Bush's Massive Tax Cut Discriminates Against Women, the
Other talking points to include in your message to members of Congress are:
The Senate is expected to vote on March 6 whether to repeal an important worker protection program that primarily benefits women. Employees in data entry positions, assembly line slots, nursing home staffs and many other jobs face a heightened risk of workplace injury if Congress halts implementation of the new ergonomics standard. The Bush administration, Republican Congressional leaders and industry groups are poised to stop implementation of the standard through an expedited process that limits public debate. If they are successful, hundreds of thousands of workers will be without ergonomic protections and will suffer debilitating injuries every year.
Every year over 600,000 workers in the U.S. suffer from painful repetitive strain and back injuries known as musculoskeletal disorders; a majority of these workers are women. Such jobrelated injuries are often caused by lifting, repetitive movements and poorly designed workplaces. Carpal tunnel syndrome (a painful wrist injury) and chronic back pain are several examples. These injuries are a serious workplace safety problem, costing society $45 $50 billion each year.
The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) developed this standard, a set of regulations addressed to employers, to prevent such extensive worker injury. Refined over ten years of study, and nine weeks of hearings that included over 1,000 witnesses and over 7,000 written comments, this standard went into effect in January. Estimates are that implementation of the standard will prevent more than 4.6 million injuries over the next decade and save employers $9.1 billion a year. Business and industry opponents argue that it is too costly to implement and that more time is needed to study the problem. Their opposition is intended to permanently halt any government efforts to address this pervasive problem. Supporters argue that the standard is a flexible measure based on strong scientific research and there is no reason that workers should be denied its protections.
The ergonomics standard has the potential to prevent 4.6 million injuries in the next decade and save $9.1 billion per year. The Xerox Company has reported a 24% reduction in the number of injuries and a 56% reduction in costs between 1992 and 1998 as a result of adopting the ergonomic standards. They are supported by many businesses, including Xerox, Levi Strauss, 3M and Bristol Myers.
The National Association of Manufacturers and other big business interests have been battling the ergonomics standard for years. Thanks to legislation (Congressional Review Act) that gives Congress the power to overturn virtually any administrative rule, a Resolution of Disapproval has been introduced. This will allow a floor vote immediately, without hearings or committee approval. Debate on the standard is limited to ten hours and a filibuster is not permitted.
If efforts to repeal the standard are successful, OSHA would be barred from issuing comparable protections to protect workers. In order to prevent the repeal of the ergonomics standard, and further erosion of workplace health and safety standards, this effort must be stopped.
Although the vote may be held by the time you receive this message, the measure may come up again in the House or as a final Conference Committee report. If that is the case, please call your Congressional members with the simple message to vote against the Resolution of Disapproval on the ergonomics standard; main number for Congress is (202) 224-3121 or you can consult http://www.senate.gov for the office phone numbers and email information. Note: many Senators are now requiring constituents to visit the individuals Senator’s website in order to send a message. You can access those websites through the web address just provided.
Additional talking points:
Same Old Bad Bankruptcy Bill Sails Through the House
Now that a president who represents the interests of the wealthy and powerful is in the White House, a host of bills favoring those groups is likely to quickly gain Congressional approval. Accordingly, H.R. 333, the deceptively-titled Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2001 sailed through the conservative-controlled House on March 1st. It is essentially the same old bad bill that women’s rights and consumer groups have fought for the last three years; H.R. 333 would enhance the ability of credit card companies and other creditors to collect debts while reducing the ability of individuals to reorganize their finances and the ability of women to collect child support from bankrupt debtors. The lopsided vote of 306 to 108 is reflective of the millions of dollars poured into the campaign coffers of both Republicans and Democrats by the banking and credit card industries.
Women have been the fastest growing group declaring bankruptcy and will now have a harder time meeting filing requirements, saving their homes, cars and essential household items. Over 150,000 women owed child support or alimony by men who file for bankruptcy become creditors each year; another 200,000 owed support are themselves forced into bankruptcy. Single parents in a crisis – divorce, nonpayment of support, loss of a job, uninsured medical expenses or domestic violence – will have much more difficulty regaining financial stability under this legislation.
H.R. 333 makes fewer debts dischargeable in bankruptcy, thereby setting up a fierce competition for scarce dollars between women owed past due child support and commercial creditors. Contrary to what the bill’s supporters say, the new domestic support provisions do not resolve the problem -- they only pertain to collection of support for women as creditors, not for women who have been pushed into bankruptcy and even then the protection is optional. It is less likely that women will be able to collect their child support and alimony payments when they are competing against the aggressive tactics of collection agencies. Also, there are only weak provisions to curb predatory marketing tactics of the credit card companies and other abuses in H.R. 333.
A provision to close loopholes in the current law (which allow clinic violence defendants to declare bankruptcy to avoid paying judgements) was not included in H.R. 333, but a bipartisan compromise on such a provision has been reached by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which approved S. 420 by a vote of 10 to 8. After extended deliberations, the panel reached an agreement to include the intent of Sen. Charles Schumer’s Clinic Violence Amendment while avoiding mention of abortion – as the Republicans wanted. Sen. Schumer re-crafted language in the amendment to avoid any potential for undermining the Freedom of Access in Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. The Senate began debate on the bankruptcy bill today.
Call your senators to say:
Eight days into the new administration, President Bush announced an expanded faith-based initiative and a vigorous, but misguided campaign to turn over social service programs to religious organizations. Faith-based initiatives, a more pernicious version of the old “charitable choice,” would permit direct federal funding of programs run by pervasively religious organizations that would have little public accountability. Critics see Bush’s action as the next predictable step to be taken by conservatives in breaching the church-state divide, in that faith-based initiatives would exempt religious organizations from many federal laws and regulations, while existing federal programs require this compliance.
Bush named Don Eberly, a right wing activist who was an official with the National Fatherhood Institute, to head up a White House office for faith-based programs. Some women’s rights advocates are concerned that Eberly will utilize the office to help funnel even more federal monies to misogynist groups who promote so-called fatherhood initiatives.
The effect of such initiatives is clear: taxpayer dollars will be used for private, religious institutions with little or no accountability. When federal funds are given to organizations that are not subject to public scrutiny, it will become impossible to assess how they are being used. More importantly, pervasively religious organizations would not be subject to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal civil rights laws permit these organizations to use religion as a consideration in employment, except when employees are being paid by federal funds. Bush’s approach would circumvent this protection, and allow religious organizations to discriminate in employment and in the provision of services.
Bush’s version of faith-based initiatives is likely to be found unconstitutional, although Bush believes that his initiative would pass constitutional muster. Organizations receiving the funds are prohibited from evangelizing, but they are permitted to use private funds to do so and the effect would be the same. This would mean that people seeking social services - education, Head Start, welfare, or food stamps, among others - may be subjected to proselytization and preaching as a part of the provision of these services. Such actions would be in direct conflict with the First Amendment, and would be unconstitutional under most interpretations.
Civil Rights–Allegations of Racism at the Christian Coalition
There is also talk that President Bush’s faith-based initiatives would exclude particular religions. In March of last year, Bush spoke out against allowing the Nation of Islam to provide publicly financed assistance. “Louis Farrakhan preaches hate,” Bush remarked. “I don’t see how we can allow public dollars to fund programs where spite and hate is the core of the message.” This comment is ironic, given recent allegations of racism and hate at the Christian Coalition of America’s Washington office.
Ten African-American employees of the organization filed a racial discrimination suit in late February in U.S. District Court, alleging that there are segregated entrances and eating areas for the non-Caucasian employees. The lawsuit alleges that the employees were barred from using the main entrance and were not given security passes for the back door. It also states that the African-American workers were not permitted to use the same kitchen as the other employees. The Executive Director, Roberta Combs, is alleged to have said that “African-American employees cannot use the kitchen facilities because they are talkative and waste too much time in the kitchen.” In a report that reminds us of 1963, the employees say they are now confined to using a break area that consists of a few tables shoved against a wall of the data entry room.
Civil rights laws were passed to prohibit these types of actions, and to loosen those protections can only signal an acceptance of discrimination and intolerance.
Advise members of your Congressional delegation to:
* Please oppose the Bush administration’s so-called faith-based initiatives as they will override important anti-discrimination laws and will not provide for full accountability of funds. I also believe that such initiatives are unconstitutional and confuse the necessary separation between church and state.
Be All That You Can Be: How Military Childcare Measures Up
Child care in the U.S. has been at a crisis level for some time. With high provider turn-over, lack of training and low wages, civilian child care is in desperate need of reform. A report released last year on how the military provides high quality child care offers a good model. NOW and other groups advocating for affordable, quality child care are looking closely at its elements in order to propose a plan for the rest of the country. The military child care program appears to serve as an effective example of how to rectify the problems of an overburdened system. When faced with many of the same challenges, in 1989 the military system underwent a radical restructuring. Over the past ten years, child care for military families has improved greatly, and is now considered to be a high-quality, cohesive system.
The military child care system has been successful for several reasons, many of which are obvious to activists and parents alike. The military raised the quality of care by developing basic standards for child-staff ratios, training, health and safety, and by holding surprise inspections four times per year. Today, under 5% of military child care centers are not accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. By comparison, an alarming 92% of civilian child care centers are not accredited.
Caregivers in military centers are given systematic, ongoing training, and their compensation is linked to training levels. The entry level wage for a caregiver in a military facility is $8.00 per hour. This compares to $7.40 in civilian centers and $5.00 in civilian homes. As a result of these initiatives, staff turnover has decreased from over 300% to less than 30% annually.
Military child care centers reach 58% of the child care need, and have specific timetables for attaining 80% by 2005. No state provides high-quality subsidized care to this many of its eligible recipients. This success could not have been achieved without a substantial increase in funding for military child care programs. Funds appropriated have climbed dramatically, from $90 million in 1989 to $352 million in FY 2000. Funding levels for civilian child care, by comparison, are woefully inadequate. Without similar increases, improving the civilian system substantially will not be possible.
Ultimately, the military child care system is successful because the officials recognized that its inherent flaws had to be fixed. With the increased funding and the construction of basic regulations that put the best interests of children at the core, the system was able to expand and grow in a healthy, cohesive manner.
If you would like to participate in a coalition task force developing legislation to improve child care and early childhood education, please send your email address to email@example.com Similarly, if there is any program or policy in your state that you think is effective in promoting quality child care and early childhood education, please tell us about it.
Education Reauthorization Goes to Mark-Up
The long-awaited reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) begins this week when the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee meets. Copies of the legislation have not been released to groups outside Congress, so many are guessing about the contents. Women’s education advocates are fairly certain, though, that the Women’s Education Equity Act (WEEA) is not included. If that is the case, WEEA and other programs benefiting disadvantaged students will be offered as a package of amendments by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). We expect numerous “charitable choice” provisions that facilitate funding of programs at religious institutions.
Many of the Republican bills that were promoted last year, including the “Straight A’s” bill and Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), are expected to be included. Observers are not sure whether Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s (R-Texas) single sex classes/schools provision will be part of the legislation. Democrats will offer a range of amendments: Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) is offering one on student testing; Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) will address class size; Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) will sponsor a provision addressing critical school repair needs; Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) will offer one on the school drop-out problem, which remains serious, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) will propose a plan to help recruit more teachers.
On January 23, President Bush released an education blueprint that describes several of his key education initiatives. The $46.7 billion plan would reauthorize the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act by block-granting almost all programs, implementing a voucher system, and establishing standardized annual testing of students.
We’ll keep you updated as the legislation moves forward.
Republicans Make Major Push for Vouchers
The long-running conservative Republican campaign to privatize public education has undoubtedly received a boost by having an advocate in the White House. George W. Bush softened talk about vouchers during the campaign, but now makes it clear that when schools are failing, he believes that vouchers are the answer. Supporters have moved forward with a multi-million dollar television campaign, especially targeting low income parents and people of color, and pushing vouchers as a matter of “choice.”. The administration’s proposal would grant children in low-performing schools a voucher worth $1,500 that could be applied towards tuition at a private school.
Although the voucher movement has gained political support in some sectors, the problems with it are well known. Vouchers ensure that funds are diverted away from the public into exclusionary, often religious, institutions. Instead of strengthening the school system and improving education, vouchers only serve to weaken it further. The benefits of choice are also not available to all students, discriminating against lower income children. A $1,500 voucher will only offset a fraction of the cost of tuition at a private academy, allowing only middle and upper income children, whose parents can pay the difference, to take advantage it.
Voucher programs also discriminate on the basis of religion. A vast majority of the students receiving vouchers enroll in church-based religious schools, which are not required to follow federal nondiscrimination laws. They are able to reject a student based on the school’s admissions criteria, instead of being bound by federal guidelines that have the best interests of all children at heart. The federal voucher funds are then spent according to the policies of the private institution, which is not accountable to the public or to any democratically elected officials. Public funds would be dispersed to religious, exclusionary institutions with little accountability or control. This is not only unwise and dangerous, it also violates the First Amendment separation of church and state.
As recently as 1997, the Supreme Court has prohibited taxpayer funds from being given to support religious organizations. However, in Ohio 96% of students receiving vouchers attended religiously-based schools. This was challenged in court, and it was found to be in violation of the First Amendment. In many areas throughout the country, up to 80% of the vouchers would be funnelled towards religious institutions.
Contact your senators and representative to let them know that you oppose the use of public funds for school vouchers. Tell them -
* I urge you to oppose school vouchers that could be used to funnel taxpayer money to religious organizations. We must support and strengthen our public school system by targeting monies to failing schools and devising successful programs that help at-risk students. Weakening our existing public system through vouchers is exactly the wrong direction to take.
Another Bad Idea: Annual Testing of Students
With a burst of presidential power and “test-osterone”, President Bush has proposed a regime of annual testing for all students between grades three and eight. The tests, focusing on reading and math, would be used as a tool to assess how well schools are performing. Schools that demonstrated an improvement in performance would be granted increased federal funding. Students at schools designated as low-performing would, after three years, be able to use their share of federal funds to attend other public or private schools. The school would then be privatized with the assistance of the federal government. The threat of federal sanctions will raise the stakes of testing and place a great deal of pressure on schools to “teach to the test” and ensure good performance on standardized tests, even if that is not in the best interest of increased learning for the students.
Already in the states where standardized testing exists, teachers are reporting high levels of stress in students and this tendency to teach to the test. In Baton Rouge, one school principal warned his staff to expect students to become physically ill with stress during testing. A full 85% of teachers in Texas admitted to neglecting subjects that were not covered on the standardized test. With school funding and student advancement dependent on a standardized test, teachers are feeling pressure to teach only the materials covered on the test in order to increase mastery of that material. This results in high scores and continued funding, but not learning.
President Bush has declared that, under his education plan, “no child will be left behind.” However, standardized testing will do just that. In New York, 8,600 students were sent to summer school after their tests were graded incorrectly. Low-income students in Minnesota fared poorly, with 79% failing the reading portion and 74% failing the math section. Minority students also fare much worse on standardized tests. In Massachusetts, African-American and Latino students were twice as likely to fail as Caucasians. In Texas, the difference was three times. Only 27% of teachers in that state felt that increased test scores reflected increased learning and higher quality teaching. These statistics paint a clear picture: standardized testing is not working, and is most definitely not the answer.
The introduction of high-stakes standardized testing on the federal level is being sold with the tags of “accountability” and “responsibility,” when it is just the opposite. Test-makers have warned that major educational decisions should not be based on single test. Yet this is exactly what the Administration is proposing. Instead of ensuring teacher quality, standardized testing will reflect whether or not a teacher has abandoned the regular curriculum to teach to the test. Instead of measuring which students are improving, the Bush plan will ensure that poor and minority children continue to fail. And instead of helping those children that are failing, President Bush, by cutting funds to low-performing schools, is ensuring that some children will be left behind.
As education legislation is considered by Congress, it is important to tell members of your delegation, that standardized, routine testing does little to improve the quality of education. Your key message -
*I urge you to oppose standardized, routine testing of students as a way to measure and reward or punish schools. There is ample evidence that this method does not work and serves only to increase stress and anxiety among struggling students. Professional educators and parents should determine how best to help improve the quality of education – not politicians.
Other actions that you might want to take include talking to your school administrators about the damage and risks of high-stakes testing on children. If you are a parent, record your child’s response to standardized testing and report your findings to school officials and guidance counsellors. Also, you can speak out at PTA meetings and school board meetings. Educate the educators: make sure that teachers and school staff know about the problems of high-stakes testing and urge them to mobilize against it.
Education Savings Accounts Help the Wealthy
While funds to public schools are being cut, two bills have been introduced in the Senate that would ensure that even less money goes to public education. Both bills would allow parents to deposit money into tax-free savings accounts. The funds in the accounts would be used for education expenses, such as home computers, tuition, tutoring, and after-school programs. The Tax Cut With a Purpose Act (S. 35) proposes an increase in the tax-free educational savings account (ESA) from $500 to $5000. The Coverdell Education Savings Account Bill (S. 306), introduced by Sens. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.) and Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.) would increase the maximum annual contribution to $2,000. However, instead of rewarding parents for investing in public education, both bills allow upper-income parents to use tax savings to fund private school investments.
The proposed ESAs would disproportionately benefit upper-income families that are able to invest (and who disproportionately send their children to private schools), while middle to lower income families who are unable to save would not benefit. Because the bills would have the effect of reducing tax revenue, they would guarantee that fewer funds are available for the financing of public schools and other pressing needs. Revenue would be diverted from public education into private, often religious, schools.
The savings to parents who were able to invest would be minimal - between $5 and $37 on a $2,000 investment - but the funds taken out of the education budget would be significant. These education initiatives do not address the real issues facing public education - large class sizes, and under-paid and under-supported teachers.
Contact your elected officials and school officials to educate them on the real goal of ESA and similar measures: Taking public funds from education and giving them to private corporations or religious institutions. Tell your members of Congress:
* I urge you to vote against legislation that would establish Education Savings Accounts as these would benefit primarily upper-income families while limiting tax resources for public schools. ESAs are the wrong answer for poor quality public schools that require a significant increase in resources to improve.
Nita Lowey Attacks Global Gag Rule!
The reimposition of the global gag rule on President Bush’s first day in office caused great outrage among reproductive rights supporters. A restrictive executive order, the global gag rule prohibits any international family planning organization that receives U.S. funds from discussing abortion with patients and from advocating in their own countries about abortion. This rule violates principles of free speech and attempts to dictate to foreign nations the services that should be available. Rep. Nita Lowey, one of the House’s most determined reproductive rights advocates, immediately began a campaign to fight it.
On February 15, Rep. Lowey introduced the Global Democracy Promotion Act of 2001 (H.R. 755). This bill would repeal the global gag restrictions on international family planning institutions. It would ensure that clinics that provide essential reproductive services to women would not be silenced or prevented from providing services that are legal in the country of the clinic. It would also prevent the federal government from passing legislation that would be unconstitutional in the U.S.
The Global Democracy and Promotion Act of 2001 was drafted with a bipartisan group of representatives and senators, and closely resembles H.R. 4211 from the 106th Congress. It stresses the importance of freedom of speech and democratic decision-making for every non-governmental organization in every country, and states that a denial of funding to family planning services is an unjustifiable interference in independent clinics. The bill is designed to assure that all women have access to safe, legal abortion services, and a full range of family planning options.
On the same day, Sen. Barbara Boxer introduced a similar bill in the Senate (S. 367). With the support of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), Harry Reid (D-Neb.), and Susan Collins (R-Maine), among others, the bill mirrors Lowey’s. It would bar further gag-rule legislation, and prohibit the US federal government from dictating the reproductive rights agenda in other countries. It has been referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental freedoms in a democracy. Without that, there cannot be accountable governance. Tell your senators and representative:
* I urge you to support the Global Democracy and Promotion Act of 2001 and help bring this important measure to a vote. Freedom of speech is an essential human right that we must support at home and abroad. The global gag rule would be unconscionable and probably unconstitutional in our own country and should not be imposed on providers in other countries.
Mifepristone Restrictions Bill Introduced
On February 6th, the Patient Health Bill (S. 251) was introduced into the Senate by Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.). It places restrictions on the distribution and accessibility of mifepristone that will greatly limit its use. The legislation was presented under the guise of attempting to protect women’s health and safety.
Reproductive rights opponents are using it as a vehicle to say that mifepristone - despite its decade-long use - is unsafe. They claim the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was talked out of placing restrictions on it when it was first licensed. However, the FDA carefully examined clinical trials that went back for 12 years, looked at the potential restrictions, and found that they were not necessary. In its 12 years of legal use in Europe, there has not been a single death related to mifepristone. Its record is far safer than many widely prescribed medications, including Viagra, which has caused 132 deaths since its introduction in March 1998. (Perhaps we need to ask for safety hearings into Viagra!)
This move on the part of the conservative senators is unprecedented. It attempts to override the scientific expertise of the FDA, one of the most rigorous testing agencies in the world. By introducing this bill, Republicans are suggesting that their political agenda is more important than upholding rigorous, independent scientific research. It would place restrictions on physicians and providers that do not make medical sense and are designed solely to limit distribution and access.
Mifepristone also shows great promise in the treatment of many progesterone-dependent cancers, and is used in other countries to treat several conditions. The Patient Health Bill, in limiting access for family planning uses, would also make it more difficult for cancer and fibroid sufferers to participate in clinical trials that would explore the other possible medical uses for mifepristone.
Contact your elected officials and stress the importance of access to mifepristone for women’s reproductive health. Mention that the drug is safe, was properly tested, and poses no harm for women. Your key message is:
*The Patient Health Bill is clearly an attempt by anti-abortion members to restrict and deny women their reproductive rights. It is designed to limit the number of providers that can administer the drug and will also restrict other medically-necessary uses. The safety record of mifepristone is outstanding and there is no scientific basis for restricting its distribution.
Emergency Contraception Over the Counter?
Reproductive rights advocates joined with the Center for Reprodutive Law and Policy (CRLP) on Valentine’s Day with a creative proposal that would see emergency contraception on every pharmacy shelf. With broad support from the medical community, CRLP petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make emergency contraception available over the counter, without a prescription. This would allow women to use the drug to prevent an unwanted pregnancy without the delays and interrogation that a doctor visit may bring.
Emergency contraception - a two-pill progesterone-only regime - is designed to be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. It prevents pregnancy from occurring, and is therefore not an abortifacient. The sooner the pills are taken, the more effectively they prevents pregnancy from occurring. This is a very effective way for women to take control over their reproductive health, especially in situations of contraceptive failure or sexual assault.
Emergency contraception has a safe medical history. The symptoms include nothing more severe than nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and menstrual changes. It is safer than many over-the-counter drugs like aspirin. The prescription requirement serves no public health goal. Instead, it actually poses risks by creating a very significant obstacle in the way of women seeking time-sensitive treatment. Although emergency contraception can be taken up to 72 hours after unprotected sex, it should ideally be taken within 24 hours. Difficulties in scheduling doctors visits and finding transportation often mean that women are unable to get a prescription within 24 hours. This unnecessarily increases the burden on women’s health and safety.
Furthermore, under existing food and drug laws, the FDA is compelled to lift prescription-only bans on medications if they can be safely and effectively distributed over-the-counter. The current regulations state that “any drug limited to prescription use...shall be exempted from prescription-dispensing requirements when the Commissioner finds such requirements are not necessary for the public health...” This law clearly applies to emergency contraception. The petition filed asked that FDA to review the safety and efficacy of the medication with these guidelines in mind, with the ultimate goal of making emergency contraception an over-the-counter treatment for women.
Please support this important petition by sending a letter of support to the Dockets Management Branch, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 10-61, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. You can also contact President Bush and ask that his administration be supportive of this effort. The White House Comment Line is (202) 456-6213; fax number is (202) 456-2121. The president’s email address is firstname.lastname@example.org.
Is There a Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment?
On Monday, March 26th at 9 p.m., PBS will be airing a groundbreaking investigative report on the chemical industry. Correspondent Bill Moyers and producer Sherry Jones will expose how our health and safety have been jeopardized and why those at the top do not want us to know. It is based on a secret archive of industry documents known as the “tobacco papers.” Trade Secrets will give everyone working on toxic chemical or environmental issues an education and outreach opportunity.
Coming Clean, a project aimed at cleaning up the contamination of our environment and bodies caused by the chemical industry, has prepared an action and information kit about Trade Secrets that will assist activists to organize a viewing. For this kit, contact: Claudette Silver, Director of Communications at The Breast Cancer Fund. 415.346.8223 ext 14, or e-mail her at email@example.com.
Contaminants in our environments that affect our health, foods, bodies and lives are a growing problem. Documentaries like this one help to expose the damage that is being caused, the risks that we face, but most importantly, give us a tool in the fight for clean, chemical free air.
This Legislative Update was compiled by the Government Relations/Public Policy Team at the NOW Office. Questions? Call Jan Erickson, Government Relations Director, at (202) 628-8669, Ext 101. To receive free copies of any bill, call your U.S. Senator or Representative at (202) 224-3121 or connect to http://thomas.loc.gov This Update is mailed monthly to the NOW leadership. Any NOW member can receive a copy of this Update by mail for $25 per year; or you can read it at http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/ Join our Action Alert email network by sending the message subscribe now-action-list to firstname.lastname@example.org
Actions | Join - Donate | Chapters | Members | Issues | Privacy | RSS | Links | Home
© 1995-2012 National Organization for Women, All Rights Reserved. Permission granted for non-commercial use.