Legislation Would Stop Suits Against Gun Manufacturers, Dealers

The so-called Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (H.R. 1036) was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on April 9, by a vote of 285-140. The misleadingly-titled bill is sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) with 250 co-sponsors and threatens to give the firearms industry broad protection from civil liability and accountability. A Senate counterpart (S. 659) was introduced by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and 51 co-sponsors in mid-March. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where it has remained but with a majority of co-sponsors is likely to pass the full Senate. This legislation is a key component of the right wing's strategy to turn back progress made in recent years by gun control advocates.

If passed into law, the bill would prevent victims of criminal gun violence from filing lawsuits against gun manufacturers, dealers, or gun industry trade associations. Gun manufacturers and dealers would be completely free of liability for the use or misuse of guns in violent crimes and killings, giving them little or no incentive to strictly monitor the production and sale of firearms.

In addition, the bill requires the immediate dismissal of all currently pending lawsuits against the gun industry. In fact, the bill's proponents made a change in the bill at the last minute in the House Judiciary Committee in order to ensure that a current NAACP lawsuit against the gun industry be dismissed if the bill become law.

WOMEN'S RIGHTS

Masters Golf Tournament: It's About Fair Play and Equal Access

The April 7th opening of the Masters Tournament at Augusta National golf club brought a firestorm of publicity about the club's refusal to accept women as members. Martha Burk, the chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations, and other feminist leaders questioned the moral acceptability of the membership of society's prominent executives and leaders, many of whom claim to embrace diversity and have established programs to promote diversity within their corporations, belonging to a club that openly discriminates against over half of the population. In addition, feminist leaders have challenged the principle of corporate executives belonging to a private club that excludes more than half of their customer base.

NOW president Kim Gandy traveled to Atlanta to participate in a press conference with other women's rights leaders and NOW Membership Vice President Terry O'Neill participated in protest activities near the Augusta golf course on the day of the tournament. See NOW's website for Gandy's remarks at the press event.

In response to the Augusta National controversy, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) introduced the Fair Play-Equal Access in Membership Resolution (H. Con. Res. 130) on March 31. The resolution demands that no member of Congress, political appointee in the executive branch of the Government, justice or judge of the United States, nor the President or Vice President should belong to a club that discriminates on the basis of race or sex. The resolution was referred to the House Committee of Government Reform, as well as to the House Committee on House Administration and the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Representative Maloney stated in an accompanying press release on March 31 that she believes "that America's elected and appointed representatives should set the standard for non-discrimination and tell America that (they) will no longer support the exclusion of individuals on the basis of race or sex." NOW applauds Rep. Maloney and other members of Congress for taking a strong stand against discrimination based on sex.

Unfair Class Action Act Would Limit Civil, Consumer Rights

The Class Action "Fairness" Act (H.R. 1115, S. 274) was introduced in the House by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and in the Senate by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). The Senate Committee on the Judiciary approved the bill on April 11 and the House Committee on the Judiciary followed suit on May 21. The bill is now awaiting floor action in both houses. It seeks to move most state court class actions into federal courts, posing a threat to basic civil rights and unfairly depriving the disadvantaged members of society, including women and racial minorities, of the ability to obtain relief from discrimination and unlawful practices. Civil rights laws are intended to protect victims of discriminatory policies and to ensure that they have recourse for obtaining relief from unlawful practices. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2003 threatens to unfairly prevent victims of discrimination from seeking legal justice.

On May 13, the Judicial Conference of the United States sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee objecting to several of the key provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act. The conference objects to the provision allowing for the automatic appeal of federal district court decisions that certified or denied class status and to the "plain English" class action certification provision. The conference is also in the process of writing a similar letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, opposing the bill. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is currently drafting an alternative bill for the Senate and Democrats are working on a plausible alternative to the Class Action "Fairness" Act in the House.

