• Hate Crimes Amendment -- URGENT ACTION NEEDED
• Hatch Promises to Bring VAWA to Senate Floor Vote
• Religious Liberty Act Could Override Civil Rights & Other Laws
• Troubled Trafficking Victims Bill has Shortcomings

• Sen. Harkin, Advocates Speak Up for Equal Pay
• Marriage Penalty Tax Relief Helps Some, Hurts Others
• Child Care Funding Increases Desperately Needed
• Support Minimum Wage Increase

• Extreme Restrictions Proposed for Mifepristone
• How do Presidential Candidates Measure up on Abortion Rights?

• Patients Bill of Rights Tabled in Senate

• "Fatherhood" Grants Pushed In Child Support Bill
• Presidential Candidates Promote "Fatherhood Programs"
• New Resource Kit on Domestic Violence and Child Custody

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

LLEA strengthens federal law (18 U.S. C. 245) by expanding coverage to include hate crimes based on gender, sexual orientation and disability in addition to the current categories of race, color, national origin and religion. The bill represents an important effort support women's fundamental civil right to live free of sex-based violence and, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment does not even provide a basis for Congress to permit private federal lawsuits by victims, it is more important than ever to expand this protection.

Please make certain that the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (S. 622) is passed this year. I am counting on you to vote for this important legislation and to demonstrate leadership in seeing that this bill becomes a law. Women especially need the protection that HCPA would provide by including sex-based hate crimes among those protected by the federal criminal statutes.

Previously, rumors were circulating that VAWA could be attached to the Religious Liberty Protection Act (H.R 1691), a Republican priority bill, or to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (H.R. 3244). But, as of this moment, it looks like VAWA will proceed on its own.

Funding for the many anti-violence programs that currently serve thousands women who are victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse is going to run out early this fall. Before that time, both the House of Representatives and the Senate must finish committee work, schedule floor votes, expedite through a conference committee and then send the VAWA reauthorization bill to the President to ensure continued funding for shelters, hotlines and other services.

In the House, VAWA (H.R. 1248) has been passed out of the Judiciary Committee's Crime Subcommittee and is set for a full committee mark-up either this week or next. However, there was one major flaw in the bill as it came out of subcommittee: it lacked important provisions for victims of dating violence. Under this version, women would have to be co-habiting with their abusers in order to be able to benefit from VAWA services. This provision is particularly onerous in light of brand new data released by the Department of Justice in May. According to their special report entitled, "Intimate Partner Violence," women between the ages of 16 and 24 are the most likely to experience violence within their relationships. Often women this young are not living with their abusers, but they still need VAWA services. Congress must amend VAWA to include provisions for all women who experience such violence, regardless of whether they live with the abuser.

On May 17th, Vice President Al Gore issued a call for Congress to reauthorize VAWA, citing a drop of 20.3% in 1998 of violent offenses by an intimate partner as compared to data from 1993. "This is evidence that our administration's Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and the over $1 billion in grants for law enforcement assistance and battered women's shelters which have been made under VAWA are working," he added.

We must express to Senators the need to reauthorize VAWA right away. In the five years of its existence, local programs funded under the act have been successful in lowering rates of violence against women and men. According to the Department of Justice report, since VAWA the rate of intimate partner violence has fallen from 9.8 to 7.5 per 1,000 women. But these numbers are still too high, so there is much work left to do. This is why it is so important that VAWA be reauthorized at full funding immediately.

An important note: Because so-called men's rights (aka "fatherhood") advocates and anti-feminist groups have undertaken a campaign to discredit violence against women programs, it is important to stress that the Violence Against Women Act is gender neutral. Funds are available to support programs which assist men as well as women; if the language in the act were not gender neutral, it could not meet a constitutionality challenge. But because women are the majority of those targeted in the kinds of crimes covered by the Act, the majority of the funds go to programs assisting women victims. Although there are in fact a number of programs for male victims of abuse. And, any statistics that our opponents may cite that suggest that as many women as men are batterers are simply inaccurate and cannot be substantiated by sound scientific research.

Additionally, some men's rights activists have mistakenly concluded that the recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. Morrison (the Christy Brzonkala case) invalidated the entire Violence Against Women Act, when in fact only one small part -- the civil remedy which allowed victims of violence to file a lawsuit in federal court -- was in question. A majority of the Court said that neither the Commerce Clause nor the Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to pass a law allowing victims of sex-based violence to sue their attackers in federal court. None of the programs funded under VAWA are affected by this ruling.

