LEGISLATIVE
UPDATELEGISLATIVE
UPDATE| I. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY
Republican Revamping Generates Bitter Debate II. ECONOMIC EQUITY
|
|
With this issue of the Legislative Update, NOW is launching a new interactive political World Wide Web page that will allow readers to quickly send messages on these issues to their Members of Congress. You can find links to it with each article suggesting Action Needed. |
| REPUBLICAN REVAMPING GENERATES BITTER DEBATE | The Senate began a divisive debate on reauthorization of the
Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the cornerstone of federal assistance
to state and local education programs. House and Senate consideration of
education bills, thus far, has been bitter and partisan as the two parties
have radically different views on the role of federal funding of education.
Republicans have long desired to abolish the Department of Education and in past Congresses have made several efforts to do so; opinion polls show that a majority of the public supports federal financial aid to education. The presumed Republican candidate for president, George W. Bush -- wary of public opinion -- has said that he won't close down the Department of Education, but wants other fundamental reforms. Democrats, for the most part, are opposed to such radical shifts because they fear that targeted programs to help poor, disadvantaged and at-risk students would fall by the wayside. Advocates for girls and women's educational programs are equally concerned, as programs that promote gender equity would surely end as well. And there have been efforts in both the House and Senate to excuse same sex schools and classes from complying with federal civil rights laws. Republicans are focused on eradicating the gains that feminists have made in assuring that girls and young women have equal educational opportunities, and much of the debate will be about whether federal educational assistance will continue to support equal opportunity for women and people of color. Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) will introduce a substitute bill to the ESEA reauthorization (Educational Opportunities Act, S. 2) that maintains many key departmental programs. Failing success with the Kennedy substitute, the Democrats are prepared for a long fight. They have prepared scores of amendments to restore targeted programs and retain some federal control over how the money is spent. Sens. Kennedy and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) will offer an Amendment on Gender Equity in Education that allows schools to take gender into consideration in the areas of education technology, school safety, teacher training and dropout prevention. This is an update of equity programs that were adopted in 1994. Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) will propose an Amendment on Child Opportunity Zone Family Centers establishing a grant program to encourage school-based or community-based coordinated services. Nearly one-fifth of young children in the U.S. live at or below the poverty level and are most in need of services that address social problems often associated with poverty - including family violence, inadequate health care, drug abuse, and poor nutrition. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) will offer an Amendment on Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology. This is an important measure for girls and young women in that only a very small percentage of female students take computer science, yet the overwhelming majority of high-paying jobs for the future will require these kinds of skills. Other amendments to assure accountability, teacher quality, class size and aid more school construction will be offered.; efforts to strike the more offensive Republican-backed provisions - such as those which attempt to sneak in education vouchers - will be made. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) who has been pushing a same-sex education bill for some time, will offer an amendment that would change the term "equal education" to "comparable education." Such an amendment would amount to a return to the inequality that women and people of color suffered from for decades. There are clear constitutional problems with "separate but comparable." As a sign that Senators want to move forward with the education bill, they agreed 98-0 to strip a limited authorization of private school vouchers which had been adopted in the House. The provision prohibits 15 states that could opt to receive federal funds as a block grant from using that money to pay private school tuition. In the House, the Education and Workforce Committee finished mark-up on The Education Options Act, H.R. 4141, the last of the education reauthorization bills, after considering 60 amendments. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) offered an amendment to promote gender equality in technology education - it failed along party lines. Rep. Patsy Mink (D-HI) proposed an amendment to allow Safe and Drug Free funds to be used for sexual harassment prevention. That, too, failed in a strict party line vote. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) attempted to amend the Safe and Drug Free program funding to be used for hate crime education and prevention programs, but that failed. However, Sen. Jim Jeffords (R-VT) bill will provide for this on the Senate side. The House education bill also contains Sen. Hutchison's bad "comparable" education language. |
| ACTION NEEDED: | We will be keeping activists informed via Action Alerts as the debate
proceeds. Much is at stake here in potentially losing gender equity programs
in education. Activists may want to contact
Members of their Congressional delegation just to let them know you're
watching and will remember in November. Some important points to stress:
|
ECONOMIC EQUITY
| NOW CRITICIZES SECRET BANKRUPTCY TALKS; LOTT SAYS BILL MAY BE DEAD | NOW Executive Vice President Kim Gandy spoke at a press conference
in the Senate on May 2nd with Sens. Paul Wellstone (D-MN), Rep.
Jerrold Nadler, and others to object to closed door sessions on the pending
Bankruptcy
Reform Act (S. 625/H.R. 833). Reportedly, House and Senate Judiciary
Committee members and representatives of the banking industry were proposing
to add even more draconian features to the bill. For instance, one provision
would allow lenders to require, as a condition of receiving a loan or obtaining
credit, that a borrower give up the traditional protection for her pension
benefits in the event of a future bankruptcy.
Gandy said, "These institutions are just out of control. They've gotten so greedy that they're ready to steal from our grandmothers." This bankruptcy bill would greatly limit the options available to people filing for bankruptcy and, at the same time, empower credit card companies to have greater access to a person's assets. NOW has objected to the legislation as it reduces the ability of women owed past due child support to collect. Some Members of Congress believe that this problem has been resolved by certain language changes, however, other revisions through the bill mean that fewer debts can be discharged under bankruptcy and therefore less money will be available to pay past due - and even current - child support obligations. The legislation has passed both the House and the Senate, however, threatened amendments over the Clinic Violence Amendment and gun control have prevented the Conference Committee from completing work. Some Republicans are unhappy about bill's containing the Schumer amendment that would close current loopholes which let clinic violence defendants, like Randall Terry, declare bankruptcy to avoid paying legal fines, damages and related court fees. Good news, though, followed the press conference. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) said that he is prepared to let the bill die in the face of an extended filibuster by Sen. Wellstone and other roadblocks. In 1998, women accounted for 39% of bankruptcy filings. Of the one million families filing for bankruptcy in the previous year, according to Women's Policy, Inc. nearly one out of five involved child support and alimony. Half of that number involved women trying to collect support. |
| ACTION NEEDED: | Please
let your Senator know that the so-called Bankruptcy Reform Act is bad
legislation; point out:
|
| MAY 11TH EQUAL PAY DAY WILL HIGHLIGHT 37% PAY GAP | May 11th is designated as Equal Pay Day this year - the
event marks the additional time that a woman has to work into a second
year to equal the pay that a man would receive for the previous year alone.
The pay difference between the sexes amounts to 37%* of a woman's total
paycheck or $9,483. The average salary for women (based on 1998 data) is
$25,862, while the average salary for men is $35,345. So, an additional
four and a half months or 135 days more (falling on Sunday, May 14th,
Mothers' Day, to be exact) of a second year is required for women to earn
an amount equal to men's average salary. Press conferences and other public
events will be held around the country to emphasize the importance of equal
pay.
*[Note: The figures of 73 or 75 cents have been often cited as the current pay gap, so many cit the percent difference as 27 percent or 25 percent. But that is based on comparing the wage difference to a man's total paycheck. The more appropriate base - since it is women who are disadvantaged here - is to compare the difference to the average paycheck for women.] In Congress, legislation promoting pay equity initiatives seems to be going nowhere. Even though the Democratic leadership lists pay equity as one of their priority items, the Republican leadership is not interested in this issue. In fact, the Senate Republican Policy Committee attacked advocates of pay equity last year prior to Equal Pay Day events, asserting that the wage gap only amounted to 2 percent when differences are accounted for between men's and women's age education, occupation, experience, years in the workforce. The committee even alleged that pay equity or comparable worth would result in high unemployment among women and "dangerous" economic consequences. Republican analysts asserted that federal requirements for comparable worth pay will lead to erosion of governmental services and other widespread economic problems. (See http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999). Also, we can expect more criticisms from the fake feminist organizations who support the Republican, big business establishment line. The facts are that when you evaluate men and women of very similar or nearly equal age, education, occupation, experience, years in the workforce and other factors, there is still a glaring disparity. The pay gap is a strong factor in causing poverty among older women ($9,483 less income per year amounts to close to a half million dollars over a 35 year career!) Some of the difference can be explained by the factors noted above, but the largest part of the gap can only be the result of discrimination. The pay gap exists, in part, because women and people of color are still primarily segregated into a few low-paying occupations. More than half of all women workers hold sales, clerical and service jobs, the National Committee on Pay Equity notes. Studies show that the more an occupation is dominated by women or people of color, the less it pays. It's important to keep in mind that little progress was made during the years that Democrats were in control of Congress. They have always been willing to give lots of lip service to the concept of equal pay, but have never shown much leadership in passing legislation that would make a difference. Two bills, the Fair Pay Act (S.702/H.R. 1271) by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) /Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) and the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 74/H.R. 41), by Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), have been introduced. No official hearings have been held and advocates are pessimistic about any action happening in this Congress. |
| ACTION NEEDED: | Write, fax, email or call your
Senators and Representatives and tell them:
|
| FEDERAL SPENDING FOR FY2001: LESS FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS THAT HELP POOR? | In preparation for the annual budget debate, progressive organizations
have prepared their versions of the federal budget. The Congressional
Progressive Caucus, with 56 members, presented its budget earlier this
year after soliciting information from many groups, including NOW. Their
suggestions, detailed below, are contrasted with the President's proposed
budget.
