A dangerous bill threatens to halt scientific research that has the promise of producing useful treatments, and possibly even cures, for chronic and fatal genetic diseases. The House has recently passed the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003 (H.R. 534), cosponsored by Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.) and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), prohibiting both human reproductive and therapeutic embryonic stem cell cloning. The Senate will soon discuss S. 245, also titled the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003, sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.). The passage of S. 245, like its House counterpart, threatens to prohibit the use of therapeutic cloning in important and widely beneficial medical research that may ease the suffering of nearly 100 million Americans.

There are two different forms of cloning with very different objectives. Reproductive cloning looks to produce human individuals with gene structures identical to already existing humans. Therapeutic cloning, or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), involves transplanting a patient's DNA into an unfertilized egg in order to grow stem cells to be used to help cure and prevent diseases. Therapeutic cloning is a research method at the leading edge of scientific study and could lead to the development of useful treatments or preventive measures for diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and other genetically determined conditions.

Some of the most promising medical scientific research on deadly diseases cannot take place without therapeutic cloning research. Therapeutic cloning procedures produce DNA used to create human cells, tissues, and organs to be utilized for treatment purposes. Therapeutic cloning does not produce cloned human beings, but offers great potential for saving human lives. Embryonic stem cells are particularly useful in therapeutic cloning procedures because they can be developed into any type of human cell or tissue. Adult stem cells can be used to create specific types of therapeutic cells, but the use of embryonic stem cells allows for more in-depth research and development. The use of embryonic stem cells in therapeutic cloning research is necessary for finding a cure for some of society's worst genetic diseases.

Abortion rights opponents have sought to prohibit abortion by defining in law a fetus or even an embryo as a person. During the debate surrounding H.R. 534 in the House, Rep. Weldon linked cloning technology to Roe v. Wade and asserted that scientific research on embryos is immoral. However, it would be truly immoral to prohibit further research on what may be the most important medical scientific developments ever in treating and perhaps preventing genetically linked diseases. The political agenda of abortion rights opponents is hindering the progress of life-saving medical research.

The National Organization for Women (NOW) has always supported a woman's right to govern her own body without interference and has supported health initiatives that benefit women. NOW supports research in the areas of therapeutic cloning, the use of embryonic stem cells for such research, and the use of federal funds for therapeutic cloning research.

WOMEN'S RIGHTS

The Senate voted Tuesday, April 1 (58-41) to confirm right-wing nominee Timothy Tymkovich to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Tymkovich is a member of the ultra-conservative legal organization, the Federalist Society. He opposes the federal requirement directing states that receive Medicaid funds to pay for abortion procedures for low-income women in cases of rape or incest. He is also against civil rights laws aimed at protecting members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community.

In a party line vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-9 to send the nomination of staunchly anti-abortion Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen to the Senate floor for approval. Though Owen's nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court was rejected by the committee last fall, President Bush, in a controversial move, resubmitted Owen's nomination after Republicans regained control of the Senate. Unless Democrats filibuster, Owen, who has been described as the "far right wing" of the Texas Court, is likely be approved by the Senate.

Three other controversial Bush appellate nominees have also been voted out of the Judiciary Committee. John Roberts, nominated to the D.C. Circuit, and Deborah Cook and Jeffrey Sutton, both nominated to the Sixth Circuit, are currently awaiting Senate floor votes. Republican leaders have expressed their intention to quickly bring these nominations up for a vote.

Democrats have continued to firmly oppose right wing D.C. Circuit Court nominee Miguel Estrada. Republican leaders have tried to end debate and force a vote on Estrada three times. Each time the Democrats filibustered, preventing floor approval of this nomination. Republicans intend to keep calling for cloture votes in hopes of eventually weakening Democratic resolve and winning approval for this controversial nominee. Estrada has refused to produce additional information that would help Democrats determine whether he has the necessary qualifications. Additionally, he has appeared vague and non-committal when asked about his position on abortion rights and many fear that Estrada may be the stealth candidate for an eventual Supreme Court appointment.