Dear Senator/Representative:

I applaud the work you have done to take the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) this far, and urge you to mark up this legislation in full committee as soon as possible. However, I do have a major concern regarding the current bill's content:

VAWA was designed to protect women from gender-motivated violence, regardless of the setting. Since we know that a woman need not be living with her abuser in order to be a victim of abuse, it is unfortunate that the current language in VAWA does not recognize this simple fact. It only offers protection and services for women being abused by intimates with whom they are cohabiting. This language excludes the thousands of women who are victims of dating violence every year.

A study released in May by the Department of Justice found that the women who are most likely to experience gender-motivated violence at the hands of an intimate are between the ages of 16 and 24. Very often women this young are not living with their abusers, and this fact should not bar them from receiving protection and services from VAWA programs. I urge the Judiciary Committee to amend VAWA, striking the cohabitation requirement and thereby broadening the legislation to protect the greatest number of abused women.

A special provision for women in college would not solve this problem, because it would still exclude so many women of all ages who are experiencing dating violence, not living with their abusers, and not currently attending college. For many women, college is simply not an available option, but these women still deserve safety from abuse and the ability to access services from VAWA programs. Therefore, I urge you to reject such a "college exception" in favor of more inclusive language that would help all women who are victims of dating violence.

VAWA, through its victim services, education and attempts to improve states' responses to allegations of gender-motivated violent crimes, has begun to effectively address the pervasive problem of violence against women. To continue this progress, please act to reauthorize VAWA immediately, and guarantee that the final version contains provisions to protect all abused women.

Sincerely, Your Name

Reportedly Senators are working to modify the bill to answer certain criticisms -- particularly those in the civil rights and land use areas, but observers doubt that the changes will answer all concerns. H.R. 1691 passed the House last year and Senate Judiciary Committee Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has vowed to its counterpart, S. 2081, adopted into law, even suggesting that he might link it to the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization. (Recent reports, though, indicate that he probably will not do that.)

RLPA was drafted by conservative religious activists to respond to a pair of Supreme Court rulings on this topic. The first ruling, in 1990 [Employment Division v. Smith], held that the Constitution does not require laws of general applicability that burden religious beliefs to have a compelling state interest. In response, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which sought to legislatively reinstate the compelling state interest test. The second in 1997 [City of Boerne v. Flores], struck down RFRA, holding that Congress has exceeded its constitutionally limited power to legislate under the Fourteenth Amendment. RLPA, if passed, attempts to solve the constitutionality problem in RFRA by basing the authority in the commerce and spending clauses (rather than the 14^th Amendment), and again attempting to enact the compelling state interest test by statute.

Critics fear, and with good cause, that RLPA will allow many groups and individuals to practice discrimination on the bases of race, gender, sexual orientation, marriage status and other such things in the name of religion. They worry, simply, that RLPA will derail the civil rights progress that has been made throughout the nation and keep states from being able to enforce their civil rights laws.

The RLPA would provide a built-in defense for individuals who practice discrimination and could lead to a host of potential legal problems that could be a major setback in civil rights law. There are many ways in which the original purpose of RLPA, to allow people to practice their religion freely, could be distorted and misused to perpetuate acts of discrimination against a wide variety of people.

RPLA could also have a dramatic impact on law concerning child abuse and domestic violence. RPLA could provide a religious defense for these crimes, thus setting up a dangerous standard by which cases of child abuse and domestic violence would be evaluated. If a defendant in such a case claimed that the abuse was religiously motivated, the state would have to prove that it has a compelling interest in acting to end the abuse, and that it would do so in the way that was least restrictive to the abuser's religious practices. It is the belief of many progressive organizations that this "least restrictive" test would tie the hands of the state in trying to address the abuse of women and children.

Other critics assert that RLPA, in effect, provides for a national "conscience clause" for both individuals and entities, allowing them to affirmatively pursue an anti-abortion agenda by forestalling laws or enforcement of laws which assure women's access to reproductive health care. RLPA could be used to challenge state and local laws that protect clinics. Similarly, RLPA would override state and federal law protecting minors' confidentiality, preventing children from receiving important health care services that they have sought, if their parents objected for religious reasons.

Because many of the groups who fear that RLPA could perpetuate discrimination throughout the country do still support the basic premise of the bill, that people should be allowed to practice their religion freely without governmental intervention, they are hoping to have the bill amended so that it is something everyone can support. The amendment these groups seek is a civil rights exception, which would state that people can practice their religion freely without government intervention so long as they do not violate any federal, state or local civil rights laws when doing so.

Many right wing groups and politicians oppose such an amendment. Some even go so far as to say that they intended for this legislation to be used in order to "correct" the "sins" that are allowed under civil rights laws. In the House, the civil rights exception amendment failed, and the bill went on to pass. The progressive groups are hoping to amend the bill in the Senate, however, it is not likely that the bill problems regarding domestic violence, child abuse and children's access to health care services will be successfully addressed.

I do not believe that the Religious Liberty Protection Act (RLPA) is meant to ensure the free exercise of individual religious beliefs. It seems apparent that the bill is designed to undermine and negate many of the important civil rights laws that have been passed in recent decades. Adoption of RLPA without provisions that keep in place all civil rights laws and assure their effective enforcement would be a tremendous mistake.

Without a civil rights exception, the types of discrimination that could be protected under Religious Liberty Protection Act (H.R. 1691, S. 2081) are numerous. For example, a landlord could refuse to rent an apartment to a same-sex couple, an inter-racial couple or an unmarried heterosexual couple because his or her religion condemns their lifestyles. Or an employer could refuse to hire a divorced mother, because his or her religion preaches that divorce is a sin. A religious school could refuse to admit a student with a certain disability because such disabilities were considered inferior or even evil.

The Religious Liberty Protection Act, if passed, would limit the enforcement of countless laws that have been passed in recent decades to protect women and children. In many cases, their rights to be free of violence and abuse as well as to have access to necessary health care services will be threatened.

The protections extended to religious individuals and organizations under RLPA could lead to extensive limitations on women's reproductive rights. In effect, provisions in the Religious Liberty Protection Act could establish a national "conscience clause" that would permit the denial of access to prescription contraceptives, important medical services and provision of reproductive health information. I urge you to oppose this dangerous legislation.

Sex trafficking, referred to by many as the modern form of slavery, is thought to victimize at least 50,000 women and children every year in the U.S. alone. These women and girls, often as young as 11 years old, are promised good jobs in another country, as waitresses or domestic help. The traffickers provide them with false documentation and transport them far away from home.

Once brought to the U.S. or another trafficking destination, these women are then forced by their captors to become prostitutes. Traffickers use a variety of methods, from physical force to tranquilizing drugs, to make these women prostitute themselves. Most often, though, traffickers use powerful threats, telling the victims that if they try to run away their families will be harmed or that U.S. authorities will capture, torture and deport them. The combination keeps these women at the mercy of their captors. The women are often subjected to beatings and even forced abortions.

The vast problem of sex trafficking has been brought to the attention of U.S. policy-makers, and actions are moving forward on several fronts. Some members of Congress believe that legislation is necessary, and that the U.S. must impose sanctions upon the countries who are not working to end the trafficking that occurs within their own borders. The Clinton administration, however, is opposed to sanctions and believes that the problem would be better addressed by working with the other countries to devise international solutions. Victims' advocates say that sanctions are necessary in order to put pressure on countries who turn a blind eye to trafficking or actively cooperate with the traffickers.

In addition to legislation that would aim to stop trafficking and bring traffickers to justice, victims' advocates are also interested in seeing services provided to the tens of thousands of woman and children who are victims of trafficking. There is still debate, however, on exactly what types of services ought to be provided. Obviously, victims need medical, psychological and emotional care from professional providers. Also being debated is the question of legal residency for victims of trafficking, that is, whether victims should be sent back to their home countries or given the opportunity to become legal immigrants to the U.S.

A bill that would punish sex traffickers and forced labor traffickers, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (H.R. 3244) passed the House on May 9th, and is being revamped in the Senate by Sens. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN). Each senator had drafted his own bill (S. 2449 and S.2414), respectively) but were advised by the leadership that the House-passed bill would have better chance of getting to a floor vote in the Senate. A serious problem with the House bill (and both of the Senate bills) is a definition in which sex trafficking is combined with labor trafficking and the term "forced" is attached. Advocates for victims of sexual exploitation have opposed the use of the terms forced or coerced, arguing that such a condition will be hard to prove and will make it easy for traffickers to escape prosecution. Defenders of the "forced" trafficking terminology say that a victim will be able to demonstrate that she was recruited through fraudulent means -- again, something hard to prove when there may be no documentation available.

Unfortunately, the Clinton administration has been unrelenting in its insistence upon the inclusion of the term "forced" -- the practical effect of which will be that most traffickers will escape prosecution and the victims will be sent back to their home countries to uncertain fates. The forced-based definition undermines both the 1949 Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others (Article 1) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Article 6) (CEDAW).

Two types of trafficking are specified in the House bill, which acknowledges the distinctions between physical force and economic desperation and would cover all traffickers who lure or force women into prostitution, regardless of whether or not their victims "consent." Some international law analysts see that the two tiers -- "severe" as opposed to consensual trafficking -- would provide another loophole for traffickers. Further, other experts see that only a small proportion -- perhaps no more than 5,000 women and children -- would be eligible for protection and special services in the U.S. Expert analysis of other provisions in H.R. 3244 find confusing, vague and contradictory language.

