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

The new make-up spells even tougher times for feminist issues in Congress, especially those relating to reproductive rights. The most ominous result of the election is the fact that hard core anti-abortion proponents managed to increase their strength. A preliminary count has 51 solid anti-abortion members in the Senate; only 35 Senators are identified as being solidly within the pro-abortion rights camp, with 14 members classified in as 'mixed.' Those members, including 10 Democrats, are Biden (D-DE), Bryan (D-NV), Campbell (R-CO), Cleland (D-GA), Collins (R-ME), Conrad (D-ND), Dorgan (D-ND), Graham (D-FL), Johnson (D-SD), Landrieu (D-LA), Leahy (D-VT), Moynihan (D-NY), Specter (R-PA), and Stevens (R-AK).

The House anti-abortion majority is decidedly stronger at 221 (mostly Republicans and 37 Democrats), with only 145 abortion rights supporters (nearly all Democrats, 4 Republicans), and a 'mixed' group of 35 Democrats/29 Republicans (total: 64). It can be speculated that anti-reproductive rights measures will sail through the House and face hard fought battles in the Senate, with appeals to the 14 'swing' members to tip the scales. Other issues which disproportionately affect women may find the same voting patterns, with the exception of violence against women legislation which has usually enjoyed strong bipartisan support.

Given that Congress has become even more ideological, Republican priority legislation from the 104th which did not get passed will be pushed with renewed vigor. This includes the affirmative action repeal, parental 'rights,' rollback of Food and Drug Administration review and approval process for drugs and medical devices, the late term abortion (D & X) abortion ban, and other restrictions on reproductive rights/family planning funding. It seems likely as well that there will be only very limited corrective legislation on welfare -- if any -- despite the President's vow to do something about the new law's most punishing aspects.

Seven women (9 House members and two Senators) retired at the close of the 104th and four were defeated in their re-election bids. Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire democrat heavily supported by NOW, was the only woman elected governor, bringing the grand total to two women governors for the country. Christine Todd Whitman, Republican governor of New Jersey, is the other.

The Family Violence Provisions would have states confidentially screen welfare recipients for current or past domestic violence, refer them to counseling and support services, and provide "good cause" waivers from certain program requirements, among other things. The provisions are the same as those adopted by both the House and Senate as an amendment offered by Sens. Paul Wellstone and Patty Murray and Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, but was made optional for the states (as opposed to required) by the welfare bill conference committee.

NOW Foundation and NOW/LDEF, with domestic violence coalition partners, are working hard to get information to the 50 states about how to address violence in their new plans, which must be filed with the federal government as required by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193). As of early November, 26 states had filed plans, with varying degrees of detail, but only six had included any elements of the Family Violence Provisions.

Increased evidence of violence in the lives of poor women discounts the Republican demonization of 'welfare queens.' More scientific journal articles, based on the Worcester, MA Better Homes Fund study of 1100 poor women and their children, have been released -- the most recent in a special welfare issue of the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry reporting on the role of fathers of children on welfare and barriers to stable employment for poor women. The latter article details the often insurmountable hurdles for welfare recipients to maintain employment, especially when escalated violence is a factor in discouraging their success.

An earlier article about welfare recipients, appearing in the August Journal of the American Medical Association, indicated that 92 percent of homeless women and 82 percent of those with homes, in the same study, reported several physical violence or sexual assaults during their lifetime. In addition, the women, who all depended upon Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) at various points, reported high rates of major depression, alcohol and drug abuse, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) -- many of the conditions associated with battering. New data from the Taylor Institute, which previously documented the problem in the report "Prisoners of Abuse; Domestic Violence and Welfare Receipt" at a NOW Foundation-sponsored press conference on Capitol Hill, are expected at the end of the month.

We need your help in calling or writing key officials as soon as possible. Packets with detailed information on the Family Violence Provisions can be obtained by contacting the National NOW Action Center. Even though your state may have filed a plan with the federal government, they can always amend the plan to include these critical provisions. Without the necessary screening, counseling, safety planning and other special measures for welfare women who face violence, they may become endangered when moving towards employment and independence.

Overall, the HHS total is $123 million, compared to 1996 funding of $53 million. Department of Justice (DOJ) Violence Against Women programs were slightly less at $197.5 million than the administration had requested for 1997 ($197.95) million. Nearly all programs saw an increase over the previous year's funding level; these included $145 million for STOP grants (a $15 million increase) for local programs combating domestic violence, $33 million to encourage arrest policies (up $5 million), $17.5 million for a national stalker reduction program ($2.5 million over 1996).

Unfortunately, state and federal judges' training programs are still unfunded (which they have been since the act was passed in 1994). Because there remains a great deal of ignorance and bias against women in our judicial system, especially concerning domestic violence, this lack of funding is very serious. One small, but important gain is the first time funding for a study on campus assault, set at $200,000.

Congress re-authorized the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) and slightly increased the funding for small states for programs under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA), part of VAWA. Small states are now assured $400,000 each year to be used for battered women's shelters. An additional clarification in the law will allow state domestic violence coalitions to receive monies under FVPSA which could mean an increase of two or three times the federal funds those state groups are currently receiving.

According to the Violence Against Women Office, in 1994 there were 88,500 incidents of domestic violence where a firearm was present. From 1985 to 1994, 65 law enforcement officers were killed when responding to domestic complaints, and nine out of ten of those deaths resulted from firearms in the home.

During the final hours of the 104th Congress, efforts were made to attach a number of amendments that would have gutted the bill. Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) and Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) tried to exempt child abusers from the language -- a move that produced a huge outcry -- and also attempted to mandate jury trials for all persons accused under this law (a requirement that would have seriously constrained prosecution, since most of these cases are heard only by judges). But supporters in the fight against domestic violence prevailed and the measure passed. The President signed it into law as part of the Brady Gun Law.

Seven women senators voted to sustain the veto: Democrats Barbara Boxer (CA), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Carol Moseley-Braun (IL), and Patty Murray (WA); Republicans Olympia Snowe (ME) and Nancy Kassesbaum (KS). Republican Senators Sheila Frahm (KS) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) voted to override the veto.

The sustained veto climaxes a massive campaign by the Christian Coalition, Right-to-Life groups, leadership in the Catholic Church and fundamentalist denominations to frontally attack Roe v. Wade by banning these abortions which are clearly protected by Supreme Court decisions. The Senate vote was critical in that the House of Representatives had voted on September 19th to override the veto by 285 to 137 -- only four votes away from sustaining the veto (two-thirds of members present and voting are required to overturn a veto). Seventy Democrats joined 215 Republicans to override, while only 15 Republicans voted with the 121 Democrats and one independent to support the president's veto. Members who changed from previous positions of opposition to the ban to vote in favor of the override were Reps. Barrett (D-WI), Jefferson (D-LA), Roukema (R-NJ), and Visclosky (D-IN).

A flurry of articles, planted by abortion opponents in major newspapers just prior to the Senate vote, quoted certain physicians as saying that a majority of women who have the procedure do not have them for medical reasons. Dr. Warren Hern, one of only a few physicians who provide third trimester abortions, immediately responded by noting that in the misleading news articles and opinion columns the authors had confused second and third trimester abortions -- different from one another in both patient profiles and in clinical requirements. Dr. Hern emphasized that he "knows no physician who will provide an abortion in the seventh, eighth, or ninth month of pregnancy, by any method, for any reason except when there is a risk to the women's life or health, or severe fetal anomaly."

The strategy was a slick, well targeted and deceitful effort to attempt to discredit abortion rights supporters in the llth hour and it nearly paid off. Four senators who had previously opposed the ban switched to support the override -- possibly influenced by this deceit as well as by extensive anti-abortion constituent pressure. They were Sens. Leahy, Nunn, Specter, and Campbell (although, Campbell did not vote as he was hospitalized in Colorado).

Senate Democrats (in addition those listed above) who voted to sustain: Akaka (HI), Bingaman (NM), Bradley (NJ), Bryan (NV), Bumpers (AR), Byrd (WV), Daschle (SD), Dodd (CT), Feingold (WI), Glenn (OH), Graham (FL), Harkin (IA), Hollings (SC), Inouye (HI), Kennedy (MA), Kerry (MA), Kerrey (NE), Kohl (WI), Lautenberg (NJ), Levin (MI), Lieberman (CR), Pell (RI), Pryor (AR), Robb (VA), Rockefeller (WV), Sarbanes (MD), Simon (IL), Wellstone (MN), and Wyden (OR). Republican Senators supporting the veto: Chafee (RI), Jeffords (VT), Lott (MS), and Simpson (WY). Republican Sens. Campbell (CO) and Cohen (ME) did not vote. Majority Leader and abortion opponent Trent Lott voted to sustain the veto in a parliamentary maneuver so he could bring the issue up again for another vote should overrride supporters gain the necessary votes (which, of course, had not happened by adjournment of the Senate).

The deluge of phone calls, letters, and visits to the Senate on this issue reached an all-time high. Some offices reported that they had received over 70,000 letters and calls from opponents of late term abortions. Twenty-seven million postcards were distributed through Catholic and fundamentalist churches and many found their way to Capitol Hill offices.

Abortion rights opponents are not likely to give up on the late term abortion ban; there are still numerous states where similar legislation will be re-introduced next year. It can be reasonably speculated that because abortion opponents have gained more seats in Congress, there will again be an attempt to pass the late term abortion ban, perhaps in addition to, an outright repeal of Roe v. Wade.

Nearly crippling constraints were placed on disbursement of monies under this program. First: no funds can be released until July 1, 1997 -- nine months into the fiscal year -- and then can be spent only on a pro-rated basis (8% monthly) over the next 13 months. Additionally, the president must submit a finding to Congress on February 1, 1997 on whether these new restrictions are having a negative impact on population assistance programs (!!) and, if so, then Congress must vote on a resolution containing the Administration's findings by the end of that month. If Congress approves the resolution, then funds can be made available March 1, 1997, but again would be released on a monthly pro-rated (8%) basis.

One bright spot: the authorization does not contain the Mexico City policy, although earlier versions did. This policy prohibited foreign non-governing organizations (NGO's), such as Planned Parenthood International, from using even their own privately-raised funds to provide abortion information and services, if they also receive federal family planning funds from the U.S. Originally, abortion rights opponents proposed that groups who refused to comply with the Mexico City policy would face a cut of 50% below their 1995 funding levels.

Reps. Norton and Schroeder decried these funding constraints on EEOC coming at a time when the large and complex sexual harassment lawsuit against Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America is being pressed.

In Congress, hearings were held in both Senate and House Judiciary Committees, but did not progress to a floor vote in either body. Observers believe, nonetheless, that PRRA will raise its ugly head in the 105th Congress and, of course, will be re-introduced in numerous state legislatures and pressed as a ballot initiative in others.

Colorado voters defeated the state 'Parental Rights' constitutional amendment which appeared on the general election ballot. Opponents feared that it would pass since polls showed most voters appeared not to undertstand the amendment's implications. Vague "motherhood and apple pie" language asserted that "parents have the right to direct and control the upbringing, education, values, and discipline of their children."

Political religious extremists are hoping that, with a sufficient number of states passing the legislation or voters approving of state constitutional amendments, eventually a federal "parental rights" law can be passed. The defeat in Colorado is seen as a temporary setback and re-introduction of the federal bill is expected.