Search:
Sign up:
 GENERAL WOMEN'S HEALTH LESBIAN RIGHTS REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ECONOMIC EQUITY VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN EDUCATIONAL EQUITY GENERAL Domestic Spending Declines As Defense Billions Rise Right-wing Republican leaders frequently claim that spending for domestic programs is "out of control" and have used this as an excuse to slash appropriations for various programs, especially for social services. As an example, appropriations for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) reauthorization are woefully inadequate and funding for Social Services Block Grants that provide services to 12 million low income, elderly and disadvantaged persons has been dramatically cut. But, of course, this concern about out-of-control spending does not carry over to defense-related appropriations and "pork barrel" projects to help favored Republican members in their 2004 re-election bids. One analysis of proposed FY '04 appropriations identified 10,000 "earmarked" appropriations that will benefit special interests in various congressional districts—which have added billions to the total (For more information, see the web sites of Taxpayers for Common Sense and WhiteHouseforSale.org.) In late January when Congress reconvenes, the Senate may vote on an omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 2673) that would authorize $820 billion for the fiscal year (FY '04) that actually began Oct. 1. Funding for the seven major government operations is authorized under a temporary Continuing Resolution. The House has already passed (on Dec. 8) the omnibus measure that would fund nearly all discretionary (non-entitlement) programs, including funding for Agriculture, Commerce/State/Justice, District of Columbia, Foreign Operations, Health and Human Services, Transportation/Treasury and Veterans Affairs/Housing and Urban Development. Appropriations for defense, Homeland Security, and international affairs total $534 billion for 2004—an increase of $189 billion (55 percent higher, not adjusted for inflation) over the last three years! In stark contrast, funding for domestic discretionary programs (excluding Homeland Security) increased from $336 billion in 2001 to $389 billion in 2004, an increase of 15.9 percent or only 9.8 percent after inflation. Once the extra-ordinary appropriation for disaster relief and reconstruction costs in New York City following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 have been subtracted, funding for domestic discretionary (all non-entitlement programs) in FY 04 will be $7 billion less than the FY 02 amount. Funding for domestic discretionary programs relative to size of the U.S. economy (as measured against the Gross Domestic Product) has shrunk over the last two years. Process Broken—Another concern with the FY 04 appropriations is the way in which the appropriations process has been abused. Democrats have been excluded in the often closed-door negotiations, while the White House has dominated discussions with the Republican leadership through threat of veto and government shutdown. The lack of true Congressional oversight and accountability with power now centered in the administration has weakened the system of checks and balances provided by the Constitutional. According to OMB Watch, George W. Bush reversed legislative provisions that had already been agreed upon in both the House and Senate. One example is the reversal of a position taken by both bodies in rejecting a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule that allowed a company to own TV stations reaching 45 percent of the nation's viewers, rather than the previous limit of 35 percent. Bush insisted on 39 percent and that is what will be adopted in the final conference report. Unhappiness on the part of the Democratic leadership over this breakdown in the appropriations process may mean further delay on a final vote on this already very late FY 04 appropriations bill. Rumors indicate that there may not ever be a final vote; government programs may have to be continued at last year's funding levels under a continuing resolution. What happens after that is anybody's guess. WOMEN'S HEALTH Medicare Act May Foreshadow Dismantling of Social Security Some observers fear that the enactment of the so-called Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (P.L.108-173) may become a model for a right-wing effort to gradually phase out Social Security, forcing workers into an individual investment retirement program. George W. Bush signed the controversial Medicare legislation on Dec. 4 before an audience of 2,000 lobbyists, health care industry officials and others who stand to gain hundreds of millions under the new program. The law became effective four days later. NOW Opposed Change—Critics, including the National Organization for Women, believe that the changes will benefit mostly those more healthy and wealthy, while driving up health care costs for everyone, including older, poorer and sicker women. Additionally, spending caps in the new law will most likely provoke an artificial funding crisis for a weakened government-run Medicare program, leading to its eventual demise. (More information on the flaws in the revamped Medicare program, along with NOW's views on the subject, is available online.) The new partially privatized Medicare program will draw seniors into for-profit managed care companies (HMOs, PPOs) in order to receive a modest prescription drug benefit. The model that conservatives may propose might offer incentives to pull workers from the government-backed Social Security system into risky retirement investment accounts with private, for-profit investment companies. The new approach eliminates the government-guaranteed benefit for those going to a managed care plan, placing the responsibility for care primarily on the individual. Similarly, the move by workers to a non-guaranteed, investment-based retirement plan would mean leaving a guaranteed, inflation-proofed social insurance retirement program for a private investment plan where the risk is shifted to the individual investor. In the case of privatized Medicare, there are no guarantees: companies could—and, no doubt, will—increase premiums and deductibles, cut services and push out seniors when they become too ill. Companies could even stop covering seniors unless the government keeps supplying them with multi-billion dollar cash "incentives" or bribes, as some have called the huge payments being made to insurers, doctors and hospitals under the new law. Similarly, the risks to investor-retirees will be significant; one only has to cite the recent billion dollar losses in the stock market, corrupt corporations fleecing employees and investors, the current mutual fund scandal, lax Securities and Exchange Commission oversight and more. Women Harmed —The National Organization for Women strongly opposed the changes in Medicare, emphasizing how older women would be especially disadvantaged under the Republican plan. Because older women utilize more prescription medication, on average, than older men and have less retirement income, the new Medicare prescription drug plan will not provide an adequate and dependable benefit. Additionally, NOW has long opposed any retirement plan that would undermine Social Security by diverting payroll contributions by employers and employees to private investment accounts. The risks to women in moving to private and non-guaranteed investment accounts would be high, because women usually have less income for savings and investment due to wage discrimination and unpaid years of care-giving. Smaller amounts to invest would result in insufficient retirement income. This would be especially true for low-income, single and disabled women and those who live to an advanced age depleting their financial resources. In addition to the unpredictability of the economy and the volatility of the stock market, another serious disadvantage would be losing access to Social Security's current compensatory higher pay-out for lifetime low-income earners. Reportedly, the Bush administration is quietly gearing up for a major campaign to revamp Social Security through conversion to private investment accounts. Early in 2004 a series of public forums will be held to discuss the future of the popular social insurance retirement program. Advocates for women's equality should be prepared for what may be an intensive fight in 2004 over changes in the Social Security system—and if the Medicare prescription drug experience is any model, women will be harmed. FDA Delays Silicone Breast Implants Decision The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced on Jan. 8 that the agency will delay approval of silicone gel-filled breast implants for general use. The agency has asked the applicant, Inamed, to provide additional data (the specifics are still unavailable), in order to re-start the approval process. The implants were removed from the market in 1992 following reports that they ruptured and caused serious illnesses, although mastectomy patients were permitted to receive gel-filled implants if they participated in a clinical trial. Saline implants remained on the market during that period and were finally approved by the FDA in 2000, despite evidence of frequent rupture, local and regional infections, calcification (hardening) of the implant and other problems. The National Organization for Women and other women's health advocacy groups urged that the FDA delay a decision until such time that silicone gel-filled breast implants can be shown to be safe. More than 100 witnesses testified at the October 14-15 hearings; the vast majority being women who had experienced serious adverse reactions and illnesses after implantation. Serious Complications—The company making the application, Inamed Corp., based in Santa Barbara, Calif., submitted data showing very high complication rates among both augmentation and reconstruction (following breast cancer) patients. Their information disclosed that 46 percent of reconstruction patients underwent at least one re-operation within three years, 25 percent had removal or replacement and 21 percent of augmentation patients required re-operation within that short period. That data was from a core study of 221 breast cancer reconstruction patients and 494 augmentation patients. As rupture with silicone gel-filled implants is often hard to detect quickly, Inamed's complication rates are most likely understated. If these implants are eventually approved, rupture and leakage of silicone gel would likely continue to be a serious problem. There is evidence that silicone gel provokes an immune response in humans. NOW President Kim Gandy testified at the hearings, criticizing the company's lack of long term follow-up on breast implant patients and urging the Food and Drug Administration "to see that more extensive, well-designed research over a seven to 10 year period is conducted and made available to advocates and the public"—because the most serious problems with implants usually begin to appear seven to 10 years after implantation. A team of researchers and clinicians that NOW brought to the hearing presented evidence of immune reactions associated with silicone gel, the presence of toxic compounds of silicone in implant patients and other serious aspects. In May of 2003, NOW had conducted a scientific symposium with FDA officials with many of the same researchers and clinicians discussing recent scientific findings and recommending further research objectives. A press conference and a Congressional briefing were conducted in July when a summary of the symposium proceedings was released. The report, Research Indicates Long-Term Risk to Women's Health Not Fully Addressed in FDA Clinical Trials; Conclusions from Symposium on The Safety and Effectiveness of Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implants (July 21, 2003), is available online. Panel Chair Urged Delay—Members of the FDA advisory panel also expressed concerns about the lack of long-term data—as was required by the FDA in 1992 to be collected of breast implant patients. And, indeed, the panel's chair, Dr. Thomas Whalen, a pediatrician from Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, sent a letter following the hearing to FDA Chair Mark McClellan, M.D., stating that "to approve this device poses threats to women's health that are clearly unknown." Whalen went on to say, "It is incumbent upon the FDA to demand that the manufacturer establish in a rigorous, prospective controlled study that these devices, despite their established breakage and leakage rates, are safe in the long term." Lawsuit Proceeds—Just prior to the hearing, it was announced that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services had received permission for the department to proceed with lawsuits against breast implant manufacturers, seeking tens—and possibly hundreds—of millions of dollars in reimbursement for federal expenditures caring for women who were injured by breast implants. The irony of one arm of the government apparently ready to approve silicone breast implants, while another is suing manufacturers over injuries to women with breast implants was not lost on many. Nonetheless, the FDA advisory panel voted 9 to 6 to recommend that the implants be approved for general marketing, accepting the company's promise of long-range monitoring and frequent Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) exams of silicone breast implant patients. The company said that they would follow breast implant patients for the rest of their lives and would submit annual reports to the FDA. However, Inamed's failure to follow up with the more than 15,000 women in a clinical trial where barely half the women were monitored more than one year leads to serious doubts about their true intentions. Fortunately the FDA, contrary to their usual practice, did not immediately follow the panel's recommendation. Conditions Not Feasible—Close observers doubted that the offered stipulations were feasible in any case, noting the FDA's lack of authority and funding to require these conditions, the company's questionable record on follow up and the expense to patients for frequent MRIs to detect rupture. Some believe that the conditions would merely allow the company to evade lawsuits when injured breast implant patients did not comply with the monitoring regime. NOTE: Inamed's stock prices shot upwards in the wake of the FDA advisory commission rulings. One has to ask "Is there something wrong with a society that allows companies to earn profits on devices that are apparently associated with injury and serious illness in women?" Also, four plastic surgeons sat on the advisory panel—several derive their income from breast enhancement and one was recently under contract to Inamed Corp., the company seeking approval. Petition Rejected—NOW, Public Citizen's Health Project and the National Women's Health Network submitted a petition to the FDA, stating that the Inamed application did not offer adequate data to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and noting that the proposed post-marketing surveillance does not constitute an assurance of safety. Another petition was submitted by a number of implant patients' organizations, detailing complications and illnesses that have plagued women with implants and asking that specific scientific studies be conducted before silicone implants are brought back into general use. The first petition was rejected by the FDA in December with no explanation. A number of members of both the House and Senate have sent letters to FDA Commissioner McClellan, asking for delay until current government research projects on silicone breast implants are completed and the outcome of government litigation is known. NOW, the National Center for Policy Research for Women & Families, the National Women's Health Network, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press, Church Women United, Women's National Democratic Club, Feminist Majority and the National Council of Women's Organizations also sent a letter to the FDA asking for a delay in approval of the implants until safety can be demonstrated. We now see that our hard work has paid off for women's health—but the issue is not closed and we must continue to monitor the FDA and urge them to require years of additional data before taking action. Women's health advocates continue to have concerns about the integrity of the FDA review and approval process, believing that the agency has become vulnerable to influence from for-profit interests. Since a FDA "reform" bill was passed in 1996, the agency has appeared to rubber-stamp applications for drugs and devices—some of which later proved to be harmful. Legislation requiring independent, long-term studies on the safety and efficacy of breast implants has been introduced in past years (H.R. 1961, 107th Congress), but has never been moved out of committee. Nation, States Get Failing Grades on Women's Tobacco Use "Smoking is a critical women's health issue. The leading cause of preventable death in the United States, smoking kills over 178,000 women each year. In addition, smoking results in women losing more than two million years of life due to premature death every year. Smoking is the primary cause of lung cancer, the leading cancer killer of women, and is also a primary risk factor for cardiovascular disease, the leading overall killer of women." So opens a new publication, "Women and Smoking—A National and State-by-State Report Card," from the National Women's Law Center and the Oregon Health and Science University, that offers details about what states are doing—and not doing—to control tobacco use. The state profiles show how many persons smoke, how many are trying to quit, access to smoking cessation programs, and percentages of persons dying from lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease and stroke. The state with the highest percentage of women who smoke is Nevada at 28.5 percent, with Utah the lowest at 11.6 percent. The nation and most states receive failing grades for efforts to curb smoking among women and girls. Women Targeted—Women and girls continue to be targeted by advertisements promoting smoking as a glamorous activity and many high school and college-age women have succumbed to these well-financed campaigns. More than $11 billion was spent in 2001 for cigarette advertising and promotion; yet only six percent of that enormous sum was spent by states in tobacco use prevention. It is estimated that 22 percent of pregnant women smoke, with the highest proportion of pregnant smokers among women with less than high school graduation education levels. A little more than half the states offer "Quitlines," telephone counseling programs for pregnant women, and only 16 states have Medicaid coverage for pregnancy-specific cessation counseling. A particularly pervasive problem is the lack of access to smoking cessation programs through either private employer insurance coverage or other sources. Key measurements were drawn to measure progress toward the ten-year national health objectives contained in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Health People 2010 prevention agenda. The report is designed to be of use to women's health care advocates, policy-makers and health care professionals. Copies (at $15) of the report can be ordered from the National Women's Law Center, info@nwlc.org, or call (202) 588-5185. Also, a NOW video on educating young women about the health consequences of tobacco use is available from the NOW Action Center; copies can be requested by sending a message to now@now.org. LESBIAN RIGHTS Anti-Marriage Constitutional Amendment Proposed A joint resolution proposing a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage consisting only of the union of a man and a woman was introduced in late November. Sponsor of the measure (H.J. Res. 26) in the House is Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), while Senate sponsors of the resolution (S. J. Res. 26) are Republican Senators Wayne Allard (Colo.), Sam Brownback (Kans.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Jim Bunning (Ky.) and James Inhofe (Okla.). The proposed article reads: "Marriage in the United States shall consist of only the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, no State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status of the legal incidents thereof shall be conferred upon any unmarried couples or groups." Interestingly, the resolution sets a deadline of seven years after submission by Congress for ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. The Equal Rights Amendment was the only other proposed Constitutional amendment to have a limitation on the number of years in which the states could ratify. NOW and other gay and lesbian rights activists believe that right-wing politicians intend to use the proposed amendment as a polarizing election year issue. REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS Over-the-Counter Sale of EC May Be Approved In what would be truly good news, a safe and effective emergency contraceptive (EC) may soon be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for over-the-counter sale. A hearing on the proposal was held by the agency in mid-December and two FDA advisory panels voted to recommend approval. The FDA can accept that recommendation or reject it, but the agency usually accepts panel's recommendations. NOW President Kim Gandy testified at the hearing, urging speedy approval and citing the effect that widely available EC would have on unintended and unwanted pregnancies. Gandy was quoted in a front-page article in The New York Times and appeared in a related photograph of the hearing. Nearly 50 percent of pregnancies in the U.S. each year are not intended, with half of those ending in abortion. In addition, more than 300,000 women are raped in the U.S. each year and over 32,000 become pregnant as a result. NOW Activists Testify—A dozen young NOW activists from New York and Florida traveled to the hearings and presented dramatic testimony about their own problems with accessing emergency contraception. The group also conducted a press briefing with additional "first person" accounts following the hearing. Over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception is supported by a wide range of medical groups, including the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians and the American Medical Association. It should be noted that abortion rights and contraception access opponents in Congress have undertaken efforts to limit access to emergency contraception by proposing restrictions for school-based clinics that might dispense EC and by allowing for so-called conscience-based objections to contraceptives by health care providers and pharmacists. If EC over-the-counter sale is approved, stepped-up activities by opponents should be expected. A significant number of hospitals do not make EC available to rape victims, including all Catholic-owned hospitals. A bipartisan bill, Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act, H.R. 2527, sponsored by Rep. Jim Greenwood (R-Penn.), would deny federal funds to any hospital that does not provide medically accurate information on emergency contraception and offer emergency contraception to any woman who has been sexually assaulted. Abortion Ban Becomes Law; Restraining Orders Issued George W. Bush signed the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, S. 3, sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) in early November at a ceremony in the Ronald Reagan Commerce Department Building before a cheering crowd of reproductive rights opponents. While Bush was signing the abortion procedures ban, NOW activists and scores of other reproductive rights supporters were demonstrating nearby. In what was a very telling snapshot summary of the anti-abortion rights movement, news services carried a picture of Bush signing the dangerous bill while a clutch of all-male members of Congress looked on. Immediately upon the bill's signing, major reproductive rights organizations filed three separate lawsuits. In each case, the courts have issued temporary restraining orders preventing the law from being implemented. No Health Exemption—The ban does not include an exemption to allow an abortion to protect the woman's health and, in fact, abortion opponents in Congress tried to make the (false) argument that an abortion is never necessary to protect a woman's health. As such, the ban will not meet a well-established Supreme Court test for constitutionality. However, uncertainty arises as to what will be the near future make-up of the court. A retirement or death could occur at any time, tipping it to a majority that might support any and all abortion restrictions. NOW President Kim Gandy, one of the leaders planning for the April 25 March for Women's Lives, stresses that "seeing Bush re-elected will mean the end of abortion rights. One more appointment to the Supreme Court may, indeed, halt all abortions, including those where the woman's life or health is at stake." ECONOMIC EQUITY GAO Study Suggests Discrimination in Gender Pay Gap Only a portion of the difference between men's and women's pay can be attributed to measurable differences in women's and men's characteristics, while the remainder of the pay gap is most likely due to systematic sex discrimination. That is the inference that a reader can take away from a study conducted by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) that was released in late November. The GAO analyzed data from 1983 through 2000 to find a wage gap of 44 percent (that is, women are paid about 44 percent less than men in any given year over that period including both full- and part-time workers, men and women). A statistical model was used to identify the factors that may contribute to the wage disparity. Work experience, education, occupation and industry and other demographic and job characteristics, the model explains about half of the wage difference. But about 20 percent of that difference remains unexplained. Discrimination Likely Explanation—"Previous research findings are confirmed that a substantial part of women's pay disadvantage is not related to how many hours they work, whether they are married or have children or how many years they've been in the labor market," according to Dr. Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR). Hartmann says that discrimination is the most likely explanation for the remaining difference. Anti-feminists for years have claimed that wage differences are due to women staying out of the paid workforce to care for children and thus having less paid work experience or not having requisite education or any reason other than deliberate sex discrimination. For further details, see a fact sheet produced by IWPR, "The Gender Wage Gap: Progress of the 1980s Fails to Carry Through," by Heidi Hartmann, Ph.D. and Vicky Lovell, Ph.D. Report Explores Economic Patterns Affecting Women Current trends, innovations and under-addressed areas in the field of women and the economy are traced in a useful publication, "Women and The Economy—Mapping a Field," 2003 Report, produced by the Winds of Change Foundation. Sixty in-depth interviews of women leaders and a survey of 450 organizations devoted to advocating for women were conducted. The report's authors noted that today there are 9,000,000 women-owned businesses in the U.S. that employ 27.5 million people and generate $3.6 trillion sales annually. Yet, 70 percent of all U.S. women are paid less than $25,000 a year and fewer than two percent receive more than $75,000 a year. Only four percent of the top earners at Fortune 500 companies are women and women fill only 7.3 percent of all line positions held by corporate officers. In addition to identifying current issues affecting women's economic advancement (persistent wage inequality, downturn in the economy, globalization), the report outlines various strategies for improving women's economic status. Many good ideas for activating and organizing women around economic issues are included, see it at the web site of the Winds of Change Foundation. TANF on Calendar for Early 2004; Fiscal Crisis Foreseen Reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) welfare program is scheduled to be one of the first measures taken up in the second session of the 108th Congress, sometime in February. The Senate ran out of time to bring legislation to the floor prior to the holiday adjournment and instead passed a Continuing Resolution (CR) to carry program funding through March 2004. As the bill emerged from the Senate Finance Committee earlier in the fall, advocates for poor women concluded that the legislation was even worse than the current TANF program and not much better than the House-passed H.R. 4 and urged that it be rejected. Whether there will be an opportunity to have the reauthorization measure significantly amended is not clear at this time. The Senate Finance Committee bill is the Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone (PRIDE) Act of 2003, sponsored by Finance Committee Chair Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). It has not been formally introduced, as yet. Among the legislation's many flaws are:
Added work hours and the higher participation requirements of both the Senate and House bills restrict state flexibility while ignoring the problems of rising unemployment and state budget crises. Although the Senate measure is an improvement over the horrible House bill, the Senate bill largely misses the opportunity to promote successful approaches that support work and help lift families out of poverty. Overall funding at $16.5 billion for five years, with a restricted contingency fund of $2 billion, is the same level of funding that was authorized in 1996. This amount is insufficient because it does not take into account increases due to inflation, the fiscal crises facing states (that are already cutting TANF spending) and the effects of increased unemployment on low-income workers. Child Care Funds Inadequate—The $1 billion of additional child care assistance is much less than the $5.5 billion proposed by the Senate Finance Committee last year and falls far short of the need that has grown in recent years because of state child care funding cutbacks by states. Advocates for poor families have written to George W. Bush, asking that the administration support an increase in the basic TANF block grant for the fiscal year 2005. Because the block grant has remained unchanged since 1997, the real value of the grant has fallen 14.6 percent. By 2008, the block grant will be 23 percent below its 1997 level. High performance bonus amounts are sliced in half from $200 million to $100 million in the current TANF reauthorization legislation. Hundreds of thousands of families are on child care assistance waiting lists currently—including 28,000 in Texas, 48,000 in Florida, 35,000 in New York—fewer than one in seven eligible children received help according to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report in 2000. Child Support Problems—Some $522 million over five years are needed to make important child support distribution reforms, as the Senate Finance Committee outlined in their TANF reauthorization proposal. Funds to states for the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) that provide services to more than 13 million persons in need have been slashed from $2.8 billion to $2.38 billion and Congress has further cut funding to $1.7 billion. The advocates recommended that funds for transitional jobs that would allow states to work with families who have been unemployed because of various barriers are needed to provide temporary work with real wages and benefits so that these persons can gain work experience. $1 Billion to Promote Marriage, Fatherhood Programs Belying claims by Republicans and some conservative Democrats that there is not sufficient funding available to adequately pay for childcare services for TANF beneficiaries and other low-income families, the proposed TANF reauthorization bill sets aside an astounding total of $500 million ($600 million in the House version) over five years for competitive matching grants for marriage promotion and support of so-called Fatherhood programs, with an additional $500 million over the five years to the Department of Health and Human Services for research, demonstration and technical assistance spent on marriage promotion activities. Key elements of both bills pertaining to child support, fatherhood and marriage, according to the Center for Law and Social Policy, are summarized, as follows:
Snags in the State Systems—According to the Center on Fathers, Families, and Public Policy, child support distribution problems are affecting many states, although some states have improved their systems. A provision in the 1996 welfare law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, required states to establish a State Disbursement Unit to receive and disburse child support payments from a single location in the state. Failure to establish these systems is resulting in substantial federal financial penalties. For instance, South Carolina which has had a series of problems with a private contractor developing their system has incurred about $20 million in penalties and is looking at an additional $49 million in penalties by the time their system is operational in 2007. Meanwhile, the state is in a severe budget crisis and was recently forced to lay off 1,300 employees from its Department of Social Services. Michigan's rush to complete their system before $147 million in fines was exacted has resulted in numerous complaints. More Information—A chart summarizing key provisions in TANF reauthorization legislation can be found on the web sites of the Center for Law and Social Policy and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Bush Administration Exaggerates TANF Child Care Funding Claims about how much would be provided for child care program funding under TANF reauthorization legislation are misleading, so says a recent analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) and the Center on Law and Social Policy (CLASP). The Bush administration asserted earlier in 2003 that new funding for child care totals $3.3 billion for a five year period. The claim was made when advocates for poor families, including the National Organization for Women (NOW), criticized early in 2003 the woefully inadequate amounts in the House TANF reauthorization bill (H.R. 4). More recently, the administration sent a series of letters to newspaper editors making false claims about child care monies in the TANF bills. The administration says that $3.3 billion is authorized—consisting of $1 billion in new funds and an increase in the "discretionary authorization ceiling" for child care. But the "discretionary authorization ceiling" increase provides absolutely no new funding and amounts to a phony ploy. Congress would have to come back each year and authorize new funding—something that is very unlikely given the Republican penchant for cutting social services funding. NOW Critical of the Amount—NOW says that even if it were real, the $1 billion does not even approach what would be required to assist poor families who must work longer hours each week under the proposed reauthorization (40 hours per week under H.R. 4) and that many thousands of families would be denied sorely needed help. Further analysis shows that the administration misrepresented the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of child care costs under provisions of the legislation, ranging from $3 billion to $9 billion. The administration said that the CBO estimate was "at most" $1.5 billion additional funding needed over the next five years; but CBO has estimated that $4.5 billion will be needed over the five years to compensate for the effects of inflation on child care funding. That estimate does not including the effects of increased required work hours for both TANF beneficiaries and other very low-income families not on TANF. Even more distressing is the fact that the President's 2004 budget calls for only $441 million over five years in discretionary child care funding above 2002 appropriations levels. This is less than one-fifth of the supposed $2.3 billion claimed in the administration's letters to the editors and far below the amounts needed to avert massive losses of child care slots. (The discretionary funding is in addition to amounts of child care funds specifically authorized in other legislation.) To top it off, the current omnibus appropriations bill that the Senate will take up in January would set discretionary child care funding at a level slightly below 2002 amounts! A more realistic figure has been estimated at $5.7 billion over five years that would help states keep pace with inflation, maintain the number of child care slots for low-income families at the 2003 level and to assist states whose TANF funds are likely to be inadequate. Without this level of additional funding, some 360,000 children may be without access to care by the year 2008. At Least $5.7 Billion More is Needed—Advocates for poor families should renew demands that the final TANF reauthorization not only contain at least $5.7 billion in child care funding for the five year period, but recognize the importance of parenting by allowing reduction in required work hours. Victory! Nebraska Court Disallows "Family Cap" The State Supreme Court in Nebraska on December 5 agreed with a trial court ruling that the state's child exclusion or family cap requirement cannot be applied to disabled parents who are not able to become economically self-sufficient and leave public assistance [Mason v. Nebraska, No. S-01-1265 (Neb. Sup. Ct...) ]. The family cap policy means that any additional children born to a family already receiving public assistance are not eligible for cash assistance. The problem of poor families with mental or physical handicaps is serious. Some states estimate that up to 40 percent of their welfare caseload is comprised of families that have at least one member with a serious disability. NOWLDEF Report Identifies Gender as Major Poverty Factor Several new reports on poverty were released this past fall, giving a fuller picture of what has happened to poor women and their families in recent years. NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund released a report entitled "Reading Between the Lines: Women's Poverty in the United Sates, 2002," bringing into stark contrast gender differences. Among all adults (18 and older) the poverty rate for women was 12.3 percent as compared to the rate (8.7 percent) for men—an increased incidence of 41 percent. For women single parents, the difference is even more stark at 103 percent increased incidence with a poverty rate at 33.7 percent compared to men single parents at 16.6 percent. And, for women age 65 and older, the gender gap remains large at 61 percent increased incidence of poverty. Work outside the home made it slightly less likely that women would be poor, but in 2002 women who did so were 36 percent more likely to be poor than men who worked outside the home. The report goes on to discuss the effects of education, family structure, child care costs, hardship (eviction, not enough food to eat, etc) and other factors in relation to poverty. U.S. has the highest poverty rate for female-headed households among 22 developed nations, a comparison of 30.9 percent to 10.5 percent average for the group [Luxembourg Income Study Working Group Paper No. 243, Sept., 2000]. Other international studies of poverty have made similar findings. Poverty was measured by comparing annual income with the poverty standard which the federal government established forty years ago and is updated annually for inflation. In 2002, the poverty standard was $9,138 for an individual, $11,756 for a family of two, $14,348 for a family of three and $18,392 for a family of four. What is appalling about the poverty standard is that it has not been updated in 35 years and does not reflect contemporary living standards. The NOW LDEF report stresses that "if the poverty standard were to be updated to reflect the 30 percent increase in real household median income since 1967, many more women (and men) would be counted as poor." The report criticizes the Census Bureau's for failing to recognize that poverty rates are more closely related to sex than to race or age—factors that continue to receive in-depth scrutiny. Considering that it has been more than 30 years since the groundbreaking study and coining of the term the "feminization of poverty"—it is remarkable that the Census Bureau fails to address this. Census Bureau Poverty Report Shows Increase for 2002 In September, the U.S. Census Bureau released its report on the status of poverty based on estimates from interviews of a representative sample of the general population. The report's findings attracted considerable commentary at the time because the poverty rate had gone up in 2002 (12.1 percent) compared to the prior year when it was 11.7 percent and this was the second year in a row that the rate had climbed. The sheer number of persons living below the official poverty threshold is 34.6 million or 1.7 million more than in 2001. Translated another way, more than one in every eight persons lives in poverty, and while the poverty rate for children did not change from one year to the next, the rate is breathtakingly high: 16.7 percent equaling 12.1 million children (18 and under). For persons identifying themselves as Black (a Census term), the 2002 rate was about 24 percent and for Hispanics, the poverty rate was 21.8 percent—although the definitions of race and ethnic categories were changed between 2001 and 2002. Non-Hispanic Whites registered an 8 percent poverty rate. Other notable statistics:
The Census report also includes alternative measures of income and poverty, with three of the four alternative income definitions showing no change in median household income, but all four show a reduction in income inequality from 2001 to 2002. Additionally, six alternative poverty measures developed by the Census Bureau in response to recommendations by the National Academy of Science sow no change I poverty rates for that year. The alternative estimates are intended to provide a more complete measure of economic well being than official income and poverty concepts, which are based solely on the amount of money people or households receive during a calendar year. Footnote: The same Census Bureau report noted that "Median household money income in 2002 fell 1.1 percent or $500 from the 2001 level, to $42,400 and the ratio of female-to male earnings for full-time, year-round workers was 77 matching an all-time high." Welfare Recipients' Jobs Disappearing; UI Benefits Not Extended More than nine million mostly private sector jobs have disappeared in the last three years—jobs that were held primarily by low income persons and former TANF beneficiaries, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research. In a September report, CEPR noted that some 60 percent of welfare recipients found paid work during the booming 1990s, but are now finding it increasingly more difficult to maintain a foothold. In addition, many of the areas where women in the welfare-to-work process found jobs are low-wage industries and where wages are increasing at rates slower than in other industries. Using U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey Annual Demographics File to closely examine what was happening to former welfare recipients from 1996 to 2000, the report's authors found that the industries most commonly employing them did very well in that period adding 3.5 million jobs. These industries include food service, personnel supply services, hotels and lodging places, labs and home care, nursing and personal care facilities and child care. But with unemployment rising from 3.9 percent to 6.2 percent from October, 2000 to July, 2003, the industries employing former welfare recipients were hardest hit and now wages for many of those jobs are growing even more slowly or are falling. The 1996 welfare act that pushed welfare recipients into jobs did not also address needed reforms to make it easier for them to access Unemployment Insurance (UI) if they lost their jobs. According to the CEPR report, low wages and intermittent employment mean that these workers are not building up employment histories necessary for UI eligibility. States have not reformed the UI systems and many are now also in serious fiscal crises. States are cutting back in TANF and child care spending as a result and increased work hours in the TANF reauthorization legislation, combined with level federal funding and reduced state flexibility will greatly exacerbate problems. In reauthorizing TANF, Congressional policy-makers are simply not facing up to the reality of current economic conditions and a shrinking workforce with 2.4 million fewer jobs. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that $11 billion over five years will be required to fully implement the 40-hour work week requirement. The policy recommendations are for Congress to recognize that it is not sufficient to push women off of welfare—while doing little to assure that sufficient employment is available. The five-year lifetime limitation on receipt of public assistance should be removed as well as the increased work hours modified. More flexibility to allow welfare recipients to attend school, get their high school and post-secondary degrees or vocational education certificates should be added too the TANF reauthorization. Recognize this as a valid work activity and provide increased assistance for child care so that parents can further their education and spend more time looking for better jobs. Finally, Unemployment Insurance eligibility standards must be modified to address a growing workforce of part-time and seasonal workers, including former welfare recipients who cannot meet earnings requirements under many UI programs. In addition, states should be mandated to update and fully fund their UI systems. Before adjourning for the holidays, Congress refused to extend federal assistance for state Unemployment Insurance programs beyond the Dec. 21 expiration date. This means that between 80,000 and 90,000 unemployed workers will exhaust their benefits each week, with a half million people having run out of benefits by the end of January. VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN House Approves DNA Analysis Funding for Rape Kits A bill that would provide $1 billion for DNA analysis of 350,000 untested rape evidence kits was passed by the House on Nov.5, by a vote of 