I oppose the adoption of legislation in which the term "forced" is applied in defining sex trafficking. Further, I urge you to speak out on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of vulnerable women and children who are victimized through sex trafficking and who deserve to be protected. Strong language which does not allow traffickers to slip through definitional loopholes and will provide maximum protection for victims should be included in any anti-trafficking bill considered by the Senate.

This problem is multi-faceted and affects women of all socio-economic levels, from workers earning minimum wage to high-powered business executives. Overall, according to a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median weekly earnings in 1999 of women who worked full time was 76.5% of the median for men who worked full time. In job after job, women in the same positions as men, doing the same work, are earning less money. Further, women working in fields that are dominated by women are also paid considerably lower average wages than men in comparable male-dominated fields

Finally, women tend to be concentrated in lower-paying positions, such as secretaries, teachers and nurses. Right-wing politicians would like us all to believe that women are simply more likely to choose a low-wage job, and that pay equity legislation would really be infringing on their choices. But we must ensure that all jobs are open to women, and that the work traditionally performed by women is fully valued and well compensated.

Some representatives of conservative think tanks and anti-feminist groups, as well as an attorney who represents companies accused of violating the Equal Pay Act of 1963, gave testimony as well. Anita Hattiangadi of the Employment Policy Foundation attempted to make the case that equal pay legislation would disrupt the natural market forces that set wages and could be dangerous to the economy. However, Senator Harkin pointed out that if Congress considered only traditional market forces when determining legislation, it never would have passed such crucial bills as the Civil Rights Act or the Family and Medical Leave Act. When Hattiangadi continued to assert that supply and demand forces, not sex discrimination, caused women's low wages, Harkin came back with this example:

Child care workers, he stated, are in overwhelming demand, and the supply of them is very low. These conditions, he continued, according to market theory, should result in wage hikes for these workers. However, most of them are paid minimum wage or very little more. Market forces are not working for women because gender discrimination is in the way. If anything, Harkin's Fair Pay Act would serve to combat the discrimination and allow the market to function properly!

Barbara Berish Brown, the attorney who has represented violators of existing equal pay laws, stated her concern that both the Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act could lead to excessive litigation and an abuse of the system by women who really are not victims of wage discrimination, but seek to sue their boss for some other purpose. Judith Applebaum of the National Women's Law Center explained that in actuality, relatively few law suits for pay inequity are pursued, as many women simply cannot afford hire attorneys and risk their jobs for legal action.

While it is difficult to gain advances for women's rights under the hostile Republican-controlled Congress, there is some hope for equal pay legislation passing in a presidential election year. Many moderate Republicans, such as HELP committee Chair Jim Jeffords (R-VT) and committee member Susan Collins (R-ME), both of whom attended the hearing, may lend their support to either the Harkin or Daschle legislation.

Advocates for pay equity laws are supported in their position by none other than Federal Reserve Bank Chair Alan Greenspan who told the National Community Reinvestment Coalition in March that "discrimination is bad for business." Greenspan said that "by removing the non-economic distortions that arise as a result of discrimination we can generate higher returns to both human and physical capital." He continued, "Discrimination is against the interests of business. Yet business people often practice it. In the end, the costs are higher, less real output is produced, and the nation's wealth accumulation is slowed."

President Clinton has also said that equal pay would be a priority in the waning months of his administration: "When women aren't paid equally, the entire family pays the price." The president noted that the costs extend far beyond one's work life. "If you're making less, you'll get less Social Security. You'll have less to put aside for retirement. The average woman who's about to retire -- if she even gets a pension -- can expect about half the pension benefits of the average man who retires."

I strongly urge you to pass a pay equity bill this year. Women have been waiting for decades to have a strong equal pay act that will benefit all working women. Such a bill is the Fair Pay Act (S. 702, H.R. 1271), sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC). This legislation would outlaw discrimination in wages paid to employees within a workplace in equivalent jobs solely on the basis of a worker's sex, race or national origin. Women and their families need to have equal pay so we can build economic security -- particularly as we age. Help close this gap now!

A House bill (H.R. 6), approved 268 to 158 on Feb. 10th would boost the standard deduction and expand the lowest tax bracket for all married couples and increase the earned-income tax credit for lower-income couples. Forty-eight Democrats joined with 220 Republicans to pass the measure which is estimated to cost the federal treasury $182 billion over ten years.

According to a study last year by the Treasury Department, 24.8 million couples paid a marriage penalty on their estimated 1999 tax returns, or a little less than half of all joint returns filed. The average penalty was $1,141. While nearly half of all couples are disadvantaged by the tax code, 41 percent actually paid lower taxes as a result of being married, enjoying a "marriage bonus" averaging $1,274. These couples generally have only one wage earner in the family, or one spouse earns considerably more than the other. An additional 5.6 million couples, or 11 percent, neither pay a penalty nor receive a bonus.