Thanks to the hard work of Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), 198 members of the House of Representatives are now co-sponsoring legislation to establish an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the U.S. Constitution (H. J. Res. 37). Rep. Maloney is joined by Reps. Jim Leach (R-Iowa), John Dingell (D-Mich.), Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) who is sponsoring an identical measure (S. J. Res. 11) in the Senate. A press conference was held on March 12 to announce the re-introduction of the ERA and was attended by a broad array of women's rights leaders, including NOW president Kim Gandy. The reintroduction of the ERA provides an opportunity to constitutionally guarantee women equality in all areas. Women have been historically disadvantaged by the lack of a constitutional guarantee of equality. Discrimination based on sex has been particularly apparent in the area of employment and pay. Women continue to be paid only 76 percent as much as men and the gender wage gap has not changed significantly in recent years. Although the 14th Amendment is often cited as a constitutional protection of the rights of women, it was not specifically designed to prohibit sex discrimination and does not explicitly provide women equal protection. It is imperative that women be constitutionally guaranteed equality in the areas of employment, education, healthcare, military service, treatment under the justice system, and numerous other areas through a constitutional amendment for sex equality.

The ERA was first introduced in 1923 to guarantee constitutional equality to women. The constitutions of more than 50 other nations guarantee women equal rights, but the Constitution of the United States does not contain a clause explicitly granting women equality under the protection of law. In 1972, nearly 50 years after the ERA was first introduced, it was passed by Congress. Congress imposed a seven-year time limit (which was later extended to 10 years) for obtaining the necessary ratifications by 38 states—one of the very few instances that a time limit was placed on a constitutional amendment. (Some critics believe that the time limitation was purposely added to make it much more difficult for the ERA to be ratified by all 38 states.) When the time limit expired in 1982, only 35 states had ratified the Equal Rights Amendment.

In her statement for the press conference, NOW President Kim Gandy welcomed the reintroduction as an opportunity to renew a national dialogue on the need for a constitutional amendment. She stated, "Not only must an equality amendment provide protection against sex discrimination in the economic realm, but...it must also prohibit discrimination based on pregnancy and sexual orientation, and must protect the millions of women whose reproductive rights are being increasingly narrowed and denied. A new equal rights amendment must guarantee a woman's right to privacy and bodily integrity."

LESBIAN RIGHTS

On March 26th, the Supreme Court heard Lawrence v. Texas, a case that could find sodomy laws to be discriminatory and unconstitutional. According to CNN reports, the court appeared "deeply divided" over a Texas law that makes it a crime for gay couples to engage in sex acts that are legal for heterosexual couples. This case is based on a 1998 incident in which John Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested and jailed under Texas' sodomy law when police responding to a false report of an armed intruder found them having sex in Lawrence's home.

The Supreme Court was widely criticized for a 1986 ruling that upheld a similar sodomy ban. In Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court upheld Georgia's sodomy laws in a case involving two men who were arrested for having sex at home. Twelve years later, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down its own sodomy law.

Sodomy laws have been overturned or repealed in 37 states and the District of Columbia since the late 1960s. However, 13 states still have sodomy laws on the books. Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri prohibit "deviate sexual intercourse," or consensual oral and anal sex between members of the same sex. Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia ban all consensual sodomy, whether it is between members of the same or opposite sex.

Sodomy laws send a strong message that same-sex couples are, by definition, lawbreakers and, therefore, undeserving of the same rights and protections. Sodomy laws have in fact been used to justify the denial of such rights as: custody, visitation, and equal opportunities in employment. As argued by the lawyer for Lawrence and Garner, "The Supreme Court should reverse course and strike down a ban on homosexual sex as outdated, discriminatory, and harmful."

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

In an important victory for victims of domestic violence, it was announced today that the U.S. Department of Justice will reverse its original course and make the Violence Against Women Office a free-standing entity within the Department, rather than lessening its significance by keeping it under the domain of the Office of Justice Programs. Sen. Biden, author of the original Violence Against Women Office Act, received confirmation from U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft on March 24 that the Violence Against Women Office would in fact become a separate, high-profile office within the Department of Justice, with a director who is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

The Violence Against Women Office Act, which was approved by Congress last October as part of the Department Of Justice Reauthorization bill, made the Violence Against Women Office a separate and distinct office, ensuring that its leadership and agenda would not be marginalized or neglected. The law also required the Director of the Violence Against Women Office to be a presidential appointee, subject to Senate confirmation, and responsible for reporting directly to the Attorney General. Recently, the Department of Justice announced plans to ignore the law and keep the Violence Against Women Office as a subdivision of the Office of Justice Programs, a branch of the Department of Justice. The recent announcement made by Attorney General Ashcroft signals a reversal of those plans.

Since 1995, the Violence Against Women Office in the Department of Justice has distributed over one billion dollars to states, localities, tribal governments, and private organizations. These governments and groups, in turn, have used this vital funding to improve the investigation and prosecution of crimes of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault. The money has also been used to train prosecutors, police officers, and judges on the special aspects of cases involving violence against women and to offer the needed services to victims and their families. A national domestic violence hotline has also been a successful program assisting tens of thousands of women and some men to escape from abusive situations.

Keep these numbers handy:

National Domestic Violence Hotline - 1-800-799-SAFE
RAINN (Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network) - 1-800-656-HOPE

A domestic violence incident occurs every nine seconds in the United States and a majority of the perpetrators are men, making the issue of domestic violence against women one of utmost importance and concern. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 2000, as reauthorized, was intended to provide grant programs and critical civil and criminal provisions to prevent violence against women. Each year NOW and allies in the anti-violence community work to see that all VAWA programs are adequately funded in the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services. We are deeply concerned about amounts that are proposed for these programs for the coming fiscal year.

When the Bush administration's budget proposal for fiscal year 2004 was first presented, it appeared that close to $19 million had been cut from funding for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) programs. After initial reports of such cutbacks, the Department of Justice staff claimed that the actual cuts were only around $4.1 million. They stated that the reason the cuts appeared to be greater in the budget was that they had pulled out the administrative money that always comes off the top of the programs and put it in a separate line item for the Office of Justice Programs administration, which previously oversaw the Violence Against Women Office. This shifting in funds was not initially apparent or accounted for. Now that the Violence Against Women Office is going to be independent of the Office of Justice Programs, the administrative money should carry over with it. If the budget amounts reported by the Department of Justice are correct, the cuts for the VAWA programs carried out by the Department of Justice are fairly minimal. However, it is crucial to ensure that additional administrative cuts are not taken out of what is finally appropriated. Even though the budget cuts are smaller than initially reported, they do signal a retreat from full funding for the Violence Against Women Act programs.

Importantly, in addition to proposed budget cuts for fiscal year 2004, the VAWA programs administered by the Health and Human Services department have yet to receive full appropriations for funding from fiscal year 2003. The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act remains nearly $50 million below authorization. The fiscal year 2003 final appropriation included a $2.8 million increase in funding for this program that the President's FY 2004 budget cuts back. This $2.8 million is a highly significant cutback because the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act is only a $127 million dollar program. In contrast, the Department of Justice programs receive $390 million in funding, making the $4.1 million cutback slightly less significant.

In addition, the VAWA transitional housing program was intended to receive $25 million in funding, but was never funded at all. It is crucial that the Violence Against Women Act programs, operated by both the Department of Justice and Health and Human Services, receive full funding appropriations. (This analysis was prepared with the invaluable aid of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, NNEDV.)

One recent victory came with the House passage of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), H.R. 14, on March 26. The legislation is intended to protect children from abuse and abandonment and to provide assistance for victims of domestic violence.

The bill reauthorizes the program for transitional housing assistance set forth in the VAWA for the next five years and creates a grant program to help meet the transitional housing needs of sexual assault and domestic violence victims. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) is one of the strongest supporters of provisions for transitional housing and asserts that transitional housing provides women leaving abusive or violent situations with the resources and shelter necessary to continue on the path toward healthy independent living. She also maintains that transitional housing has been proven to prevent and alleviate the effects of domestic violence. Rep. Schakowsky has called for the quick appropriation of the proposed $25 million in funding for each of the next five fiscal years.

On February 13, Congress belatedly passed the final omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003. The bill included a provision guaranteeing all 'qualified alien' immigrants access to assisted and public housing, including transitional housing for victims of violence and domestic abuse. This bill extends the right to public transitional housing to all immigrant victims of domestic abuse who are protected by the Violence Against Women Act. Under the conditions of the bill, immigrants subjected to domestic violence are now able to apply for public housing, remain in transitional housing for longer than two years, and remain in the housing units shared with abusive partners or spouses once the abusive individual has been removed.

Since breaking national news in mid-February, the number of reported sexual assaults on female cadets at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) has continued to grow. The Pentagon has acknowledged that, as of mid-March, it had received 56 sexual assault reports from cadets at the academy. This alarmingly large amount and the growing number of reports have led representatives and senators to become involved.

Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) recently requested that the Department of Defense's inspector general conduct an in depth investigation into the specific details of the sexual assault claims made thus far. Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) alerted the Air Force of additional cases of sexual assault and made suggestions on improving the conditions at the academy. He also called for the removal of the present USAFA leadership. The Air Force's senior officials, Secretary Dr. James G. Roche and Chief of Staff John P. Jumper, have vowed to work closely with Congress to uncover the facts behind the sexual misconduct reports at the Air Force Academy and to address the broader climate at the school in order to prevent further assaults.

The Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the sexual misconduct at the United States Air Force Academy on March 31. At the hearing, senators demanded an independent investigation into the handling of reported sexual assaults at the Academy. There was also strong support for the use of a civilian panel to look into and assess the climate that allowed the assaults to take place. The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Total Force held a similar hearing the next day, on April 1, 2003. Both Roche and Jumper testified at this hearing. Roche claimed that the adverse environment has a long standing at the Air Force Academy and is not a recent development, but needs to be changed. However, Senator Allard reported that half of the 42 female Air Force personnel who have reported sexual assault incidents to his office over the past few months have reported being assaulted within the last two years, making the problem largely a recent one.

The environment at the Air Force Academy is intended to instill the values of honor, character, and respect for authority in its cadets. However, throughout its history, authority figures at the academy have neglected speaking out against and making clear the punishment for committing sexual assault. In addition, the emphasis placed on obedience to authority and personal accountability has created a climate in which female victims of sexual assault have been hesitant to speak up or report the incident. Those who have reported sexual assault incidents have been punished for minor infractions, such as drinking or inappropriate socializing, and have been ostracized by their classmates. The lack of guaranteed protection and confidentiality of victims who report sexual assaults has deterred female cadets from speaking out.

In late February, the Senate unanimously approved legislation designed to reinstate a ban on virtual child pornography. The Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act (S.151), is a rewrite of the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act. Parts of the 1996 act were declared in violation of the First Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court, due to what the court considered to be an overly broad definition of child pornography that included simulated images of children. The Court ruled that this broad ban on virtual child sex could ensnare legitimate works of art and literature.

S. 151 narrows the definition of virtual child pornography by requiring consideration of the artistic, literary, political, or scientific value of the work. It also contains provisions aimed at helping police and investigators prosecute child pornography cases. This bill makes it a crime to use real or virtual child pornography to entice a minor into engaging in sexual activity and establishes a victim shield law to keep the identity of victims out of court. Additionally, the bill would increase the penalties for repeat offenders who cross state lines to sexually molest a minor.

This bill will now be sent to the House, which passed similar legislation during the 107th Congress.

ECONOMIC EQUITY

The Paycheck Fairness Act (S.76) was recently re-introduced by Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) to address the fact that 40 years after the Equal Pay Act was passed women are still paid considerably less than their male counterparts. This bill would strengthen the penalties that courts may impose for equal pay violations and prohibit retaliation against workers who inquire or disclose information about employers' wage practices. In addition, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn)., other House members and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who introduced the Fair Pay Act in previous years, will be holding a press conference to underscore the need for legislation to address the persistent wage gap.

According to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau statistics, women are paid only 76.5 cents for every dollar that men are paid. These figures are even more grim for women of color. African American women are paid only 66 cents, and Hispanic women 54 cents, for every dollar that men are paid. Those calculations are based on a March 2002 Census Bureau report, and are averages that vary according to age, occupation and educational attainment. The wage gap means women have $24 to $45 less to spend on groceries, housing, child care and other expenses for every $100 worth of work they do. A lifetime accumulation of unequal pay results in tens of thousands of dollars less to help educate one's children or achieve retirement security.

On March 11, Reps. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.) introduced a bipartisan House resolution (H. Res. 137) supporting the current Title IX standards and opposing any changes by the Bush Administration that "contradict the spirit of athletic equality and gender parity."

H. Res. 137 highlights the fact that the recommendations of the Bush Administration's "Commission for Opportunity in Athletics" would change Title IX policies in a way that would seriously weaken Title IX's protections and result in significant losses in athletic participation opportunities and scholarship dollars for girls and women. The resolution goes on to recommend that if the administration changes the existing Title IX policies that "Congress should restore the intent of Title IX through policies that preserve the right to equal opportunities in athletics."

Both the House and the Senate have recently canceled scheduled mark-ups of global AIDS legislation. This legislation is being held up by anti-reproductive rights politics including demands to promote "abstinence-only" programs and to expand the global gag rule.

In mid-February, the Bush administration announced its intention to expand the infamous global gag rule to AIDS clinics and researchers overseas. There are some lawmakers who want to take an even more extreme approach by expanding the gag rule through legislation rather than executive order. Though the Administration has recently backed off from officially expanding the gag rule, this has only served to solidify the position of those extremists seeking legislative action. Supporters of reproductive rights are poised to block any attempts at legislation.

Opponents of reproductive rights are also pushing hard for language promoting abstinence and downplaying condom use. This position is consistent with the stances that the Bush administration has taken regarding both international and domestic policy.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION