But the legislation doesn't address the fact that managed care plans are generally not available in rural areas and that many managed care plans in recent years have dropped coverage for seniors. Additionally, these private plans have failed to control health care costs. A fundamental failure is that the legislation does not address the spiraling high costs of prescription drugs. Without that control on rising costs, the already weak benefits in the program will be further squeezed.

Millions Could Lose Current Drug Coverage: Analysts see persons with low incomes or high drug expenses as benefiting from the plan, but many others will not be helped. Additionally, as a report from the Commonwealth Fund notes, the near poor—those with incomes so low they cannot afford to purchase prescription drugs or private insurance, but do not qualify for public assistance would be ineligible for premium or cost-sharing subsidies under both bills.

The Republicans have cleverly scheduled 2006 as the first year the plan would be in effect—ostensibly to avoid any presidential election year backlash from seniors unhappy with puny benefits and mandated managed care membership. Means testing (matching income with benefit levels), which senior groups have long opposed, is required in the House bill for catastrophic. For 2004 and 2005, a drug discount card would be issued as interim help.

For details of each bill in a side-by side comparison:
http://www.kff.org

Only $400 million would be authorized to cover costs of the new benefit over a ten-year period—an amount that hardly begins to cover the true costs of seniors' prescription medication, projected to be $2.8 trillion over the ten years. A group of 27 Republican conservatives opposed the legislation saying that the country can't afford a large entitlement program at this time.

Medicare Undermined by Plan: The legislation contains profound changes to Medicare that would ultimately spell the end of the program that has underwritten much of the health care costs for persons over age 65. Most Democrats would prefer to see the prescription drug benefit added to the traditional Medicare program. However, because key Senate leaders, Senate Finance Committee Chair Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and ranking member Max Baucus (D-Mont.) reached an agreement, the Republican version is likely to prevail.

The White House even wanted to offer a prescription benefit for only those seniors who left Medicare and joined a private plan! Senate leaders opposed this, and insisted that drug subsidies be equal regardless of the option chosen. It is clear, though, that the Republican plan will create several tiers of beneficiaries according to their ability to pay for prescription drugs. This goes against Medicare's basic principle that all beneficiaries, regardless of their financial status, are eligible for the same basic benefits. To further complicate the issue, the House bill contains a $174 billion tax shelter that will benefit higher income earners.

Activists are encouraged to urge members of their Congressional delegation to oppose turning Medicare into a voucher-style program and to keep the prescription drug benefit available under Medicare, with more adequate funding. Additionally, controls on rising drug costs must be part of the package, the gap in coverage between $4,500 and $5,800 must be filled; the massive tax shelter in the legislation should be eliminated.

Take Action:
Sham Prescription Drug Benefit Would End Medicare

The outcome of this battle is critically important for older women who often have less income and a greater need for prescription medication. For more information, see "A Place at the Table - Women's Needs and Medicare Reform," Marilyn Moon and Pamela Herd, sponsored by The Century Foundation and Institute for Women's Policy Research.

National Single-Payer Health Care Plan Advocated

A group of nearly 8,000 physicians and medical students have expressed their support of a single-payer national health care plan as outlined in an Aug. 13 article in the Journal of American Medicine (JAMA). Physicians for a National Health Program announced their proposal at a press conference where two former Surgeons General, Dr. David Satcher and Dr. Julius Richmond, spoke in favor of this fundamental reform of the nation's broken health care system.

NOW has long supported a single-payer system where, as in Canada and many other developed nations, the government pays for all necessary health care costs. "In the U.S., we have one of the most unfair and unequal health care delivery systems of any developed nation," NOW Membership Vice President Terry O'Neill observes. The approach would be an expanded and improved version of Medicare that would cover all persons for necessary medical care. Currently, about $1.6 trillion is spent every year to provide health care services. The physicians say that the plan would save at least $200 billion annually by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private, investor-owned insurance industry and reducing spending for marketing and allied services.

U.S. Spends More Than Twice As Much: The group noted that the U.S. spends more than twice as much on health care as the average of other developed nations with universal coverage. Private insurers and health maintenance organizations (HMOs) consume 12% for overhead, while in Canada and with U.S. Medicare, only 3.2% is devoted to overhead.

The physicians say that their plan would free doctors and hospitals from the time-consuming paperwork of dealing with different insurers and make it possible to implement spending limits for the health care system. Further, the plan would address two critical needs—covering all prescription drug costs and containing those costs by negotiating with manufacturers. Health care costs are accelerating. More than 41 million persons remain uninsured, and 75 million were either under-insured or uninsured at some point in the last two years. Despite the fact that the U.S. system is rich in resources, it lags behind most of the developed world on such important indicators as infant mortality and life expectancy.

Health Care Is a Human Right: The principles of the statement reflect the view that access to health care is a fundamental human right that is the responsibility of society to ensure, through the government. Key features of the proposal include:

For more information:
Physicians for a National Health Program

Reports Detail Women's Access to Health Care

Kaiser Family Foundation, with the National Women's Law Center, recently released a series of reports on women's access to health care. Among the findings: more than 60% of women ages 18-64 are covered by private health insurance, primarily through their employers. Some insurers do not provide coverage for important services like contraceptives and mental health, though a number of states are moving to require coverage. Additionally, some states are now requiring coverage for screening for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and other serious conditions. With as many as three-quarters of privately insured women in managed care plans, some states are enacting policies that improve access to OB/GYNs, provide for continuous care, and cover treatment in clinic trials.

For copies of the reports:
http://www.kff.org

EDUCATIONAL EQUITY

Temporary Victory? Bush Administration Drops Title IX Attack

Bowing to strenuous objections from nearly all quarters (including thousands of messages from NOW activists), the Bush administration sent a letter to schools on July 11 reaffirming the 1972 law that affords girls and women equal opportunity in education and athletics. Gerald Reynolds, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education wrote that after an extensive fact-finding process, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) would not make changes to Title IX.

Only One Test Required: The OCR found that the three-pronged test for Title IX compliance, established in 1979 and clarified in 1996, has worked well. Schools need only to satisfy one of the three prongs to demonstrate whether:

1.) intercollegiate-level participation opportunities for male and female students at the institute are "substantially proportionate" to their respective full-time undergraduate enrollments,

2.) the institute has a "history and continuing practice of program expansion" for the under-represented sex, or

3.) the institute is "fully and effectively" accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

Reynolds said that his office would undertake a campaign to help educational institutions understand the flexibility of the law and to provide schools with technical assistance as they try to comply with Title IX. NOW and women's rights allies in the education community believe the victory can be credited to an extensive campaign which effectively drove home the message "Leave Title IX alone." More than 106 national organizations sent expressions of support to the administration; tens of thousands of individual messages went to Department of Education opposing any change that would weaken the law.

The Department of Education's clarification, which is effective immediately, discourages schools from cutting sports teams to comply with Title IX, a controversial issue that arose in Jan. 2002 when the Wrestlers Association and four other athletic groups filed a lawsuit claiming that Title IX led to the elimination of 355 men's college athletic teams over the previous decade. In June, a judge held that the groups failed to prove how Title IX had done any damage and the case was thrown out.

Close observers believe that the opposition to Title IX equality mandates have come from colleges and universities that have showered resources on football teams and other popular men's sports that generate revenues for the schools. In addition, some men's sports coaches who have enjoyed generous salaries have felt the pinch as educational institutions shift spending priorities due to less state support and declining event revenues.

For more information:

Bad Head Start Bill Passes House; Advances to Senate

A single vote in the House on July 25 ensured passage of legislation (217-216) that would undermine Head Start, the nation's most successful low-income child development program. To ensure a majority vote, House Republican leadership called in Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.), who had recently been injured in a car accident, to cast a vote in favor of the bill. The legislation, H.R. 2210, deceptively named the School Readiness Act of 2003, is sponsored by Michael Castle (R-Del.), chair of the Subcommittee on Education Reform of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Since Head Start's inception 38 years ago, the program has provided high quality child development programs to low-income preschoolers and their families. It has helped over 20 million children and families by providing early education and comprehensive services, including health, nutrition, parental involvement, social and other services, while prohibiting discrimination in hiring and providing services. The bill marks yet another avenue for conservative Republicans to chip away at the social safety net benefiting low-income families. Without high quality child development programs, many young children will arrive at the first grade without the necessary learning skills. Experience has shown that these children often never catch up and continually fall behind at each grade level.