If passed, the Class Action Fairness Act will allow the removal of almost all state class actions to the federal courts. This process will overload the federal courts, delaying the resolution of cases and making it more difficult for federal civil rights cases to be heard. The bill will also prohibit courts from granting settlements that award a named plaintiff a greater share of relief than is awarded to all other members of the class. In effect, this forces the named plaintiffs in class action suits to forego full relief and compensation as the price for attempting to protect others in the class.

The removal of state class actions to the federal courts, the backlog that will result, and the prohibition of granting full compensation to named plaintiffs will all serve to deter victims of discriminatory acts from filing class action suits. The changes that this bill attempts to make in the class action process will most seriously affect the marginalized and disadvantaged members of society, including women, as it seeks to deny them access to relief from discrimination and injury.

The Class Action Fairness Act also attempts to decrease the role of local juries and judges in deciding whether or not a business should be held accountable for its discriminatory actions and policies. The areas in which proponents of the bill have expressed concern over the ability of juries to make responsible and reliable decisions are areas in which most of the citizens are Hispanic or African American. This further points to the attempts of the bill's supporters to diminish the resources available to the disadvantaged members of our society.

Right-Wing Judicial Nominations, Confirmations Continue

The Senate voted Wednesday April 30, to confirm right-wing nominee Jeffrey Sutton to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Sutton's ultra-conservative track record and hostility towards civil rights, particularly towards individuals with disabilities, are extremely worrisome. Sutton has served as law clerk for Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal opponents of women's abortion rights. He is also an officer of the Separation of Powers practice group for the Federalist Society, an ultra-conservative legal organization. In Board of Trustees of Alabama v. Garett, Sutton successfully challenged the constitutionality of applying the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to states. He argued that the protections of the ADA were "not needed" to remedy discrimination by states against people with disabilities. In Olmstead v. L.C., Sutton argued that unnecessarily keeping people with disabilities in institutions was not discrimination, fortunately the Supreme Court did not agree. In other instances, Sutton has worked to undermine Title VII anti-discrimination measures, women's rights to sue their attackers under the Violence Against Women Act, and efforts to fight age discrimination under the Age Discrimination Act.

Floor debate on Priscilla Owen started prior to the April recess, after a party line vote in the Judiciary Committee sent the nomination of the staunchly anti-abortion Texas Supreme Court Justice to the Senate floor for approval. Senate Democrats have since begun a filibuster on Owen's nomination. Republicans unsuccessfully attempted to end the filibuster and force a vote on this controversial nominee on May 1st. Though Owen's nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court was rejected last fall, President Bush, in a controversial move, resubmitted Owen's nomination after Republicans regained control of the Senate. Democratic support for a filibuster must remain strong despite increasing Republican hostility, otherwise Owen, who has been described as the "far right wing" of the Texas Court, is likely be approved by the Senate.

Democrats also continue to filibuster the nomination of right-wing D.C. Circuit Court nominee Miguel Estrada. Republican leaders have tried to end debate and force a vote on Estrada numerous times now, with no sign of relenting. Each time the Democrats have filibustered, preventing floor approval of this nomination. 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.

As of early May, two other controversial Bush appellate nominees were awaiting Judiciary Committee votes—John Roberts, nominated to the D.C. Circuit and Deborah Cook, nominated to the Sixth Circuit. J. Leon Holmes, nominated to the Federal district Court in Arkansas has been voted out of committee and is currently awaiting a Senate floor vote.

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

"Unborn Victims" Act Does Nothing to Deter Violence Against Women

Abortion rights opponents are putting full force into pushing through the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003 (UVVA). On May 7, the bill was introduced in the House with the title "Laci and Conner's Law" (H.R. 1997) by Rep. Melissa Hart (R-Pa.) and 117 cosponsors. The bill was also reintroduced in the Senate (S. 1019) on the same day by Sen. Michael DeWine (R-Ohio) and 31 cosponsors. The House bill is currently in the House Committee on the Judiciary, but a vote is expected in the Senate at any moment. George W. Bush has made it clear that he is anxious to sign just such an anti-reproductive rights bill into law, should both the House and the Senate pass it.

