equal protection provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The ERA was approved by voters in Pennsylvania in 1971 and this case proves how a state ERA can play an influential role in the fight for reproductive justice. The majority opinion clearly outlines how the Medicaid coverage ban is discriminatory on the basis of sex. 

Frietsche, the co-executive director of the Women’s Law Project, argued the case before the Supreme Court. She stated in response to the decision, “we are still determining the next steps, but we are confident the Medicaid abortion ban will be consigned to the scrapheap of history very soon.” The Women’s Law Project has been fighting for this victory since the 1970s. 

“The federal ERA, which has been ratified by the necessary 38 states, would also aid in protecting reproductive healthcare access for the women of the United States,” says Eleanor Smeal, former President of PA NOW and current President of the Feminist Majority Foundation. “This is a major victory for Pennsylvania women and shows the potential for securing reproductive healthcare access in states that have added ERAs to their constitutions.”

Barbie discovers the patriarchy Pt. 2

Posted on by Hannah Irvine

The 2024 Oscar nominations were released on Tuesday after a long build up of speculation of which movies would take the top spots. “Oppenheimer” and “Barbie” have been pitted against each other since their release, breaking box office records and earning rave reviews, and were expected to win big. 

Apart from being released on the same day, the two movies have very little in common. Notably, Christopher Nolan’s three hour blockbuster doesn’t include a hit Nicki Minaj song like Greta Gerwig’s “Barbie.” However, their statistics were watched closely and the two became a well known pair with “Barbenheimer” trending throughout the summer of 2023. 

Regardless of their creative differences, one is very clear. The “Oppenheimer” team is majority male, while the “Barbie” team is majority female. “Oppenheimer” received thirteen nominations, including the highly sought after Best Director and Best Actor, while “Barbie” received eight nominations, with none in those two categories.

When Margot Robbie, who played the title character of a film that has been nominated for Best Motion Picture of the Year, is not nominated for an Oscar, but her male co-star is, it becomes extraordinarily clear that there is a problem. When Greta Gerwig who wrote and directed the film only receives a nomination for Adapted Screenplay, but not for Best Director, the problem becomes even more painfully obvious. Gerwig even set a new record for the highest-grossing female-directed film at the domestic box office, but that is clearly not enough to earn a top nomination. 

Ryan Gosling, who played Ken, released a statement in response to the snub: “There is no Ken without Barbie, and there is no “Barbie” movie without Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie, the two people most responsible for this history-making, globally-celebrated film. No recognition would be possible for anyone on the film without their talent, grit and genius. To say that I’m disappointed that they are not nominated in their respective categories would be an understatement.” 

The Oscars have long received harsh criticism for their lack of diversity and, although some very welcome changes have been made over the years, there are still fundamental issues within the list of nominees year after year. In the award show’s 94-year history, only two women have ever been named Best Director. 

The irony of the nomination saga is excruciating. With “Barbie” acting as a social commentary on misogyny, this snub was simply too on the nose for fans. The plot of “Barbie” is quite simple: Barbie discovers the patriarchy. Life imitates art.

Florida bans DEI from State College System

Posted on by Hannah Irvine

On January 17th, 2024, the Florida State Board of Education passed a ruling that will strictly limit public funding towards DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) initiatives in the Florida College System. This ruling comes with Gov. Ron DeSantis’ long campaign against “WOKE” policies in Florida.  The bill details how education should be “free from undue political influence” and therefore DEI values should not be allowed in Florida community or state colleges. The Board of Education believes that individuals should not be categorized based on race or sex. Rather, higher education should be based solely on academic progress and integrity. 

Background

DeSantis has been Governor of Florida since early 2019 and subsequently has introduced severe education reform in his state, both in K-12 and higher education. He has targeted reproductive health instruction, limiting it by teaching reproductive roles as binary and unchanging. Alongside this he has restricted LGBTQ+ rights by passing bills that entirely diminish the possibility for gender and sexuality expression within the public school system.

DEI in higher education has come a long way, becoming more robust over time. Beginning in the 1970s with the introduction of Title IX, gender-based discrimination became illegal in institutions that received federal funding. Since the 70s DEI has progressed to becoming not only an initiative that supports equality in education but also one that celebrates and promotes diversity. 

Without the structure of DEI on campuses in Florida there are already beginning to be results that directly impact the future of gender related subjects. Before the anti-DEI legislation was passed just this month, there had already been some massive changes to some of the top colleges in Florida. In January, 2023, DeSantis personally appointed individuals to the board of trustees of the “New College” in Florida. These board members took action to terminate the Gender Studies department of the University. Many of the faculty of the department had already quit in protest to the appointments of the board. Later in the year the board finalized the termination of the department and the course is no longer available to 2024 enrollees.

>

Support eh ERA banner