Quality Assurance, Funding Guarantee Undermined: Under Bush's approved bill, Head Start will be taken apart, allowing states to handle and allocate federally funded grants. Currently, grants go directly to the local level, ensuring appropriate implementation of programs and distribution of funds, while holding local programming accountable through federal performance standards. Under this bill, federal quality standards are to be replaced with standardized testing. Countless educators hold firm that this manner of testing is based on an incorrect assumption that children from low-income families can and should perform as well as those from higher incomes. "We bypassed the governors on purpose to keep them from snatching the money," said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), herself a past Head Start teacher, of the legislation. "You break my heart."

In addition to the undermining of national standards and the uncertainty about continued funding with states in control, the legislation would allow grants to go to so-called "faith-based" organizations. Although this is a demonstration in eight states, Head Start program advocates see this as a major step in dismantling the program.

Activists should contact their senators to urge that they vote against this weakening of the Head Start program.

For more information:
National Head Start Association

ECONOMIC EQUITY

Portman-Cardin Bill Risks Spouses' Pensions

A bill that appears to have been written by corporations wanting to shed their pension contribution responsibilities is now being finalized in the House Ways and Means Committee. H.R. 1776, the Pension Preservation and Savings Enhancement Act of 2003, sponsored by Reps. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), has been criticized as reducing corporate pension liabilities by billions of dollars over the next two years. Provisions in the legislation would allow many large companies to slash retirement benefits or drop their long-standing pension plans. The legislation, touted as a streamlining of pension requirements, has received little scrutiny from members of Congress and very little attention from the press.

The Pension Rights Center finds that H.R. 1776 would neither preserve pensions nor enhance savings. Among many changes, the 207-page bill would:

• Reduce the benefits that millions of workers are now counting on receiving from their pension plans by allowing companies to make smaller contributions to pension funds; and
• Increase the tax-sheltered amounts that company owners and officers could put into their 401 (k) plans for themselves, while putting less money into these plans for their employees.

Provision Could Deny Spousal Benefits: Analysts note that one provision may well undercut women's pension rights by weakening the law that requires a spouse's consent for a worker to take benefits only for themselves. This protection has been in place since 1984 when it was specified in law that a worker could exclude his or her spouse only if the spouse signed a waiver in the presence of a notary or pension plan administrator. The new change would allow a worker to use the spouse's password to "consent" over the phone or the Internet! That provision would tremendously weaken spousal protections and should be removed from the legislation.

For more information:
Pension Rights Center

Child Tax Credit Sandbagged by More Tax Cuts

On June 12, in another brazen effort to pass more tax cuts for the wealthy, the House approved, 224-201, legislation that would provide for $82 billion in additional tax cuts through 2010, and make the $1,000 refundable child tax credit available to some low-income families and many higher-income married couples. Responding to criticism that the legislation dos not help the neediest families, the Senate had previously passed a smaller $10 billion proposal on June 5.

But Republican leaders, seeing an opportunity to wrap another tax cut around something the Democrats really wanted, leapt at the chance and piled on another round of cuts. In an effort to reverse the House's costly package, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) later offered a motion which would have placed members on record as favoring the Senate version of the child tax credit legislation—but her effort was defeated by conservatives.

Conference Committee Stalemated: In July, while Bush went Philadelphia to promote his unjust distribution of child tax credit checks, Democrats rallied on Capitol Hill in emphasize that children of low-income families will not be receiving child tax credit checks. Democrats want action and are calling Republicans on their stalling tactics preventing the resolution of the discrepancies between the House and Senate bills.

Rep. DeLauro summed Democrats' legitimate concerns with the House bill: "While decent, hard-working Americans are being denied their rightfully earned tax relief, companies are still permitted to go overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes, taking American jobs with them. It is not right that every last one of these families pays more taxes than Enron did for the 4 out of the last 5 years ... what kind of message does this send to our families and our children? What kind of values does this represent?"

House Republicans Defeat Democrats' Defense of Overtime Pay

By a narrow vote of 213-210 only July 10, the House Republicans beat back an effort by Democratic members to block a proposed Department of Labor regulation that would eliminate overtime pay requirements for millions of workers. The vote came on an amendment offered by ranking Appropriations Committee member David Obey (D-Wis.) and ranking Education and Workforce Committee member George Miller (D-Calif.) as the House considered the FY '04 Labor/Health and Human Services Appropriations bill.

The new regulation, a revision of a decades-old protection in the Fair Labor Standards Act, would re-classify as many as eight million workers as managers or supervisors, thus allowing companies to avoid paying-time-and-a-half wages, while making about 1.8 million low income workers eligible for overtime pay.

The DoL regulation is ardently opposed by NOW, many progressive allies and organized labor. Democrats suffered other defeated amendments to the appropriations measure including one which would have reduced the size of the recent tax cut while increasing total funding for health and education programs, targeting Medicaid and child health programs.

80 Million Would Lose Overtime Pay: AFL-CIO says that many of the 80 million workers who are eligible for overtime pay could lose this important source of additional income if the rule is adopted. Example: millions of salaried workers earning between $22,101 and $65,000 would be re-classified as executives or professionals not eligible for overtime pay; anyone making more than $65,000 would no longer be eligible. Job categories that would be affected include police, firefighters, nurses, retail managers, insurance adjusters and medical therapists—to name a few. At the same time, anyone earning $22,100 or less would become automatically covered by overtime pay requirements—however, critics point out that many of these low-wage workers are already covered.

On the Senate side, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) will offer a similar amendment (S. 1485) when the Senate takes up the Labor/Health and Human Services appropriations bill. Harkin noted that if the new regulation is adopted, employers will not feel pressure to hire more workers. The change, undoubtedly, would not help diminish the nation's high unemployment rate—now standing at 6.2 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

If Harkin's amendment passes and is included in the final version, George W. Bush has threatened to veto the entire Labor/HSS appropriations bill. The dire warning is, no doubt, a reflection of the value that the Bush administration corporate backers put on getting rid of the overtime requirement. It's probably worth billions.

In the meantime, Republican leaders are pushing forward with their phony family flextime legislation (H.R. 1119 and S. 317) that would permit employees to choose compensatory time off instead of time-and-a-half overtime pay. Both these bills give an employer complete control over when employees can take time off and offer no protections against employers who would require workers to take time off instead of being paid overtime or asked to work unpredictably long hours.

Minimum Wage 24% of Intended Value: Also, it is reported that Sen. Kennedy will try to amend (through S. 224) the Labor/HHS bill to increase the minimum wage by $1.50 to $6.65 an hour—a long-running effort that Republicans have blocked for many years. The value of the current minimum wage is far below its intended value in 1979; if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation in the intervening years, it would be about $8.46 an hour. Women, who comprise about 60 percent of the minimum-wage workforce, would benefit from the much overdue increase.

Activists should let their Congressional delegation members know that both of these bills—now in conference committee—will hurt millions of working families, particularly those with single heads of households who may depend on time-and-a-half pay in order to make ends meet. Urge your Senators to support the Harkin amendment to block the Department of Labor regulation change.

Alert! Senate May Pass Class Action Restriction Bill

Rumor has it that the Senate Republican leadership believes it has the 60 votes necessary to overcome a threatened filibuster preventing a regressive bill (H.R. 1115/S. 274, the so-called Class Action Fairness Act) that restricts class action litigation. This is likely the result of massive lobbying effort carried out by major companies and pro-business associations who have deployed 475 lobbyists and millions of dollars on Capitol Hill over the last few years to put a lid on consumer and civil rights lawsuits brought by groups of plaintiffs.

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law notes that the legislation, if passed, would remove most state court, state-law class actions into federal court; clog the federal courts with state law cases and make it more difficult to have federal civil rights cases heard; deter people from bringing class actions; and impose costly and unjustified burdens on settlement of class actions. The movement of these cases into federal courts where Republican-appointed judges hold sway would tip the balance in favor of corporate defendants.

Class Action Litigation Aids Women's Rights: Women plaintiffs, as injured consumers or targets of discrimination, would find it considerably more difficult to win their cases. Class action litigation has proven to be a valuable tool for women seeking equal treatment. Many advances of the women's movement have been aided by class action litigation.