Although no action has been taken since the UVVA was first introduced in the Senate in January, opponents of abortion rights are now making a concerted effort to pass this bill by linking it to the notoriety of the Laci Peterson case, the horrendous murder of the pregnant Modesto, Calif. woman. The termination of a wanted pregnancy is a horrible tragedy, but the UVVA and "Laci and Conner's Law" are not effective solutions.

This legislation is being championed as a measure that would limit violence against women, but it is actually nothing more than a poorly disguised attempt to elevate fetal rights and establish the legal personhood of a fetus. By according statutory legal status to fetuses at all stages of prenatal development, the UVVA undermines the foundation of the Roe v. Wade decision. The UVVA would create a separate criminal offense of killing or injuring an "unborn child" while committing a federal crime against a pregnant woman. If passed, the legislation would make it possible to punish an offender for two separate crimes—hurting the woman and injuring or killing the embryo or fetus she is carrying—by redefining the legal status of a fetus as a human being. The passage of this bill would set a devastating precedent and encourage the expansion of "fetal rights" into other areas of the law. This would fundamentally challenge a woman's right to an abortion and is clearly a part of the anti-reproductive rights forces' agenda to dismantle Roe v. Wade. In fact, anti-choice Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) stated to a CNN reporter "They say it undermines abortion rights. It does, but that's irrelevant."

Penalties for harming a fetus under the act are applied to "an unborn child," which is defined as "any member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (and "Laci and Conner's Law") would give separate legal protection to any fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus. If passed, the sentence for harming a fetus, at any stage, would be equal to that already imposed for harming a woman.

The focus surrounding this issue should be on punishing perpetrators of violence against women. Nearly one in three women report being physically assaulted during pregnancy and murder is the leading cause of death among pregnant women. This legislation, however, is restricted solely to federal crimes and crimes committed on federal property and would punish only some perpetrators of violence against pregnant women. The bill would do little to deter the hundreds of thousands of violent acts against pregnant women committed each year. If members of Congress really want to honor Ms. Peterson's memory and prevent more tragic deaths of this nature, they should expand and fully fund violence against women programs, support programs that promote healthy childbearing, and develop criminal laws that focus on the harm suffered by women who are victimized while pregnant.

On May 22, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) introduced the Motherhood Protection Act (H.R. 2247) as an alternative to "Laci and Conner's Law" and the UVVA. The Motherhood Protection Act is similar to an amendment offered by Rep. Lofgren in both 1999 and 2001. It creates a separate criminal offense for harming a pregnant woman and provides stiff sentencing, but does so without recognizing the fetus as a separate person. The Motherhood Protection Act more effectively places the focus on the violence against the pregnant woman and prevents the establishment of the personhood of the fetus.

Abortion Procedures Ban Comes Closer to Becoming Law

A vote is set the week of June 2-6 for the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban (H.R. 760). The abortion procedures ban bill is sponsored by anti-reproductive rights leader Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) and 161 other cosponsors and would prohibit most common and safe abortion procedures. The term "partial-birth" abortion is not a medical term, but rather a political one. The language of H.R. 769 does not limit the ban to procedures performed after viability, nor is the ban limited to abortions performed in the third trimester—as some news reporters mistakenly repeat. Because various provisions of H.R. 760 are so vague, physicians may stop performing abortions altogether if the bill becomes law.

Women's reproductive rights are threatened now more than ever with opponents of abortion rights in control of both houses of Congress and as well as the White House. George W. Bush has announced his support for the bill and his intent to sign it into law upon approval by both houses, making it absolutely crucial for the survival of abortion rights that this bill be defeated.

On March 13, 2003 the Senate approved the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban bill (S. 3), sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and 43 cosponsors by a vote of 64 to 33. Among the sixteen democrats voting in support of the bill were Sens. Bayh (D-Ind.), Breaux (D-La.), Byrd (D-W.Va.), Senator Carper (D-Del.), Conrad (D-N.D.), Daschle (D-S.D.), Dorgan (D-N.D.), Hollings (D-S.C.), Johnson (D-S.D.), Landrieu (D-La.), Leahy (D-Vt.), Lincoln (D-Ark.), Miller (D-Ga.), Nelson (D-Neb.), Pryor (D-Ark.) and Reid (D-Nev.).

The Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart in 2000 that the Nebraska partial-birth abortion ban was unconstitutional because it did not provide an exemption that would protect the health of the woman. H.R. 760 not only fails to provide for the health of the woman, but also argues (falsely) that abortion is never medically indicated to preserve a woman's health. In fact, complicating threats to a pregnant woman's health and life do arise when cancer is diagnosed, heart disease or another chronic or fatal condition is present, or when there is a fetus with severe abnormalities. For these and other reasons, this legislation is not supported by respected professional medical associations. It is OPPOSED by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Women's Association, the American Nurses' Association and the American Public Health Association. Despite assertions by abortion rights opponents, the American Medical Association does NOT support this legislation.

Victory! Anti-Contraception Amendment Beaten Back

In a rare victory for reproductive rights supporters, a regressive amendment that would have denied access to contraceptives for runaway and homeless teen-agers was turned back in committee recently. Unfortunately, an equally important vote resulted in denial of sterile needles and syringes to runaway youth.

The House Education and the Workforce Committee approved by a voice vote the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act (H.R. 1925) on May 15. Five days later, the bill was passed on the House floor by a vote of 400-14 and sent to the Senate, where it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. If passed, the act will authorize $105 million through FY2008 for programs aiding runaway and homeless children. Intended to draw bipartisan support, the bill has few controversial clauses. However, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) attempted to change that by introducing two amendments to the bill while in committee.

The first amendment would have prohibited the use of federal funds for the distribution of sterile syringes and needles to homeless and runaway children and teens. This amendment passed on a voice vote, despite the fact that many Democrats opposed it. The opposing Democrats argued that the distribution of sterile needles and syringes could help to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and other diseases.

Rep. Musgrave's second amendment attempted to bar the distribution of federally purchased contraceptives to runaway and homeless children. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 12-29, with seven Republicans voting with all 22 Democrats against it. Rather than providing increased aid to homeless and runaway children, as the bill was intended to do, Rep. Musgrave attempted to deny them access to vital protection. As Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said, "Restricting access to contraception only serves to further jeopardize the health of these most vulnerable youth by putting them at increased risk of pregnancy and STD infection."

Military Abortion Ban Retained in DoD Appropriations Bill

The Defense Department FY2004 Authorizations Bill (H.R. 1588/ S. 1050) would authorize $400.5 billion in military spending for fiscal year 2004; the Senate passed the bill by 98-1 on May 22. The same day the House also voted to pass its version of the bill by a vote of 361-68. Among its many provisions, the appropriations measure requires the Secretary of Defense to establish a military task force to address the issues of violence and sexual assault at the U.S. military academies. (See related article about the Air Force Academy sexual assault investigation.)

However, the bill also maintains the harmful law forbidding women in the military and dependents of military personnel to obtain abortions on overseas military bases with the use of federal or private funds. As the law stands, if a woman's life is in danger, an abortion may be performed with the use of federal funds. If a woman is able to prove that her pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, she may then use private funds to have an abortion on an overseas military base. But if a woman desires an abortion for any other reason, she must either use the local medical services, no matter how inadequate, or travel back to the United States. In many countries where U.S. overseas military bases are located, the local hospital and medical services are inadequate, unclean, or unsafe. Women should not be forced to subject themselves to medical procedures under such conditions.

Should a woman in the military become pregnant and choose to have an abortion, her options are grim. If she chooses to use the local medical services, she runs the risk of improper treatment or infection. If she should she decide to return to the United States for an abortion, she must apply for leave. In order to take leave, the servicewoman must explain to her supervisor her situation and her desire to have an abortion. The supervisor is then in a position to refuse leave or to hinder the career advancement of the woman.

Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy (retired), the highest-ranking woman in the armed services, has written a letter opposing the ban on the use of private funds for abortions on overseas military bases and supporting a Senate amendment overturning this ban. In her letter to Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the sponsors of the amendment, Gen. Kennedy recalled the personal experience of a soldier under her command who received an abortion at a German clinic. The abortion was done without the use of any painkillers and the language barrier prevented the woman from fully understanding the directions or what was being done to her body. She also had a difficult time obtaining follow-up care.

The amendment offered by Sens. Snowe and Murray during floor debate attempted to lift the ban on the use of private funds, allowing women to privately pay for abortions on U.S. overseas military bases. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 48-51. A similar amendment, introduced by Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), was defeated in the House by a vote of 201-227. These amendments would have given military women stationed overseas and dependents of military personnel the right to access safe abortions without fear of repercussion.

WOMEN'S HEALTH

State Budget Crisis: What's at Stake for Women's Health

2004 is expected to be the third year in a row of state budget shortfalls. As a result, states are being forced to cut significant funding from various programs, including Medicaid and Medicare healthcare programs. Medicaid provides healthcare coverage for the low-income elderly, the disabled, low-income parents (predominantly single mothers), and pregnant women. Overall, around 70 percent of the beneficiaries of Medicaid over the age of fifteen are women, making it a crucial program for the maintenance of women's health. Unfortunately, 28 states currently have specific Medicaid funding shortfalls. In addition, 40 states are reducing their Medicaid prescription coverage in order to cut spending, while 19 have changed their program eligibility requirements in order to decrease the number of qualified individuals. These budget cuts are leaving countless women and children stranded without adequate healthcare coverage.

Currently Medicaid is a federal entitlement program, meaning that states are guaranteed federal funding for the coverage of all eligible residents. States set their own eligibility requirements determining the range of services to be offered and the federal government provides between 50 and 75 percent of the funding for the state Medicaid program. In the face of state fiscal crises and severe budget cuts, Congress has two options: it can provide the states with increased funding or it can limit the federal liability for Medicaid. Providing states with additional funding and fiscal relief would ensure the continuation and maintenance of Medicaid and Medicare healthcare coverage programs. In contrast, limiting federal liability, the option proposed and supported by the Bush administration, would end the entitlement nature of Medicaid. Although this would give states greater flexibility in implementing Medicaid programs, it would severely decrease federal funding for the programs and could prevent states from being able to provide services for all eligible residents.

In this time of economic crisis, it is crucial that states continue to provide Medicaid and Medicare healthcare coverage for their residents, particularly women and children. The Bush administration and federal government need to focus on supplying financial aid and fiscal relief for the states so that necessary social welfare programs, such as Medicaid, may be maintained.

Bill Would Provide Health Care Access for Immigrant Women, Children

A 2001 Urban Institute study found that children of immigrants are more than twice as likely as children of natives to be in poor or fair health condition and nearly three times as likely to not have a usual source of health care. Under current law, legally present immigrant pregnant women and children who arrived in the U.S. after August 22, 1996 are not allowed to receive Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) for the first five years that they are in the country. Unfortunately, this arbitrary deadline prevents some working, tax-paying legal immigrant women and children from receiving necessary health care coverage. The failure to provide crucial preventive care for children and prenatal care for pregnant women can lead to the necessity of more expensive care later on in life or after birth.

On April 9th Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) introduced the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act (ICHIA) (S. 845) and Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) introduced a bill by the same title (H.R. 1689) in the House. ICHIA would give states the option of using federal funds to provide health care for legally present immigrant children and pregnant women, regardless of when they came to the U.S. Currently, states are not able to use federal funds to provide health care services for all immigrant women and children, which has posed a financial challenge to many states using state money to fund health care for immigrants during this time of fiscal crisis.

The bill would treat lawfully present immigrant women and children the same as citizen women and children, making them eligible to receive health care coverage through Medicaid and SCHIP. The bills were referred to the Senate Subcommittee on Health and the House Committee on Finance, where they are still pending.