Rather than risk alienating the "bonus" couples by eliminating their tax advantage, Republican leaders chose to shower additional benefits on these taxpayers while also helping the couples suffering under the marriage penalty. Indeed, more than half of the overall benefit of the plan approved by the House would go to "bonus" couples earning more than $75,000 a year, House GOP and Democratic aides agree. In April, Senate Republicans were promoting another $248 billion in tax cuts labeled as marriage penalty relief. Democrats wanted a tax reduction that would have a smaller impact on revenue.

In the year 2010, the marriage penalty relief before Congress will cost $40 billion a year. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities it delivers a comparable amount of benefits to those who enjoy marriage bonuses as to those who suffer from marriage penalties. And according to Citizens for Tax Justice, more than two-thirds of this tax bill's benefits would go to the fewer than one-third of couples with incomes of more than $75,000.

House GOP leaders said their approach was essential because many of the "bonus" couples include stay-at-home mothers and fathers who are raising their families and should not be denied the benefits of the proposed change in the tax code. Conservative organizations -- including the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council -- pressed Republicans to broaden their plan to include such couples.

Republicans urge changes so that the tax code does not discourage the act of getting married, or encourage divorce. Senator Russ Feingold has said that the marriage penalty in this amount ($1,141) is particularly burdensome for lower-income couples and many young couples that don't have much to spare. For some of these couples, the amount of their taxes could actually affect their decision of whether or not to marry. Several additional efforts by Republicans to bring the bill to the Senate floor have been made, but have failed. If a bill passes with the substantial price tag, it will most likely be vetoed.

I do not favor a Marriage Penalty Tax Relief bill that primarily favors wealthy couples. If legislation can be drafted to benefit lower and moderate income couples while removing any penalty there may be for being married, I would support that. I believe, however, that the proposed bills are too costly and do not appear to be fair in that they primarily advantage upper income earners.

The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) offers essential child care assistance to help low-income working families become and remain independent. Yet, it now reaches fewer than one in ten eligible children. With limited resources, states are severely limiting access to assistance while setting inadequate rates for providers and unreasonably high co-payments for parents. An $817 million increase in the CCDBG would help states to address these policy weaknesses and also allow states to bolster the quality of care children are receiving. In addition, the set-aside for infant and toddler care and research has been deleted from legislation presently being considered.

Head Start is the nation's only comprehensive early learning program targeted at our poorest children, and it only reaches about half of all eligible children. It offers young children a high quality early learning experience to help prepare them for school while also ensuring that children are healthy, well-nourished, and have their parents actively involved in their learning. Urge your Congressional delegation to increase funding for Head Start by $1 billion which would allow the program to reach 950,000 children.

Take a strong stand for children in the FY 2001 Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill by increasing funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant by $817 million, expanding the investment in Head Start by $1 billion, adding $547 million to the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program for after school activities, and increasing funding for the College Campus-Based Child Care program by $10 million. The set-asides for infant and toddler care research programs should be restored to the appropriations measure.

While there has been a growing interest in after-school programs, five million children continue to go home after school each week, during the very hours when violent juvenile crime peaks. Constructive after-school activities are essential not only to offer children a safe haven during these hours but also to increase their chances of academic success. I urge you to increase funding for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers which would allow 2.5 million children access to after school programs.

Higher education increases the chances that low-income parents will be able to support their children. Yet, limited funding is currently available for single parents enrolled in community or four-year colleges. Expanding funding for the college Campus-Based Child Care program by $10 million will increase the chances that low-income women will have the job opportunities they need to support their children and become self-sufficient. Please support this funding increase.

Urges your members of Congress to raise the minimum wage by at least one dollar over the next two years, and to reject any proposals that phase in the increase over a greater period of time. Also urge that the federal minimum wage laws be extended to apply to the Mariana Islands, the only U.S. territory where workers are not protected by current minimum wage laws.

To sign your chapter or other organization onto a letter from the Coalition for Human Needs and show your support for assisting low income workers who have been left behind in our economic prosperity, contact Patrick Lester at the Coalition on Human Needs at pwlester@chn.org, or at (202) 785-0791 (fax), or (202) 736-5886 (phone). Please include your organization name as it should appear in the letter and your contact information (name, E-mail address, and phone number).

A minimum wage increase (H.R.3846) was passed by the House in early March which would raise it by a dollar over two years, but they attached the measure to a package (H.R.3081) of tax cuts for the wealthy and for businesses, which would cost $122 billion over ten years. The measure also has provisions affecting pension coverage and overtime pay that are objectionable and President Clinton has threatened to veto it. Earlier in the year, the Senate passed the so-called Bankruptcy Reform bill (S. 625) which contained the same $1.00 minimum wage increase (but spread over three years) and an $18.4 billion tax break package for businesses. In early April, the Senate adopted (51-48) a non-binding resolution that supported a $1 minimum wage increase over two years.

In addition to making mifepristone difficult to utilize, the proposed FDA restrictions would also endanger the privacy and safety of doctors who offer this drug and women who choose to use it. One proposal would require a national registry of all doctors who prescribe the drug, thus leaving these doctors open to the life-threatening, anti-abortion terrorism that currently plagues health care professionals who offer surgical abortions. Another restriction would require doctors who want to offer the drug to maintain admitting privileges at a hospital within one hour of their offices and to conduct a costly follow-up study of women who use the drug.

These restrictions are unnecessary considering the overwhelming safety of mifepristone, as determined four years ago by the FDA, and would simply serve to limit the number of doctors who could offer the drug. In addition, only doctors trained in surgical abortion would be allowed to prescribe mifepristone. This is perhaps the most harmful of all the restrictions, as it would greatly limit the number of doctors able to offer the drug. This type of restriction is never imposed on other medical procedures or drugs, and is being imposed in this case due solely to the politically charged nature of abortion. "Midwives deliver babies, but they don't do Caesarean sections--they refer to someone trained to do them. Why must a doctor providing mifepristone know how to perform a surgical abortion?" said Paul Blumenthal, medical director of Planned Parenthood of Maryland.

Suppliers of the drug report that it has so far been used by 600,000 women worldwide, primarily in Europe, with very few harmful side effects. Mifepristone is designed for women in the first 49 days of pregnancy. It causes an abortion by making it difficult for a fertilized egg to attach to the uterus.

The FDA has not made its final ruling on the future of mifepristone, and there is still time for reproductive rights advocates to push for a ruling that would make the drug not only legal, but easily accessible to all women who desire to use it.

I oppose the extreme limitations being placed on the drug, mifepristone, and believe that they are excessive and unnecessary. Mifepristone is one of the safest and most effective drugs that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ever reviewed and the multitude of conditions being imposed on its usage are without basis. Some of the restrictions that the FDA is planning clearly threaten the safety of health care professionals and must be eliminated -- particular, the registry that would list all doctors who prescribe mifepristone. Please respect the needs of women to have access to this important drug and approve mifepristone for general use -- without the excessive limitations that have been proposed.

Managed care reform legislation has been sitting in the hands of congressional conferees, who have been unable to resolve serious differences between the two bills. The House bill (Norwood-Dingell), though not perfect, does go a long way toward protecting patients' rights. In three main areas--scope, medical necessity, and liability--it far surpasses the (Republican) Senate bill in ensuring that patients receive adequate care. The Senate bill would only apply to 48 million patients, those who have private employment-based plans where the employer "self-insures," leaving out over 100 million Americans. While the House bill is not entirely inclusive, it does cover an additional 76 million Americans who have different types of health insurance.

With regard to the "medical necessity" of any particular type of treatment, the House bill allows doctors to determine what is medically necessary for patients. The Senate bill lacks this common sense provision, and instead allows HMOs to define "medical necessity". In terms of liability, or holding managed care providers responsible when they fail to provide quality health care, the House bill allows patients to sue their HMO's. The Senate bill does not include this very important provision.

The issue of accountability is one of the most controversial in the Patients' Bill of Rights, and will require the hardest fight on our part. Right wing opponents in the pocket of the managed care lobby clamor that the Norwood-Dingell bill would expose employers to frivolous lawsuits. Actually the only way an employer can be sued under this bill is if an employer decides to weigh in on a particular decision regarding the medical necessity of a specific treatment for a specific patient. Obviously, it would be extremely rare for an employer to do this. Typically, employers only determine what types of coverage and benefits to offer their employees, and thus they could not be sued under this legislation. The bill simply provides justice by allowing patients to seek redress when their managed care companies act irresponsibly and cause harm to patients.

The House bill ensures continuity in care givers, broader options in seeing specialists, coverage for emergency care, freedom in prescriptions and clinical trials, and, of particular importance to women, direct access to ob-gyn services. The Senate bill does not include any of these provisions.

The quality of health services many Americans receive is mediocre at best, and in many cases dismal. According to a Harvard University survey, 74 percent of the public believe that managed care is not improving; and 40 percent believe it is getting worse. Three quarters of those polled support a federal Patient's Bill of Rights, one that guarantees real reform, including the right to sue your HMO.

I urge you to communicate with the conferees on the managed care bills that it is important to retain the important provisions in the Norwood-Dingell bill that insure greater coverage, the right of doctors to determine medical necessity and the right of patients to sue their managed care providers.

Everyone deserves high quality health care, including the ability to see the same doctor even when their insurance coverage changes, to seek specialized care when necessary, and to have direct access to ob-gyn services.

An overwhelming majority of the public supports a strong Patient's Bill of Rights that will ensure real reform. Please resist the pressure of powerful insurance lobbyists and HMOs, and remind the conferees that everyone needs, deserves and wants real managed care reform and real patients rights.

Please do everything you can to assure that the Bipartisan Consensus Health Care Improvement Act is passed in this Congress. A majority of constituents in your district will "remember in November" how you represented them on this issue.

Title V of the new bill is nearly identical to the Fathers Count Act in that it would establish grant programs funded with $140 million to provide counseling to poor non-custodial fathers, with a special emphasis on promoting marriage. Another $15 million would be set aside for media campaigns and a national clearinghouse on fatherhood information. NOW believes that the legislation has been crafted specifically to underwrite so-called fathers' rights or men's custody groups and to fund such misogynistic organizations as Wade Horn's National Fatherhood Initiative. Under the bill, a highly politicized panel of "experts" on fatherhood programs, members of Congress and the administration would determine which applicants get the grants. There is also a charitable choice provision so that religious organizations would be eligible to receive grants.

H.R. 4469 has a few modest improvements in the child support section that would facilitate custodial parents' receipt of past due child support payments that would have otherwise gone to state and federal governments to repay welfare benefits. There is a forgiveness feature for fathers who are behind in their payments: states may erase past due child support amounts if the father becomes current in his monthly payments or lives with the children. This latter provision could be stimulus for the non-custodial parent to seek legal custody; it could also put women and children at risk where family violence has been a factor.

Further, there is a dangerous stealth provision in the bill that would allow private collection companies to enter contractual arrangements with state agencies to collect child support payments. This move towards privatization, as NOW underscored in a statement released at the time of the hearing, is truly a bad idea. Private collection firms are virtually unregulated and would have access to all the information in the New Hire and Federal Parent Locator computers, the child support agencies across the nation, financial institutions, the IRS, and in the credit bureaus.

According to an analysis done by ACES - the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc., the legislation also includes provisions to allow private companies to have unlimited access to private financial information and to freely report unverifiable financial data to credit bureaus, the IRS, and financial institutions. Defenders of this provision say that each state would have to pass laws to allow private companies to collect child support monies (only a few now have such laws), but private collectors could utilize the Internet and other electronic databases and have access to anyone's private, confidential financial information.

Above and beyond the threat to individual privacy for both custodial and non-custodial parents, privatization of the child support collection system would be disastrous for poor parents who can ill afford to lose 30 to 40% of payments as part of the collectors' fees. Abuse by private collection firms in states where this is allowed has been documented; some parents have paid hefty fees to collectors and never received any past due child support payments.

In a meeting with key committee staff member Ron Haskins (who is also credited as the "father of welfare reform"), NOW and NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund and several other representatives from organizations that are part of the Parents and Families Coalition asked that language be added to better protect women from domestic violence and that the marriage promotion aspect be deleted. A small improvement was made in that fatherhood programs are encouraged to develop working relationships with domestic violence programs or coalitions. NOW also opposed privatized child support collection, but were told that the marriage promotion and privatization were "non-negotiable."

Incredible as it may seem, right wing think tanks and conservative political religious groups are proposing for the next generation of welfare reform policies that low income single or divorced women with children should just get married, then federal funding for welfare would be reduced to zero within a few years. They have begun a campaign blaming divorced and single-headed households for causing poverty, crime and a variety of other social ills. Divorce is identified as a leading cause of poverty, according to articles that appear on their websites.

While I support fathers' willingness and ability to pay child support for their children, I do not believe that this bill (H.R. 4469) adequately provides for cooperative parenting between the custodial and non-custodial parents. A better approach is for these programs to provide services tailored for both custodial and non-custodial parents - not just fathers. Experience has shown that both parents need assistance and have common interests that should be recognized in any taxpayer-supported programs.

The goal of this bill should not be to promote marriage where it is unwise or unsafe nor to assume that a two parent family is automatically the best thing for a children. Rather, the goal should be to promote loving, healthy relationships between parents and their children, to encourage cooperative parenting, and to support couples who want counseling or other services to improve their relationship.

It has been shown that a large proportion (from 30 to 50%) of the welfare caseload are current victims of domestic violence. Many women are economically dependent on their abuser, and have a strong fear of retaliation when reporting abuse. Marriage does not make a batterer stop battering. In fact, marriage often traps a victim into years of abuse.

As an alternative, language in the bill should be modified to state: "encourage healthy cooperative relationships between parents, including marriage where appropriate, through counseling, mentoring, enhancing relationship skills, teaching how to control aggressive behavior, teaching mutual respect and other methods. Marriage will not always be the best way to promote responsible and positive involvement of both parents in the lives of their children and should never be promoted where there is danger of physical or emotional harm."

Private child support collection agencies are unregulated and as a result there is little ability to oversee their activities or use of confidential information. The potential implications for abusing information are especially troublesome for victims of domestic violence because former batterers will learn of the victims whereabouts. Taking enforcement away from the IV-D child support enforcement program is a clear step backwards that will harm women and children as well as threaten everyone's privacy.

The privatization of child support payments have hurt women and children. In the states where this is allowed, private collectors take 30-40% of money that they had no part in collecting. There are documented cases of abuse where private collection agencies have taken an up-front fee from custodial parents, collected past due child support payments and failed to pay the custodial parent the amounts owed them.

Unless important changes - as suggested above - are made in H.R. 4469, the Child Support Distribution Act, I urge you to vote against the legislation. It is a step backwards for both mothers and fathers. Low income parents, undoubtedly, need help, but this is the wrong way to assist them. I am especially opposed to funding organizations that denigrate women and have assisted batterers and child abusers in gaining custody of minor children - as have some of the groups who have asked for this legislation.

Gore proposed establishing "Responsibility Accounts" by which states would be encouraged to pass $50 of child support payment directly to families (rather than reimbursing the government for welfare expenditures) and letting the balance of the support payments collect in the accounts to be paid to the family when the mother leaves welfare. The plan would cost $2.9 billion over ten years.

Also, the vice president would urge credit card companies to deny credit to any parent who owes a substantial amount of child support. Gore, a long time supporter of fatherhood initiatives, said that he would require that all such federally-funded programs have provisions to prevent domestic violence. George W. Bush spoke to the same gathering in a taped speech summarizing the activities of fatherhood programs in Texas.

The fathers' rights summit featured many of the same folks who promote a false notion that "fatherlessness" causes a variety of social ills, from children's poor school performance to increased school drop out rates, depression, adolescent suicide, teen pregnancy and others. Several of their spokespersons have written such nonsense as "marriage prevents domestic violence." These same leaders have been responsible for developing methods to assist abusive ex-spouses in gaining custody through a variety of means including the use of biased expert witness testimony, excessive litigation and courtroom tactics which frequently deny custodial mothers' due process rights. Their power has grown as part of a backlash against tougher child support enforcement by state and federal governments.

Earlier that week in New York, a very different group, the International Fatherhood Conference 2000, Fathers, Families and Communities -- as sponsored by the National Center for Strategic Non-profit Planning and Community Leadership (NPCL) -- met to review their programs and practices. The NPCL focuses primarily on very poor, non-custodial fathers through a series of small, community-based programs called Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration Project. The vast majority of their clients are young men of color, primarily African American. It was clear from the discussion, that the practitioners do not believe that their clients are not ready for marriage. Some 60-70% have had encounters with criminal justice system (aside from the problems of non-payment of child support), most have dropped out of high school, and are under-skilled and underemployed and have less than $10,000 annual income. Many have substantial amounts of past due child support obligations and have little hope of being able to soon pay off these debts.

It was noted in both a plenary session and workshop discussions that the mothers of the children by the non-custodial fathers in these programs say that they do not want to marry the fathers. They say that he has behavioral or mental problems or that does not earn enough money to support a family. Several of the practitioners are opposed to promoting marriage with their clients, saying that it was first necessary to work with the young men to help them become "more marriageable."

NOW and NOW/LDEF participated in several panel discussions, including one entitled Common Ground: A Dialogue Between Practitioners and Women's Rights Activists. Legislation that is before Congress was discussed, with the point stressed that insufficient attention is paid in this bill (H.R. 4469) to problems of domestic violence. Additionally, there is a need to structure programs to meet the needs of both custodial mothers and non-custodial fathers -- which H.R. 4469 does not do. Several of the fatherhood practitioners agreed about the importance of custodial mother involvement.

Meeting the needs of very poor, unskilled and under/unemployment fathers -- as well as those of poor mothers -- is critically important. Unfortunately, our current political leadership cares little about solving this decades old problem, except to provide lip service and offer lop-sided legislation.

You can order the kit by calling NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund at (212) 925-6635, faxing your order to 212-226-1066 or writing them at NOW/LDEF, 395 Hudson St. New York, NY 10014. There is a $5 fee for handling and postage.