Industries that want this legislation include:

For a detailed analysis of the legislation's impact on the class action litigation, the courts and the involvement of well-heeled lobbyists, see Public Citizen's report "Unfairness Incorporated: The Corporate Campaign Against Consumer Class Actions."

Take Action:
Oppose the Unfair Class Action "Fairness" Act

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

Many Anti-Reproductive Rights Measures Expected

Abortion Ban Goes to Conference Committee: Opponents of women's reproductive rights will begin pushing a rapid succession of bills and amendments in September, starting with the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion ban, S. 3. This dangerous bill, already passed by both the House and Senate, will go to a conference committee on Sept. 15, according to the chief sponsor, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) Abortion opponents appointed to the House-Senate conference committee will attempt to force the other Senate conferees to remove a resolution attached to the abortion procedures ban bill that affirms the Senate's support of Roe v. Wade.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)—not one to shrink from strong abortion rights advocacy—insists on up to eight hours of debate on the motion to send the Senate-passed bill to conference committee. She reportedly intends to detail the legislation's many problems and demonstrate the deceptive position that many senators have taken in supporting Roe, but voting for a bill that would significantly advance Roe's demise.

If abortion rights opponents are successful in removing the Roe resolution, then the finalized bill comes back to each house for a last vote and then on to George W. Bush for his signature. A court challenge to what is clearly an unconstitutional bill is waiting. But advocates for women's abortion rights should nonetheless send a message to all members of their Congressional delegation.

Bush Expands Global Gag Rule: While folks were enjoying the Sept. 1 Labor Day holiday, George W. Bush announced that he intends to extend the global gag rule policy—which prohibits international family planning programs in other countries from using their own, private non-U.S. funds to express a public abortion rights position or to provide any sort of abortion assistance to patients—to cover all State Department programs. Previously, the gag rule was applied only to programs for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) where the family planning program is funded at $446 million. The State Department's budget totals $8 billion.

Because of this policy, clinics in developing countries which depend heavily on U.S. financial assistance are closing, contraceptive supplies are dwindling and women are not receiving full and medically-accurate counseling and services. Bush and his anti-abortion rights allies in Congress simply do not care about the health of women in poor countries.

Fortunately, the Senate Appropriations Committee on Sept. 4 adopted a provision-stopping implementation of the expanded gag rule in the FY 04 Commerce-Justice-State (CJS) appropriations bill. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was a leader in this effort. Unless the full Senate removes this provision, the conference committee on the CJS will have to deal with it. And because the Senate has previously voted against the gag rule (53-43, in July—again thanks to Sen. Boxer's leadership) it seems likely that the senior body will not back down.

Fetal Personhood Legislation Pending: Both houses remain poised to deliberate over the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 1997/S. 1019). It is uncertain at this time whether the Senate will bring the bill straight to the floor or follow traditional legislative procedures allowing the House to first adopt the legislation. A mark-up session on H.R. 1997 was held on July 15 in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.

The bill is ultimately a vehicle for abortion rights opponents to dismantle the basis of legal abortion, as the language pronounces that a fetus or embryo shall be considered a separate "person" from the mother, and therefore is entitled to legal protection as an "unborn child." If the legislation passes, harming an "unborn child" would be considered a federal offense in some instances. Chipping away at basics of Roe v Wade, this bill is considered to be part of a larger anti-abortion rights strategy, fashioning the steppingstones for further erosion of legal abortion. UVVA, or Laci and Conner's Law, as it is titled in the House, may be brought up at about the same time as the abortion procedures ban.

Rep. Zoë Lofgen (D-Calif.) will likely offer an alternate measure, the Motherhood Protection Act, as an amendment. This legislation addresses the true issue at hand, the protection of pregnant women, while not recognizing an embryo or fetus as a separate "person." Similarly, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) is expected to produce a similar bill in the Senate and pro-choice ally Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) will offer a domestic-violence amendment that incorporates a few logical actions that help protect women and children from domestic violence. If sponsors of the 'Unborn Victims of Violence Act' are as sincerely concerned about violence against women as they claim, the Murray amendment provides an opportunity for Congress to take a meaningful action to prevent, intervene in, and provide services for women and their families.

