REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

• *D & X Abortion Ban Senate Vote Set for Week of May 12th
• Anti-Abortion Rights Legislation Makes Progress in the States
• Repeal of Abortion Ban for Overseas Military Women Coming up in June
• *A Win for Int'l. Family Planning, But More Problems in Store

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

• Congressional Attempts to Clarify DV Waiver for Welfare Recipients
• *Bill to Weaken DV Offender Gun Ban May Get to Floor
• Increased Battered Women's Shelter Funding Turned Down
• New Data About Battered Women on Welfare Released

ECONOMIC AND OTHER ISSUES

• *Family Friendly Workplace Act Not so Friendly
• Anti-Consumer Product Liability Bill Gains Speed
• *WIC Funds Slashed
• Republicans Attempt to Expedite "Privatizing" of Social Services
• *President Urged to Oppose Workfare Abuses
• Democrats Propose a Mother's Day Agenda

*Needs immediate action

• List of All Updates
• Look up legislation on Thomas
• Sign up for the NOW Action Alert list
• Contact your Senators
• Contact your Representatives

D & X Abortion Ban SenateVote Set for Week of May 12th

In April, the right wing Family Research Council announced a $1 million campaign to target certain states and another anti-abortion organization, the Child Protection Fund, is spending $1.1 million on television ads on this issue. Senators who are being targeted by these groups and the Christian Coalition and the National Right-to-Life Committee include Max Cleland (D-GA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ernest Hollings (D-SC), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Susan Collins (R-ME) Herbert Kohl (D-WI) and Russ Feingold (D-WI). Sens. Kohl and Feingold are the subjects of a nasty recall effort in Wisconsin, organized by abortion rights opponents, to cast them out of office for their vote last year against the D & X abortion ban bill.

Other Senate members are who being pressured by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), sponsor of S. 6, are Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), John Chafee (R-RI), Jim Jeffords (R-VT), Bob Graham (D-FL), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Santorum is intent on getting a "veto-proof" majority with the upcoming vote. (Recently, the Philadelphia Inquirer disclosed that Sen. Santorum's wife, Karen, very nearly died last fall in her fifth month of pregnancy when complications arose due to a fatal defect in the fetus. A serious infection occurred, Ms. Santorum was rushed to the hospital with a 105 degree fever, but went into labor spontaneously and delivered a son who died within two hours. The experience, Santorum said, did not change his mind on the issue.)

One unknown factor is the impact that legislation prepared by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) will have on Senate consideration of a ban. According to an article in the New York Times (May 9, 1997), the bill states:

"It shall be unlawful to abort a viable fetus unless the physician certifies that continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her health. Grievous injury shall be defined as: A) a severely debilitating disease or impairment specifically caused by the pregnancy, or B) an inability to provide necessary treatment for a life-threatening condition.

Grievous injury does not include any condition that is not medically diagnosable or any condition for which termination of pregnancy is not medically indicated.

For purposes of this bill, a fetus is considered viable even if it needs technological support to live."

For violations, physicians would be fined $100,000 and have their medical licenses suspended temporarily for the first offense; a second offense would bring a $250,000 fine and permanent loss of a medical license. Sen. Daschle is reported to have said that his intention was to prohibit all post-viability abortions, by any method, and yet have a strong exception to save the woman's life and to preserve her health.

In NOW's view, his bill clearly narrows constitutional guarantees under Roe v. Wade and related abortion cases. It appears that only a debilitating disease or impairment caused by the pregnancy is sufficient grounds for an abortion. So if a pre-existing condition is being worsened by the pregnancy (for instance, diabetes, aggressive cancers, kidney disease, and numerous other conditions) then a woman has no recourse. Equally important, the language appears to not make an exception in the case of fetal anomaly with the definition offered for 'viable fetus' as being any fetus which is viable even if it needs technological support to live. The Senator's goal to provide a strong exception to preserve a woman' health falls far short of the mark.

It also raises a series of knotty legal, medical and practical questions. Will a chilling effect occur when physicians have to certify that continuation of the abortion would cause grievous injury? What kinds of "proof" or medicial substantiation might physicians have to supply to support their certification? Who will have access to these certifications and will they violate a patient's right to confidentiality? Will a third party be able to legally challenge these certifications? Will a woman's health or life be threatened by a lengthy review process if a certification is challenged?

Other serious questions will be raised by abortion rights supporters, but the Daschle language still amounts to political meddling and a willingness to risk women's lives and health. How successful the Minority Leader will be on this action is debatable. It is also doubtful that the bill sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL) (S.481, The Late Term Abortion Restriction Act) which has a somewhat broader health exception for women will be taken up. The Republican leadership has indicated their intent to send the same bill vetoed last year back to the President -- the one which has no exception to preserve a woman's health (H.R. 1122/S. 6).

IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED:

Anti-Abortion Rights Legislation Makes Progress in the States

Repeal of Abortion Ban for Overseas Military Women Coming up in June

Rep. Harman now plans to offer the legislation, H.R. 411, Freedom of Choice for women in the uniformed services serving outside of the United States, at the full committee level and is hoping that grassroots supporters can let members know this must be adopted. Additionally, Rep. Harman's staff is trying to identify women members of the military or dependents who have been adversely affected by the ban. Persons who may be able to testify before the committee or provide letters are urgently needed. Please contact Danny Geffen in Rep. Harman's office at (202)225-8220 or 226-0684 (fax). The email address is jharman@hr.house.gov. Various women's rights organizations are also hoping to bring a lawsuit against the ban and are looking for possible plaintiffs.

In her Dear Colleague letter to House members, Rep. Harman noted that "prohibiting women from using their own funds to obtain abortion services at overseas military facilities endangers their health. Women could be forced to seek illegal and unsafe procedures, or be forced to delay the procedure for several weeks until they can return to the United States." She noted that there is a fundamental question of fairness when servicewomen and military dependents stationed abroad are prevented from obtaining medical care guaranteed available in the United States under Roe v. Wade. Thirty members are co-sponsoring the bill.

ACTION NEEDED:

A Win for International Family Planning, But More Problems in Store

The deleted item would have prohibited funds authorized under the legislation from going to the UNFPA unless the President certified to Congress that all UNFPA activities had ceased in the People's Republic of China or that there had not been any coerced abortions associated with the family planning policies of China in the prior 12 months. The current law stipulates that no U.S. funds can be used by UNFPA and contains other restraints.

The proposed MCP is a global gag rule which attempts to defund multilateral and foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that, with their non-U.S. government funds, engage in certain abortion-related activities. This Mexico City Policy bill, H.R. 581, co-sponsored by Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-MN), is a huge expansion of the Reagan era MCP in that it now contains a restriction on "lobbying" governments and imposes a "gag rule" on any discussion of abortion. It would also apply to multilateral organizations (like U.N. bodies) and to NGOs. There are numerous other serious problems with the proposal. Both the new MCP and the UNFPA defunding amendments are expected to pass the anit-abortion rights House, but there is a chance that these provisions can be deleted in the Senate.

H.R. 581 is unnecessary because no U.S. foreign aid funds are used to perform abortions and none are used to promote abortion. These new requirements are a backdoor attempt to prevent other organizations, using their own non-U.S. funds, from providing abortion services. The vaguely-written probibition on discussion of abortion is an international free-speech constraint that would not be constitutional in the United States -- which is why the bill exempts U.S.-based organizations. Critics also label Smith-Oberstar as anti-democratic and "the ultimate in cultural imperialism" -- imposing their ideology on countries where abortion is legal (40 countries which receive U.S. population aid allow abortion in cases beyond life, rape, and incest) and even imposing restrictions that would violate the the U.S. Constitution if imposed here.

IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED:

Congressional Attempts to Clarify Domestic Violence Waiver for Welfare Recipients

Senators Paul Wellstone (D-MN) and Patty Murray (D-WA) are offering legislation, S. 671, to clarify the domestic violence hardship exemption under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, which stipulates that these "good cause" waivers are to be counted separate from a 20% caseload hardship exemption. The clarification will be offered as an amendment to an appropriate vehicle as yet unidentified.

States must have this clarification or many will refuse to adopt the Family Violence Provision (FVP) in their new welfare programs. A recent count shows that 15 states have filed new welfare plans with the federal government, but have failed to address domestic violence. Thirteen other states make a general reference to the problem of family violence, but have not adopted the FVP, and another ten states (and territories) have not filed their welfare plans as yet. Seventeen states and territories have included some or all parts of the Family Violence Provision.

States (and territories) who still need to adopt the Family Violence Provision in its entirety are: Arizona, California, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Vermont, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Alaska, American Samoa, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. States who have not adopted the FVP, but have some domestic violence language in their plans are: Alabama, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota and Tennessee.

ACTION NEEDED:

House Budget Committee members are: Republicans John Kasich (OH), David Hobson (OH), Christopher Shays (CT), Wally Herger (CA), Jim Bunning (KY), Lamar Smith (TX), Dan Miller (FL), Bob Franks (NJ), Nick Smith (MI), Bob Inglis (SC), Susan Molinari (NY), Jim Nussle (IA), Peter Hoekstra (MI), John Shadegg (AZ), George P. Radanovich (CA), Charles Bass (NH), Mark Neumann (WI), Mike Parker (MS), Robert Erlich Jr. (MD), Gil Gutknecht (MN), Van Hilleary (TN), Kay Granger (TX), John E. Sununu (NH) and Joseph Pitts (PA). Democrats include John Spratt Jr, ranking member (SC), Alan Mollohan (WV), Jerry Costello (IL), Patsy Mink (HI), Earl Pomeroy (ND), Lynn Woolsey (CA), Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA), Lynn Rivers (MI), Lloyd Doggett (TX), Bennie Thompson (MS), Benjamin Cardoso (MD), David Minge (MN), Scotty Baesler (KY), Ken Bentsen (TX), Jim Davis (FL), Brad Sherman (CA), Robert Weygand (RI), Eva Clayton (NC) and Jim McDermott (WA).

Bill to Weaken Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban May Get to Floor

IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED:

Increased Battered Women's Shelter Funding Turned Down

ACTION NEEDED:

New Data about Battered Women on Welfare Released

A Joint Center for Poverty Research, Northwestern University, Chicago low-income neighborhood survey of 834 women found that the rate of domestic violence among ADFC recipients was three times as high (31.1%) as the rate found in other low income households (11.8%) and that the amount of recent severe physicial agression was two and one half times as high. All studies found large and consistently high percentages of domestic violence from intimate partners and an extensive incidence of partner interference with education, training and work (15% to 49%). Thirty percent of abused women reported arguments with intimate partners over child suppport and 23% reported disputes over child custody; more than a third (36%) reported that police had been contacted.

One of the key findings of the Taylor Institute - University of Michigan evaluation is that many "women on welfare who were ever abused currently suffer from depression, other mental health problems, posttraumatic stress disorder, drug and alcohol abuse, and physical health problems at higher rates than their non-abused counterparts as well as in the general female population." The researchers stress that recent changes in the welfare law, with rigid requirements for employment and time limits for welfare receipt, will place some battered women at great risk for continued and increased violence and long-term poverty.

Copies of the report can be obtained from NOW Foundation, Office of Public Policy. Contact Jan Erickson at (202)628-8669, ext. 768, or email to now@now.org . Information about the joint research effort can be found at http://www.umich.edu/~socwk/trapped/ .

Family Friendly Workplace Act Not so Friendly

The legislation purports to give employees more control over their hours at work through a complicated biweekly work and flexible credit hour scheme. A fundamental change in the Fair Labor Standards Act, the new approach would allow employers to substitute time off in lieu of paying cash overtime to employees who work more than 40 hours in a week. Employers would not have to pay overtime so long as employees do not work more than 80 hours in a two week period. Labor analysts object that the Republican plan will eliminate the guarantee of time and a half pay for overtime work for 65 million workers. S. 4, they say, will give employers --not employees-- more control over when and how long they must work. Employers may deny overtime to those covered employees who wish to be paid in cash and may postpone requested time-off for those who choose to be paid in comp time, even if the employee was counting on the time to care for a sick family member. Employees who depend upon overtime income could be denied the opportunity of earning it. Because many workers' pension and health insurance benefits are tied to the number of hours worked, their benefits could be slashed because "comp time" hours are not counted as hours worked under S. 4.

IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED:

Anti-Consumer Product Liability Bill Gains Speed

ACTION NEEDED:

WIC Funds Slashed

IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED:

Republicans Attempt to Expedite "Privatizing" of Social Services

Companies like Lockheed-Martin, EDS, and Maximus are pressuring states to let them take over various government programs. If successful, this approach will result in multi-billion contracts being let to private firms who would replace hundreds of thousands of federal, state, county, and local government and non-profit employees who provide services to the poor, elderly, disabled, and other special groups. It should be noted that a large proportion of employees in those program areas are women.

Sen. Hutchison's legislation was to have been attached to a bill authorizing flood aid to North Dakota, but was stalled when non-germaneness objections were made. Other efforts will undoubtedly be made to have Congress override the administration in this recent decision; but, the Texas partial-privatization is expected to have far ranging consequences.

Labor, anti-poverty, senior citizen, children's advocates, and other groups were organizing to oppose social service privatization, arguing that public accountability would be weakened and the potential for fraud and abuse will increase. Another important objection relates to the special needs of hard-to-serve populations, like the elderly and the disabled, for whom social service professonals are trained and better suited to assist.

ACTION NEEDED:

President Urged to Oppose Workfare Abuses

Furthermore, it is not clear that this new class of workfare workers are subject to protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. Under the previous welfare program, a version called the JOBS program gave workers these protections and they should be available to all workers, including the new TANF Workfare recipients.

As NOW has previously observed, these types of workfare policies are punitive. For the hundreds of thousands of women who will be forced to take these low-paying temporary jobs, there is little opportunity for long term success. They will not be able to secure the additional education, training, and other services they often require to obtain permanent, unsubsidized employment. Despite the growth of employment in recent years, there are still not enough entry-level jobs to meet the demand of welfare-to-work waves of job seekers and very few provide a liveable wage. NOW and other advocates urge the President and Congress to assure workplace protections that all other Americans enjoy and to move from punitive policies for the poor to positive support programs that help women become self-sufficient in sustaining themselves and their families.

IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED:

Democrats Propose a Mother's Day Agenda