GLOBAL FEMINISM

Biden Bill Would Protect Women, Children in War

According to the Save the Children organization, approximately 90 percent of today's war casualties are civilians, primarily women and children. In addition, nearly 80 percent of those people uprooted from their homes due to war are women and children. These statistics demonstrate the great need for protective legislation to allocate additional resources for the treatment and prevention of wartime violence against women and children and to increase awareness of sex-based violence during times of conflict. In response to the great need for such legislation, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) introduced the Women and Children in Armed Conflict Protection Act of 2003 (S. 1001) on May 6th.

The bill calls for $45 million in funding for the detection and prevention of and response to violence against women and children during times of armed conflict. It also demands that the U.S. government develop an integrated strategy for protecting women and children during times of armed conflict and that this strategy be reported to Congress. In addition, the bill calls for the prohibition of giving aid to any humanitarian agency that has not yet adopted a code of conduct to protect its beneficiaries from sexual abuse and exploitation. The Women and Children in Armed Conflict Protection Act of 2003 also designates a "protection coordinator" to oversee the implementation of the efforts set forth in the bill.

The Women and Children in Armed Conflict Protection Act of 2003 calls for the U.S. government to play an active role in improving the situation of women and children in armed conflicts. It requires that the government assess the special protection and health needs of women and children in such situations and that at least 20 percent of all funding for health services for refugees and displaced persons be used to meet the particular health needs of women and girls. Recognizing that rape is a special problem, the legislation takes a important step in promoting services to prevent sex-based violence during times of armed conflict and war.

Kucinich Advocates for a Department of Peace

Presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and 46 co-sponsors introduced a bill to create a Department of Peace (H.R. 1673) on April 8th. The bill calls for the establishment of a separate Department of Peace with a presidential appointed Secretary of Peace. The purpose of the department would be to promote non-violence as an organizing principle in the U.S., in regards to both domestic and foreign policy. The department would focus on a broad approach to peaceful conflict resolution. The bill also authorizes the creation of a Peace Academy, modeled after the military academies, which will provide four-year programs concentrating on peace education and would require students to serve in public service programs dedicated to nonviolent conflict resolution for five years after graduation.

The Department of Peace would be responsible for addressing the domestic issues of child abuse, mistreatment of the elderly, and domestic abuse through the development of relative policies. Internationally, the Department would focus on analyzing foreign policy and making recommendations on issues of national security, human rights, and the prevention and de-escalation of armed conflict.

Maloney Chides U.S. Delegation on Anti-Women's Rights Stance

Recently, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) sent a letter to the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, questioning and criticizing the actions of the U.S. delegation at the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women held in New York City in April. According to Rep. Maloney's letter, the U.S. delegation called for the deletion of crucial paragraphs in the agreed upon conclusions on human rights and violence against women. Much of the language that the U.S. delegation opposed had been previously agreed upon at past conferences. The position of the U.S. delegation at the New York conference placed it in line with the delegations from Iran, Sudan, and Pakistan, which also called for the deletion of particular paragraphs.

Rep. Maloney's letter quoted Powell as saying "Brutality against women, the mutilation of women, trafficking of women and rape can never be justified, whatever the circumstances, creed, country, or culture." Yet the U.S. delegation sided with such states as Sudan, Iran, and Pakistan, all of which have denied the rights of women and have used specific religious and cultural traditions to justify brutal and abusive behavior towards women.

The U.S. delegation's refusal to agree to the language supported by a majority of the represented countries led to a stalemate. The result was that, for the first time in the history of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, the body was not able to reach a consensus on the discussed issues. In addition, Rep. Maloney's letter claims that the U.S. delegation focused more on the impact of violence against women on employers and the economy, rather than on the health and treatment of the victims.

NOW commends Rep. Maloney and her efforts to bring to light this disgraceful action of the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women.

NOW Foundation public policy associate Nicole Casta and NOW Government Relations Intern Erin Bradrick contributed to this report. For further information, please contact NOW Government Relations Director Jan Erickson at (202) 628-8669, ext. 122 or by emailing a message to govtrel@now.org. The report can be found on the NOW website at http://www.now.org. If you would like to obtain copies of any legislation referred to in this report, consult the website for Congress at http://thomas.loc.gov or call your senator or representative and ask them to send you the information (free of charge).