In many areas important to needy women and their families, the President's proposed budget for FY2001 is lacking. The Congressional Progressive Caucus Budget Resolution would spend more money helping those in need, especially low income women and their children. In general, the Caucus followed the President's outline for use of the projected budget surpluses: Social security surpluses are reserved for debt reduction and the preservation of social security. Some of the additional surpluses would be used for a general fund transfer to Medicare and a new prescription drug benefit for Medicare. This leaves about $8 billion of surplus money for FY2001. The Caucus proposes using this to more adequately fund programs that help low income people, particularly women and children, rather than using it for debt reduction, as the President has proposed. The President requested only $1.7 billion for the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), the same amount as was allocated for FY2000, and cut the amount states could transfer from TANF into SSBG. The Caucus proposes that an additional $680 million be allocated to SSBG. This increase in funds would allow states to provide more social services, such as child care, child welfare, elder care, drug abuse prevention and treatment programs, employment services and services for the disabled. The Caucus is also advocating that a greater amount of money be allocated to address the issue of violence against women. The Caucus proposes adding $17 million to the $237 million that the President proposed for grants to combat violence against women, $29 million to the $63 million the President proposed for grants to encourage arrest policies, $3 million to the $120 million the President proposed for grants for battered women's shelters, $1 million to the $3 million the President proposed in grants for the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and $8 million to the $88 million the President proposed for rape prevention grants. Additionally, the President did not request any money for stalker reduction, so the Caucus proposed allocating $3 million for this important program. The Caucus also proposed increases in funding for many programs that would help provide low income housing, address hunger, and make quality education accessible to more people in this country. Both the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees have begun considering their various spending bills which underwrite the programs noted above. Members of Congress need to have input from their constituents on what they believe are the most important programs the federal government should support. In addition, advocates for low income people are concerned that Title XX of the Social Security Act will again be cut. Title XX, Social Services Block Grants (SSBG), makes available to states monies for a wide ranges of services including family planning, child care, elder care and transportation, among others. In five years, these programs have been jeopardized by cuts totaling over $1 billion. The current funding level for Social Services Block grants is $1.775 billion; but a restoration to former levels would bring its funding up to $2.38 billion. |
| ACTION NEEDED: | Please contact
Members of your Congressional delegation and urge them to make spending
decisions along the lines of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Budget
Resolution. You can also add that:
|
| MALONEY BILL ADVOCATES FOR MORE EFFECTIVE WELFARE REFORM | Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) has introduced legislation that would help
families leave welfare and truly rise out of poverty into successful jobs
and healthy lifestyles. The Welfare Tracking Act, H.R. 3150, would
provide incentives for states that excel in lifting families out of poverty,
paying particular attention to the issues of job training and placement,
child care, domestic violence, health care and food stamps. Advocates are
hoping that the Maloney bill will help set the stage for a more effective
approach to welfare "reform" when Congress takes up re-authorization of
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act next year.
While many politicians and the press are trumpeting the successes of welfare-to-work, the evidence is not conclusive. Unknown numbers of former welfare recipients are falling between the cracks; we simply do not know if they have found jobs or have just given up. Food banks and homeless shelters in many cities are reporting increased demand - that they are unable to meet. Single moms are often unable to find quality child care and must leave their children in an unsafe, unregulated environment. Currently, States are rewarded for getting people off their welfare roles -- and not for assuring that they have found a sustainable way of living. The Maloney bill would reward states that provide job skills to welfare recipients so that they can gain the abilities necessary to succeed in the workforce. States would get greater rewards when they have successful job placement programs that help welfare recipients obtain jobs that have a promising career future. The bill recognizes that the lack of quality child care and the prevalence of domestic violence are two issues that often preclude welfare recipients, particularly women, from succeeding at a job. The bill would reward states that increase the amount of quality child care and that help victims of domestic violence obtain the services and protection they need to feel safe, comfortable and able to succeed. Finally, the bill emphasizes that families who are getting off of welfare and beginning to work and earn money must not be forced to go without health insurance or food during this important period of transition. So this bill rewards states that provide health care under Medicaid and food stamps to all families in need of this assistance. |
ACTION NEEDED: http://www.now.org/congress/LegAlert.morph?LegAlert_id=260
Please contact Members of your Congressional delegation and urge each
to become a cosponsor of the Welfare Tracking Act, H.R. 3150. You can add:
* It is clear that many of the poor who are leaving the welfare rolls
do not have jobs. For many who have found permanent employment, life has
become more difficult because those jobs pay wages insufficient to sustain
even a small family.
*The Welfare Tracking Act, H.R. 3150, will not only help families in
need of assistance, but it will provide the opportunity and incentive for
these families to move off of welfare and into successful careers with
adequate pay.
*Everyone in this country deserves food, health care, child care, safety
from domestic violence and the opportunity to succeed at work. This legislation
would improve the likelihood that all these basic human needs can be met.
*Please help build a base of support in Congress for a more reasonable
and humane welfare-to-work policy through your support of H.R. 3150. Much
remains to be done to resolve the complicated problem of poverty; Rep.
Maloney provides a sound approach that addresses many facets of poverty.
=============================================
STATE WELFARE ACTION PACKETS AVAILABLE
As part of a larger coalition effort, NOW and other organizations are
helping to distribute information to state-based advocates about how they
can improve their state's welfare-to-work programs. Activists may
request packets which have been prepared by NOW Legal Defense and Education
Fund in organizing for truly effective welfare-to-work programs. Your help
on this issue can assist us in bringing about meaningful welfare reform
next year at the federal level when reauthorization of the 1996 welfare
bill is debated. Please contact Jan Erickson, NOW Government Relations
Director at (202) 628-8669, ext. 101 or send an email message with your
street or post office box address to: mailto:govtrel@now.org
=============================================
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
=============================================
AT LAST ! HOUSE MOVES FORWARD WITH VAWA; SEN. HATCH WILL LINK
IT TO RLPA
We are all amazed that Congress is finally moving forward with reauthorization
of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) after years of stonewalling.
NOW and other members of the Task Force To End Sexual and Domestic Violence
Against Women were growing more uneasy with the prospect of a short Congressional
session and no firm schedule to consider this important legislation.
The House Judiciary subcommittee on Crime will begin mark-up of the
VAWA Reauthorization bill, (H.R. 1248), on March 4th,
with the suggestion that the bill would go to the House floor by July.
A House appropriations subcommittee will begin consideration of the funding
aspects of VAWA the following week. There is a rumor that the bill may
be attached to another measure - perhaps a crime bill as was the case in
1994 when VAWA was first passed.
On March 3rd, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Orrin Hatch (R-UT) announced
that he planned to link the Violence Against Women Act with the Religious
Liberty Protection Act, H.R. 1691, a bill that proponents say would
protect religious practices but which would have many unintended and undesirable
consequences. Among those: an undermining of state and local laws on child
protection and domestic violence, local land use zoning and environment
protection laws, teen access to health care services and various housing
and public accommodations laws affecting single and pregnant women, gays,
lesbians and people of color.
ACTION NEEDED: http://www.now.org/congress/LegAlert.morph?LegAlert_id=261
As noted previously, a number of VAWA programs have already expired,
with more due to expire this summer. The pressure should be kept up on
House Members to move quickly in the re-authorization process. All messages
should oppose linking the Violence Against Women Act with the Religious
Liberty Protection Act. The need for action is immediate. Ask your Representatives
and Senators to:
* Please Reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) for
5 years at funding levels that reflect the increased costs and importance
of programs and services across the nation. Funding parity must be ensured
for sexual assault and domestic violence programs as well as for victim
services, state coalitions, and community-based programs.
* The VAWA Reauthorization bill, H.R. 1248, (sponsored by Reps. Connie
Morella (R-MD) and Nancy Johnson (R-CT) needs your vote. Your support June
will provide a blueprint for the Appropriations Committee. Funding for
programs that were created under VAWA '94 will run out on October 1, 2000.
I also ask you to support levels of funding in the FY 2001 Appropriations
bills that reflect the amounts found in H.R. 1248.
* Time is of the essence in reauthorizing VAWA in this short Congressional
session. Therefore, it is important that the Senate and House versions
be as close in content as possible. The House bill, H.R. 1248, is more
comprehensive than earlier Senate versions, and it is important that Senators
work to make their bill as comprehensive and inclusive as the House bill.
* The VAWA reauthorization package should include funds for civil legal assistance programs for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, as proposed by Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), and funds for housing programs -- along the lines of H.R. 1352, sponsored by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and S. 2112, offered by Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-NJ).
* Please include in the Reauthorization package language that protects
battered immigrant women and their families by restoring and refining VAWA
'94 protections that were eroded by subsequent welfare and immigration
bills [from the Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act, H.R.3083, sponsored
by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and a bill soon to be introduced by Sens.
Spencer Abraham (R-MI) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA)].
* Certain technical corrections need to be incorporated to (1) change
the VAWA S.T.O.P. Formula to allow a specific percentage of funding to
go to sexual assault coalitions (without reducing funding for current sexual
assault programs), (2) allow dating violence to be included in the federal
definition of domestic violence (as found in H.R. 357, The Violence Against
Women Act of 1999, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)) and (3) establish
training programs on the VAWA '94 full faith and credit provisions. This
will ensure that protection orders and child custody orders are enforced
across state and tribal lines.
* I urge that you increase federal funding for the continuing expansion
of the National Domestic Violence Hotline to support its existing service
to sexual assault victims. This funding will enable the Hotline to assist
sexual assault victims who are non-English speaking, who are hearing impaired,
or who want to access services outside of their local community to protect
their privacy or safety.
=============================================
SCHAKOWSKY INTRODUCES BATTERED IMMIGRANT WOMEN BILL
Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) introduced a bill that would provide
greater protection and assistance to immigrants who are victims of domestic
violence. This legislation, the Battered Immigrant Women Protection
Act, would go a long way toward extending the services provided under
VAWA to this underserved group and correcting the mistreatment of battered
immigrant women that has been permitted under recent immigration "reform"
legislation.
There are three main purposes of this legislation, H.R. 3083. First,
the act aims to promote criminal prosecutions of anyone who commit acts
of battery or extreme cruelty against immigrant women and children. Secondly,
the bill seeks to offer protection against domestic violence occurring
in family and intimate relationships that are covered in State and tribal
protection orders, domestic violence and family law statutes. Thirdly,
the legislation would work to correct the erosions of VAWA immigration
protections that occurred as a result of the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as well as the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997.
ACTION NEEDED: http://www.now.org/congress/LegAlert.morph?LegAlert_id=262
Please contact your Congressional Representative and ask him or her
to become a sponsor of H.R. 3083, and urge Congressional leadership to
make this legislation a priority.
*H.R. 3083, The Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act, should be incorporated
into the Violence Against Women Reauthorization bill (H.R. 1248) now being
considered in the House Judiciary Committee. Please advocate for its inclusion.
*It should be emphasized that no woman, regardless of her immigrant
status, deserves to be subjected to battering with no protection from the
government. Support of H.R. 3083 will underscore that protection.
*Abuse of women violates the basic human right that all people, regardless
of their national origin or citizenship status, deserve, and that the U.S.
government must do everything in its power to protect the rights of all
people.
=============================================
LESBIAN RIGHTS
Currently, thousands of human rights violations directed at gays and
lesbians around the globe are going unrecognized. In Afghanistan, two men
convicted of sodomy were placed next to standing walls by Taliban officials
and were executed as the walls were toppled upon them, burying them in
the rubble. In Brazil, a lesbian couple was tortured and sexually assaulted
by civil police, and despite the existence of a medical report and eye-witness
testimony, their case remains unprosecuted. In Zimbabwe, members of "Gays
and Lesbians of Zimbabwe" have been threatened and brutally assaulted for
forming an organization to advocate for social and political rights. In
Uganda, the President ordered police to arrest all homosexuals, and the
punishment for homosexual activity is life in prison.
Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) introduced a concurrent resolution (H. Con.
Res. 259) in March that would put the United States on record against
human rights violations based on sexual orientation. The resolution would
recognize that the protection of sexual orientation and gender identity
is not a special category of human rights, but is included in the overall
human rights norms defined in international conventions. It would condemn
all human rights violations based on sexual orientation and recognize that
such violations should be equally punished without discrimination.
ACTION NEEDED: http://www.now.org/congress/LegAlert.morph?LegAlert_id=263
Contact your Congressional Representative with the following information:
* Please co-sponsor the resolution (H. Con. Res. 259) by Rep. Lantos
that would help ensure the basic human rights of gays and lesbians in other
countries by calling attention to widespread violations and encouraging
the documentation of those abuses.
*This important resolution emphasizes that the protection of sexual
orientation and gender identity is not a special category of human rights,
but is, in fact, part of the overall human rights norms defined in several
international conventions.
*All people, regardless of sexual orientation, are entitled to basic
human rights, and human rights violations on any basis, including sexual
orientation, should be condemned by the United States. H. Con. Res. 259
reaffirms this position.
=============================================
NADLER BILL TO EASE IMMIGRATION FOR GAY, LESBIAN PARTNERS
Despite the fact that U.S. immigration law is based on the principle
of family unity, it does not recognize gay and lesbian families. U.S. citizens
cannot petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate on the basis of
their relationships. Consequently, thousands of gay and lesbian bi-national
couples are kept apart, torn apart or forced to live together with one
partner undocumented and in constant fear of deportation.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has introduced a bill (H.R. 3650, The
Permanent Partner Immigration Act) that would provide same-sex partners
all the immigration rights that legal spouses currently enjoy. The bill
amends numerous sections of Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
to add the term "permanent partner" to the list of definitions in the INA
and to enable U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to petition
for their permanent partner for immigration to the U.S.
ACTION NEEDED: http://www.now.org/congress/LegAlert.morph?LegAlert_id=264
Please urge your House Member to cosponsor The Permanent Partner Immigration
Act, H.R. 3650. You can also tell him/her that:
*U.S. immigration law must value all families, including gay and lesbian
families, by helping to preserve all family unity. Gay and lesbian partners
separated by international boundaries and immigration policies experience
a special kind of discrimination that should not be tolerated.
* Rep. Nadler's bill, The Permanent Partner Immigration Act, H.R. 3650,
would amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act to allow gay and lesbian
partners to petition for the legal immigration of their partners. The need
for this change is apparent and I urge you to support it.
*Please show that this Congress cares about the rights of all families.
Help build support among your colleagues for passage of The Permanent Partner
Immigration Act, H.R. 3650, and ask the leadership to schedule hearings.
=============================================
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
=============================================
MALONEY BILL WOULD REVERSE INTERNATIONAL FAMILY PLANNING LOSSES
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) recently introduced legislation that would
greatly improve the availability and quality of international family planning
services. Introduced in February, the Saving Women's Lives through International
Family Planning Act (H.R. 3634) has 107 cosponsors. An identical version
in the Senate, S. 2380, is sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).
Already, $366 million has been designated for FY2001 for the
Foreign
Assistance Act and the United Nations Environment Program Participation
Act. This bill would mandate that $35 million of that money be given
to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which assists in international
family planning. The bill would also change the restrictions placed upon
other international family planning organizations in order for them to
receive U.S. funding. Currently, such organizations are not allowed to
use funds from the U.S. to provide or even discuss any sort of abortion
services. This bill would eliminate these restrictions, thereby reversing
what we know as the "global gag rule" and allowing international family
planning organizations to offer comprehensive family planning.
ACTION NEEDED: http://www.now.org/congress/LegAlert.morph?LegAlert_id=265
Please contact your Representative and urge him or her to become a cosponsor
of the Saving Women's Lives through International Family Planning Act,
H.R. 3634, and to pressure the Congressional leadership to make this bill
a priority. Here are some additional talking points.
*Women in other countries deserve access to comprehensive reproductive
health care. It is not acceptable for the U.S. government to diminish access
to health care services for women in other countries.
* Studies have documented that comprehensive international family planning,
including access to abortion, leads to healthier women and children throughout
the world. Developing countries depend on U.S. financial aid to supplement
scarce local resources for this purpose.
*It is critically important that the United States reverse the trend
of the past six years and begin restoring all elements of a fair and effective
international family planning program. Policies that deny to women and
service providers abroad the free speech and reproductive rights that are
enjoyed in the U.S. justifiably make this country look like an international
bully.
=============================================
"CHARITABLE CHOICE" EMPOWERS RELIGIOUS RIGHT; LIMITS WOMEN'S RIGHTS
H.R. 2511, a bill that amends the Public Health Service Act to promote adoption counseling, includes "charitable choice" language that would prohibit the federal government from ever considering the religious nature of an organization in awarding government grants. This means that religious organizations could apply for and receive federal grant money without having to assure that they would not use it for the promotion of religion. The bill is one of many, covering a range of subjects, where abortion rights opponents have inserted the so-called "charitable choice" language - it is hardly charitable, in its intent.
"Charitable choice" provisions in this bill and other similar legislation
would give religious organizations extensive control over the nature and
content of their program services, while reducing the power of government
to assure that funds are not being used for strictly religious purposes.
Charitable choice provisions are opposed by many groups within the progressive
community for a host of reasons, especially the potential violation of
First Amendment guarantees of separation between church and state.
Charitable choice provisions are particularly threatening to women because
of an enhanced ability to attack reproductive rights. For instance, H.R.
2511 would allow funding currently provided to secular health programs
to be given instead to religious organizations for them to administer religiously-affiliated
health care. Many of the secular health programs currently receiving such
funding help pregnant women learn about all of their options. Some religious
groups would not be so open with women about options such as abortion that
may be in conflict with the religion's beliefs. In sum, this bill would
allow biased religious views to displace sound reproductive health care
services and accurate health information. This would be especially damaging
for low-income women who depend upon federally-funded programs.
ACTION NEEDED: http://www.now.org/congress/LegAlert.morph?LegAlert_id=266
Please contact members of your Congressional delegation and tell them
reproductive rights must be fully protected by the law and "charitable
choice" would limit access to important health services, particularly for
low-income women.
*All women, regardless of economic status, deserve access to abortion
and other reproductive health services - free from religious bias. This
is absolutely essential for any programs receiving public funds.
*Allowing religious groups to provide federally-funded health care seriously
endangers the access that low-income women will have to abortion, contraception,
sterilization and other reproductive health services.
*"Charitable choice" provisions violate our First Amendment freedoms
and would allow conservative religious organizations to use federally-funded
programs to promote their beliefs -- many of which would limit the constitutionally
protected rights of women.
=============================================
FETAL-TISSUE ACT WOULD LEAD TO GREATER HARASSMENT, VIOLENCE
Republican abortion rights opponents were embarrassed recently when
it became apparent that they were either being mislead or were themselves
misleading the public. Actually, it probably was a combination of both
factors. As previously reported in the NOW Legislative Update, a hearing
on the alleged illegal profiteering in human fetal tissue was held by the
House
Commerce Subcommittee on Health and the Environment on March 9th.
The hearing -- as orchestrated by arch abortion rights opponents in Congress
and militant anti-abortion rights activists -- received testimony from
various witnesses about supposed profiteering by several specimen laboratories.
However, when a star witness for abortion rights opponents admitted that
he had fabricated information and another witness failed to materialize,
their case began to fall apart. The hearing resulted in unflattering press
reports and, reportedly, some Members and committee staffers are still
smarting from the embarrassment.
Nonetheless, Rep. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has moved forward with legislation
on the possibility that some individuals may be illegally profiting from
the donation and medical use of human-fetal tissue. Reportedly, the Department
of Justice has begun an investigation, even though the evidence seems scant.
Federal law strictly controls the handling and sale of human fetal tissue,
prohibiting any sale that has more than a modest profit for handling and
transport and separating a woman's consent to have an abortion from her
agreeing to donate the tissue for research and medical use. Human fetal
tissue research has shown very promising results in the treatment of a
wide range of diseases, including Parkinsons', AIDS, MS, and many others.
As part of a larger strategy, Rep. Coburn (R-OK) has introduced a bill
which could greatly endanger women who seek abortions, doctors who provide
abortions, and anyone associated with the medical use of human-fetal tissue.
His bill, H.R. 3980, The Human Fetal-Tissue Donation Reporting and Disclosure
Act, would require that the names of anyone involved in the chain of
fetal tissue donation be made public, thus putting these individuals at
risk of harassment and violence at the hands of anti-abortion zealots and
groups.
H.R. 3980 would exacerbate the critical problem of abortion terrorism
by legally requiring the following information to be made public: the name,
phone number and addresses of each organization and person connected with
fetal tissue donation; a description of the type and quantity of fetal
tissue being donated, its intended use and a determination of whether the
tissue was obtained from an induced abortion; verification that the donor
legally consented to donate the tissue; the amount of money transferred
as a result of the donation; and "any other information determined appropriate
by the Secretary." Further, this legislation also requires that any package
of human-fetal tissue being shipped be prominently labeled on the outside
packaging as human fetal tissue.
Many companies have stopped handling fetal tissue already because of
problems employees have encountered from abortion rights opponents. Rep.
Coburn claims that this bill would protect women and doctors, but the reverse
is true. The legislation requires the disclosure of hospitals and clinics
involved in fetal tissue donation, thus making it far easier for anti-abortion
terrorists to target these places and impede a woman's ability to obtain
a safe and private abortion. This provision would also make it easier for
them to track down the names of doctors who perform abortions and the names
of their patients so that they may inflict greater harassment and violence.
ACTION NEEDED: http://www.now.org/congress/LegAlert.morph?LegAlert_id=267
Please let your Members in Congress know the following:
*H.R. 3980 has no purpose other than to increase the terrorist acts
that have already victimized so many women and doctors. Federal law currently
strictly regulates human-fetal tissue collection, transportation and usage.
*The Coburn bill will assist violent anti-abortion groups in their mission
to target those involved with abortion and fetal tissue donation. Please
work to protect doctors, their patient, researchers and everyone else involved
from anti-choice terrorist actions and ensure that abortion is safe and
available to everyone.
*Human-fetal tissue research holds much promise for treating serious
diseases. We cannot let anti-abortion extremists stop the possibility of
providing important relief to millions of people.
=============================================
ANOTHER COBURN BILL WOULD DEFINE WHEN LIFE BEGINS - HIS OPINION
Ever energetic on the subject of controlling women's reproductive rights,
Rep. Tom Coburn (R-OK), is preparing to introduce a resolution to define
when human life is present. Although this legislation would not change
any existing laws, it would set a dangerous precedent in viewing non-viable
fetuses as human beings with rights superior to or equal to those of women.
The resolution states that fetal cardiac activity can be detected at
24 days after conception and that fetal brain waves can be detected 41
days after conception. Thus, Coburn asserts, at the 41st day after conception,
the fetus is a human being with constitutional rights. This dangerous legislation
is clearly the first step toward declaring abortion as murder.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a non-viable fetus does not have constitutional
rights, and that pregnant women do have rights regarding their own choices
in continuing a pregnancy.
ACTION NEEDED: http://www.now.org/congress/LegAlert.morph?LegAlert_id=268
We cannot sit back and allow Rep. Coburn and his allies take control of women's bodies. Contact Members of your Congressional delegation and urge them to oppose the resolution that attempts to place fetal rights above those of women. Remind your congressperson of the following:
*Our democracy survives because it allows diversity of opinion on all
matters - including that which would define when human life begins. Rep.
Coburn's resolution on when human life begins in the womb is an affront
to that important principle of respecting the right of individuals to have
differing views.
*Women deserve and are constitutionally guaranteed reproductive freedom;
that right should not be secondary to or supplanted by fetal rights.
*No woman should be forced to sacrifice her life, health or well-being. Yet, that would undoubtedly be the outcome of any policies which place fetal rights above those of women.
*This resolution is yet another example of the endless harassment of
women that men permit in the name of partisan politics. Please demonstrate
leadership in ending this harassment by speaking against such behavior.
It is truly demeaning to women.
Another reproductive rights opponent, Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK), is
advocating that $20 million be set aside for abstinence-only sexuality
education in the 2000 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,
H.R. 3908. Abstinence-only education ignores the fact that many young
people -- regardless of the education they receive -- will choose to have
sex. Abstinence-only education does not provide young people with information
on how to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted
diseases, including AIDS. Also, abstinence-only education does not address
how to deal with unwanted pregnancy, thus leaving young women-and young
men-in the dark on a very important matter.
The Emergency Supplemental Act passed the House on March 30th and is
pending before the Senate Appropriations Committee. However, Majority Leader
Trent Lott (R-MS) has announced that he does not wish to spend any more
money in this fiscal year, so fate of the additional $20 million appropriation
uncertain.
Rep. Istook champions very strict abstinence-only language for this
bill, such that federal funds allocated by this bill could be used only
for programs that teach abstinence and nothing else. This definition, as
written into the 1996 welfare bill, includes such points as "sexual activity
outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological
and physical effects." Such legislation further demonstrates that many
conservative members are out of touch with reality. Telling untruths to
young people and expecting it to produce desired behaviors is poor public
policy, faulty education and a dangerous health care practice.
ACTION NEEDED: http://www.now.org/congress/LegAlert.morph?LegAlert_id=270
Write your Members of Congress to let him/her know that you support
comprehensive sexuality education and are opposed federal funding of the
abstinence-only education. Stress the following points:
* Abstinence-only education programs which are prohibited from discussing
contraception do not teach young women what they need to know about sexuality.
These are biased programs which should not be funded with our tax dollars.
*Comprehensive sexuality education that includes contraception is more
effective than abstinence-only education at delaying the onset of sexual
activity in young people. This is well documented in numerous studies.
Further, abstinence-only education is actually less effective than broader
education that includes contraception at delaying the onset of sexual activity
in young people.
* NOW, and many other organizations, including the National Abortion
and Reproductive Rights Action League, the American Medical Association,
the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and
the American Public Health Association, support comprehensive sexuality
education.
=============================================
ADOPTION ACT IS ABOUT LIMITING REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM
The Adoption Awareness Act of 1999, H.R. 3301, is attempting
to change the nature of counseling provided to pregnant women in federally
funded Title X clinics. Currently, these clinics provide non-directive
"options counseling," in which they make women aware of all the choices
they have, including adoption, but do not advocate any one of the options.
H.R. 3301 would require these clinics to perform "adoption counseling,"
which would place an increased financial burden on already underfunded
clinics and chip away at the reproductive freedom rights of the women who
seek services from these programs.
The Adoption Awareness Act could require Title X clinics to redistribute
their funds in order to train their staff members to provide highly complex
adoption counseling. Other federal funding that could go to Title X clinics
might be redirected by Congress to fund organizations whose sole purpose
is to promote adoption. Financially, this legislation could greatly harm
Title X clinics, by taking money from them and requiring them to use their
money in ways that are not as helpful to women nor as consistent with their
missions. Title X is a prevention program, aimed at providing reproductive
health services and contraceptive care to low-income women, many of whom
are uninsured.
In addition to financially overburdening Title X clinics, this bill
could also seriously set back the advances that have been made in ensuring
reproductive rights for all women, including low-income women and women
without health insurance. While the bill does not specifically state that
Title X clinics cannot include abortion options in counseling, it could
force them to focus so heavily on adoption that other options are not given
full consideration. Further implications of this bill might require Title
X to openly advocate adoption as the "best" option for women, seriously
infringing upen the free reproductive choice that all women deserve.
Even many groups within the adoption community do not support this legislation.
They feel that it would lead to money being wasted on the duplication of
services. Many organizations currently exist that adequately provide adoption
counseling. These organizations, because of their missions and resources
are far more suited to do so than Title X clinics.
ACTION NEEDED: http://www.now.org/congress/LegAlert.morph?LegAlert_id=271
Please contact your House Member and tell her or him that you oppose
H.R. 3301, the Adoption Awareness Act. Explain how:
*H.R. 3301, The Adoption Awareness Act, if passed, could overburden
Title X family planning clinics and prohibit them from fulfilling their
broader mission of providing reproductive health care and contraceptive
services to low-income women.
*Title X clinics are not equipped to provide adequate adoption counseling,
and making them able to do so would seriously detract from their ability
to perform their broader duties with regard to reproductive health. These
clinics are also not equipped to provide the long-term, follow-up counseling
that many women who chose adoption need.
*There are many adequately-funded organizations which provide adoption
counseling. Their specially trained staff should handle the complicated
issues involved in adoption procedures without burdening Title X clinics.
*Forcing Title X clinics to advocate adoption over other options seriously
infringes upon a woman's right to choose from fairly presented options
without pressure. All women, regardless of economic status, must have this
right.
* The Adoption Awareness Act could actually be counterproductive. The
bill could hurt children who are in foster care and need adoptive parents,
as it could redirect adoption funds disproportionately to the adoption
of infants.
=============================================
WOMEN'S HEALTH
=============================================
MICROBICIDES PROVIDE HOPE FOR WOMEN-CONTROLLED CONTRACEPTION
Sexually transmitted diseases are an issue of concern for everyone,
though particularly for women for three main reasons. First, the condom,
which is considered to be the best form of protection against STDs, is
controlled by men, and women often cannot convince male partners to use
this precaution. Secondly, rates of STDs among women are rising at alarming
rates. In 1998, nearly one million women died of AIDS, and 13.8 million
adult women were living with HIV/AIDS that year. In the United States,
women remain the fastest growing group of both new reported cases of AIDS
and new reported HIV infections. Further, complications associated with
other STDs can be far more serious for women than for men, including infertility,
ectopic pregnancy, cancer, and infant mortality.
Microbicides would provide a way for women to take more control over their reproductive health. As female-controlled protection, they can take the form of vaginal creams, gels, sponges, films or suppositories, and would be applied to the vaginal wall prior to sexual activity. Once applied, they kill or deactivate the microbes that cause STDs. Further research could lead to a microbicide that could also be used for pregnancy prevention.
Despite scientific promise and public health need for this new technology, both private and public investment in this research has been remarkably inadequate. To date, the pharmaceutical industry has shown little interest in pursuing this line of research. As a result, more support from government agencies and other public sector organizations is crucial to timely development of these female-empowering STD prevention products. However, thus far, federal government funding allocation has not been sufficient in this area.
Rep. Connie Morella (R-MD) has been working to dramatically increase
the public investment in microbicide research. On March 9, she introduced
the Microbicide Development Act of 2000 (H.R. 3891), along with
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), Jim Greenwood (R-PA), Sue
Kelly (R-NY), and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). The Act would authorize increases
in microbicide research at NIH from approximately $25 million in FY 1999
to $50 million in FY 2001, $75 million in FY 2002 and $100 million in FY
2003. This legislation would greatly speed up the progress of this landmark
woman-controlled STD protection.
ACTION NEEDED: http://www.now.org/congress/LegAlert.morph?LegAlert_id=272
Please contact your Representative and urge him or her to become a cosponsor
of H.R. 3891, the Microbicide Development Act, and to work for its swift
passage. Additional talking points are:
*Sexually transmitted diseases are a growing problem among women, and
there are not currently protection options that women can control. The
Microbicide Development Act of 2000, H.R. 3891, would provide for more
research into promising methods to prevent sexually-transmitted disease.
I urge you to support this bill.
*The sooner microbicide protection is made available to the general
population, the fewer women will suffer from devastating, sometimes life-threatening
STDs. Federal assistance to speed up the research and development process
is urgently needed. Please help by assuring that federal funding for microbicide
research is authorized for the next federal fiscal year.
=============================================
SEND A MESSAGE IN A BOTTLE FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFITS
Older women are encouraged to send to Members of Congress their empty
prescription bottles around the time of Mother's Day, May 14th , with a
note inside which indicates how much they spend each on month prescription
drugs. The action is being coordinated by the Older Women's League (OWL)
to let Congress know that there is an urgent need for coverage of the
costs for Medicare prescription drugs. OWL - and other seniors' advocacy
groups - want a prescription drug benefit that is universal, voluntary,
comprehensive and affordable.
The note can read as follows:" I take______different prescriptions each
month. These medicines, which are critical to my health, cost me a total
of $__________each month. The average annual income for women age 65 and
older is $10,000. This all adds up to a prescription for change. As the
majority of beneficiaries, women are the face of Medicare. We need a prescription
drug plan now."
Simply address the envelope to your Rep.__________, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C. 20515 or Sen.____________. U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
20510. [If you don't know who your Representative and Senators are, click
on http://www.now.org/congress
]
President Clinton and the Democratic leadership are supporting federal
funding of all prescription drug benefits under Medicare; the Republicans
believe that the proposal is too costly and have offered more limited alternatives.
==============================
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 .
Return to NOW Home Page / Join NOW / Catalog / Search / Send NOW Mail