Title X Providers' Names May be Collected: The Senate is considering its version of the Labor/Health and Human Services appropriations, including funds for Title X domestic family planning programs. Through Title X, more than 4.8 million low-income women and men receive health care through the many thousands of clinics that function due to Title X funding. Family-planning services provided at such clinics helps prevent unwanted pregnancies, and consequently makes abortion less necessary. If Title X had had a budget increase according to inflation since 1980, its current budget would be more than twice as much as it is today.The Senate Appropriations Committee finished its work on the bill on Sept. 4; next it will go to the floor.

During House consideration of the Labor/HHS appropriations, arch abortion rights opponent Rep. David Vitter (R-La.) forced language into the bill instructing the federal government to collect the names of Title X providers who offer abortion services. Regrettably, pro-choice members were not able to include language that protects clinics' confidentiality. This language is only in the House bill and senators who support reproductive rights are aware of its presence. There will likely be an effort to have it removed on the Senate side.

Currently, funding is $275 annually for Title X, the same level is maintained in the House version. The Senate has proposed a $10 million increase in the FY'04 recommendations, whereas President Bush recommends cutting it to $265 million.

Anti-Reproductive Rights Riders Possible: Thus far, no anti-abortion or anti-contraception amendments have been filed in the Senate. But they could be announced at any point and with little warning; the list of possible amendments or riders includes a ban on the prescription of emergency contraception in school-based clinics, an effort to use public funds to support clinics ("crisis pregnancy centers") that do not offer a full range of medical scientific information and attempt to dissuade women from having an abortion, or a directive to the National Institutes of Health to conduct research on the (fictional) "post-abortion syndrome."

Since 1995, 130 of the 158 congressional votes concerning abortion, access to contraception and reproductive health services have undermined women's reproductive rights. If you, too, are enraged by these attacks on women's rights, join NOW and thousands of other activists in Washington on April 25, 2004 to Save Women's Lives: March for Freedom of Choice. NOW, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Feminist Majority Foundation and Planned Parenthood are organizing this massive march to send our opponents a message. In 1992, when NOW organized the March for Women's Lives, 750,000 people came to Washington, and the situation now is even more critical. Please plan to come to Washington next spring.

For more information:
http://www.marchforchoice.org

GLOBAL FEMINISM

Global Scorecard Released on Women's Equality Day

On Women's Equality Day, Aug. 26, a group of women's rights advocates issued a Global Women's Issues Scorecard for the Bush Administration. The Feminist Majority, Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE), The Women's Environment & Development Organization and the Communications Consortium Media Center rated the administration on policies affecting women in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world. On every point, Bush was found lacking.

Good Rhetoric, No Follow-Up in Afghanistan: Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, said the administration's April 2002 promises of a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan have not been fulfilled. "Today, because of the lack of U.S. and international resources devoted to reconstruction, much of the country remains [in] ruins … almost two years since the Taliban was removed from power, the rights of Afghan women and girls remain in jeopardy with a resurgence of fundamentalist extremists." The U.S. has requested only paltry funds for rebuilding Afghanistan and peacekeeping efforts beyond Kabul.

Iraqi Women Threatened, Ignored in Reconstruction: The Global Women's Issues Scorecard gave the administration an "Incomplete" grade for its treatment of women in Iraq, noting that on July 2, Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky stated that the U.S. had an "unshakable" commitment to the human rights of Iraqi women. But, in fact, women's leadership is largely absent in re-building Iraq and in constituting a new government. Many Iraqi women are withdrawing from public life because of the threat of widespread rapes and abduction.

On the issue of international family planning, through which the U.S. has for decades provided reproductive health care to millions, the Bush administration has re-imposed a gag rule and withdrawn U.N. Population Fund monies. Opposition to abortion rights has been a guiding factor in distorting policy and limiting funds; loss of U.S. funding will mean an increase in maternal and infant mortality. For these failures, the administration received an "F" grade.

Big Promise, Little Funding: On the global HIV/AIDS initiative, George W. Bush made a big splash in the State of the Union address in January by pledging $15 billion over the next ten years. But for the FY 04 budget request the administration asked for only $1.9 in the U.S. global AIDS initiative; only $200 million for the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria—well below the $1 billion Bush promised. The administration has also heavily promoted the mostly discredited abstinence-only programs as an AIDS-prevention strategy. Grade: "F."

For more information: