• Great News! Gore Would Increase Social Security Benefits for Women
• NOW Gains Supporters in Fight Against Abortion Procedures Ban
• Vote Set to Condemn "See Change" Campaign
• Anti-Reproductive Rights Bills Pending 
• VAWA, Bankruptcy Reform and Managed Care Bill on a Slow Track

• NOW Legislative Action Center

where you can contact your representatives
• List of All Updates
• Look up legislation on Thomas
• Sign up for the NOW Action Alert list

About 3 million widows - and widowers - would be affected by the increase. Gore's proposal is not as generous as that suggested by the NCWO Task Force which recommends an increase in the widow's benefit to a minimum of 75 percent of the couples' joint benefit, capped at the maximum earner's benefit.

Additionally, the democratic presidential candidate proposed to eliminate the "motherhood penalty" - that is, the loss of income and years out of the paid workforce that women experience when they take time out to care for young children. Gore would give women credit for up to five years, valued initially at $16,500 worth of income per year and then later indexed for inflation. For comparison purposes, the median income for female workers in 1998 was only $17,715 - so Gore's credit comes close to what many women would have earned by staying in the workforce during those years. Eight million women are expected to benefit from this change, according to Gore's analysis. Altogether, the suggested changes would cost about $100 billion over ten years, Gore's campaign staff estimates. 

Gore supports maintaining the current system of social insurance; his opponent, George W. Bush, favors at least a partial conversion to private investment accounts. In addition, Gore has stated support for the Clinton administration's plan to use surpluses (most of which is from Social Security payroll tax revenues) to reduce the national debt and to later apply it to compensate for possible shortfalls in the system, which could begin in 2037. 

Needless to say, a switch from Social Security to a privatized system would not allow for crediting women's care-giving years nor would the change allow for the increased compensation that lower income earners receive under Social Security or for workers to receive Social Security Supplemental Income if they should become disabled. SSI also pays minor children of a deceased parent who was a primary income earner. These features especially benefit women, and privatizers are hoping that the public will ignore these factors when they make a decision about which presidential candidate they support.

Almost immediately after the Vice President's announcement, conservative editorialists attacked the proposal; the Washington Post - rarely a supporter of women's equality - claimed that the Gore plan was too costly and would benefit wealthy women as much as poor women. Of course, Social Security pays both wealthy and poor workers because it is not a needs- tested program. The point is that women of all income levels stay home to care for children -- either out of choice or necessity because there is no affordable child care - and they should not be penalized for making this important contribution to society.

Just prior to the Gore announcement, the NCWO Task Force on Women and Social Security released "Strengthening Social Security for Women; A Report from the Working Conference on Women and Social Security" that contains a set of recommendations on how to improve equity in the system. (Work on the report was conducted by representatives from 60 national women's organizations, including Jan Erickson and Kim Gandy from NOW, and carried out by the Institute for Women's Policy Research - IWPR.) In particular, changes are suggested to improve benefits for widows, disabled widows, divorced disabled spouses, divorced women, women who were never married or married less than ten years and low earners. 

The report stresses the need to value care-giving (or "family service," in the way that military service receives credits), providing an annual credit to lower earners and single parents up to $5,000 per year, for as many as ten years, and allowing two "drop-out" years for each child for lower earners or single parents, up to a total of four years. The "drop-out" years would ameliorate the effect of Social Security contribution calculations based on 35 years of paid employment - which means than workers who have fewer years are penalized.

The NCWO report also suggests that to answer the shortfall problem the Social Security Trust Fund is expected to experience beginning in 2037 a number of changes could be undertaken. Among these: adjusting the maximum wage base by making all earnings subject to the payroll tax and credit them for benefit calculations; investing 40 percent of the Trust Fund in stocks; or, increasing the payroll tax 1.8 percentage points (0.9 each for the employer and employee) in 2020 (or using general revenue)

• Tell Mr. Gore that you approve of his proposed changes -- that these are extremely important - and that you hope he will work hard to get them enacted into law; 
• Stress to all candidates for office that women's care-giving years must be valued and credited under Social Security; and
• Emphasize that poverty among older women - especially elderly widows and disabled older women - must be addressed in any changes to the system.

A packet of informational materials, including the NCWO report, is available from NOW. We are encouraging activists to organize town hall meetings, workshops and candidate forums on Social Security during coming months. We are suggesting that you ask all candidates for office what their position is on Social Security - are they privatizers in disguise? If you would like a packet, please call NOW Government Relations at (202) 628-8669, ext. 101 or email: govtrel@now.org with your (street or post office box) address. And please let us know if you can sponsor or organize with other NCWO member groups, or other local groups, any Social Security event to draw candidates' attention this year. 

More information can be found at http://www.women4socialsecurity.org In addition, an IWPR report "Why Privatizing Social Security Would Hurt Women," a response to the Cato Institute's assertions that women would especially benefit under a system of private accounts is now available from the institute ( http://www.iwpr.org ), along with several brochures which give activists quick, hard-hitting arguments against privatization.

House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX) stated during debate that "Abortion is a stain we must begin to wash away. A ban on partial-birth abortion is the first step." His remarks, of course, reflect the long range strategy of abortion rights opponents to prevent all women from access to abortion services. 

A motion to recommit to the Judiciary Committee was made by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) with amending language to include a narrow exception to the ban if there are threats of "serious adverse long-term physical health consequences" to the pregnant woman. This went down 289-140 thus putting on record two-thirds of the House membership who do not care to protect women's health.

The timing of the vote was deliberate, coming barely three weeks before the Supreme Court considers the Nebraska abortion procedures ban (Stenberg v. Carhart) that was found to be unconstitutional by the 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld two similar abortion procedures bans passed in Illinois and Wisconsin.

• Most state abortion procedure bans have been found unconstitutional
• The federal ban includes no exception to protect women's health
• Medical decisions, including those relating to abortion procedures, should be made by women and their doctors, and no one else.

The resolution, H.Con. Res. 253, incorporates language commending the "Holy See's strong commitment to fundamental human rights, including the protection of innocent human life both before and after birth." The sponsor, not surprisingly, is Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ). Reportedly, a majority of Democrats will go along with the Republicans and vote for the resolution, not wanting to be seen as "opposing Catholicism."

The resolution contains untrue statements about the CFFC campaign; correct information can found at http://www.seechange.org/what's%20new/FactsandMyths031500.htm CFFC launched their postcard campaign, called "See Change," last year to urge U.N. officials to adjust the Vatican's status to that of an NGO. No other religious organization is recognized as a "state" by the United Nations. 

Reportedly, he is incorporating some of his ideas with parts of Sen. Joe Biden's (D-DE), Violence Against Women Act, S. 51. We are looking forward to seeing a draft of this bill circulated soon.

The so-called Bankruptcy Reform Act (H.R. 833) appears stalled over entrenched opposition by the Republican leadership to allowing two amendments, one concerning gun control and the other the Schumer Clinic Violence amendment, to go forward. The bill has been passed by both houses, but conferees have not yet been appointed to hammer out differences. The Senate version is even more regressive than the House-passed bill and women's groups are hoping that the stalemate continues. 

The Congressional Spring Recess was originally the target date for passage of a Patient's Bill of Rights, but conferees are a long way from agreement. The House-passed Bipartisan Managed Care Reform Act (H.R. 2990) covering 191 million insured patients is a far better bill than the Senate-approved S. 1344 which covers only 56 million persons in certain federally-regulated health plans. The divide is over whether to allow lawsuits against HMOs (as the House version does) and how broad the coverage should be ( the House bill covers 191 million health care consumers, the Senate only a fraction). Unless they can reach agreement, the issue is bound to figure prominently in this year's election campaigning.