357-67. The Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act (H.R. 3214), sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chair James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and 249 co-sponsors, would provide enough funding to help police solve up to 100,000 sexual assault crimes with DNA evidence. In 2002, it was estimated that as many as 500,000 rape kits remained in storage at police departments around the country, awaiting a testing procedure that can cost between $750-$1,500. Funding of the backlog analysis was originally pushed in the House by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) who sponsored the Rape Kit DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act in 2002. The same bill, sponsored by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), was passed by the Senate that year, but failed to move in the Republican-controlled House. The House-passed bill is now before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Readers may want to make a note that the National Sexual Assault Hotline number is 1-800-656-HOPE. The hotline is a partnership of more than 1,000 local rape crisis hotlines and has helped more than 700,000 victims of sexual assault. It is operated by the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN). Court Forbids Deportation of Battered Immigrant A three judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that an illegal immigrant who suffered from domestic violence could not be deported because of provisions in the Violence Against Women Act that protects immigrants who are DV victims. This decision could affect thousands of illegal immigrants. When her husband did not stop beating her Laura Luis Hernandez fled Mexico ad cross illegally into the U.S. Her husband then successfully pleaded with her to return, vowing never to harm her again. She later returned to the U.S. where she currently resides. The judges said that while she was not physically assaulted in the United States, the domestic violence threat continued when her husband followed her here. What did occur amounted to "extreme cruelty" as defined by the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, the judges said, citing studies of domestic violence. "The interaction that took place in the United States presents a well recognized stage within the cycle of violence, one which is both psychologically and practically crucial to maintaining the batterer's control," wrote Judge Richard Perez. The court decision suspends the deportation ordered by Seattle Immigration Judge Anna Ho, which was later upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Violence Against Women Act allows illegal immigrants who have been battered by a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident, and who meet certain other criteria, to stay in the country by adjusting their immigration status. CLEAR Act Would Undermine Immigrant Protections Advocates for programs to protect victims of domestic violence are concerned about the CLEAR - Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act (H.R. 2671), sponsored by Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.) and 106 co-sponsors. If passed, the CLEAR act would have local and state law enforcement agencies the authority to detain illegal aliens. This change would endanger many battered immigrant women and undermine federal protections that were specifically crafted in the Violence Against Women Act to ensure that immigrant women would not fear deportation if they report the abuse to law enforcement. This legislation would interfere with community policing efforts, as immigrants may be discouraged from contacting local police when they need help, for fear that they or their families will be deported. A local police department that enforces civil immigration laws may lose the trust of the community it serves and may discourage victims of violence from seeking necessary law enforcement assistance. Advocates of the bill says that the legislation would "ensure from the time a local officer detains a criminal alien, there are no gaps between that moment, their time in prison if any, and their deportation from the country. But NOW says that there must be an assurance of protection for battered immigrant women. Gender Category Posed for Hate Crimes Statistics Act Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation, entitled The Hate Crimes Statistics Improvement Act of 2003, H.R. 374 that would aid the fight against gender- or sex-based violence. That category was left out of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (HCSA) was first adopted. Current hate crime laws allows prosecutors to seek a harsher sentence for crimes exhibiting prejudice against certain classes, but sex, sexual orientation and disability are noticeable absent from that list. Besides allowing for harsher sentences, the law requires the Justice Department to collect statistics on hate crimes from the states. Since disability was added to HCSA in 1994, sex hate crimes remains the one category glaringly omitted from the reporting. Rep. Maloney's bill would amend the HCSA to include statistics on violent crimes that manifest evidence of sex-based prejudice and hatred. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY Rep. Slaughter Defends Women's Soccer Association Women's equality took a huge step in 1972 with the passage of Title IX. Since then women's and girls' involvement in sports has grown, especially in soccer, where women represent 43% of all participants. However, just days before the Women's World Cup in early fall, the Women's United Soccer Association (WUSA), the most successful women's soccer league, announced its suspension due to lack of funding. Allowing WUSA's demise would be a true loss for all women athletes. Fortunately, an advocate for women's sports participation, Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), introduced the Resolution on Women's Soccer (H. RES. 373). The resolution seeks to support women's sports by backing efforts to restore WUSA. Rep. Slaughter previously introduced legislation (H. Res. 137) that declares any alteration of Title IX to be in opposition to sex equality in athletic programs. NOW Government Relations Interns Sonya Christmas and Deanna DeFrancesco contributed to this edition of the NOW Equality Report. For further information, please contact NOW Government Relations Director Jan Erickson at (202) 628-8669, ext. 122, or email govtrel@now.org. |
Actions | Join - Donate | Chapters | Members | Issues | Shop | Privacy | 
RSS | Links | Home
Copyright 1995-2009, All rights reserved. Permission granted for non-commercial use.
National Organization for Women
Abortion and Reproductive Rights
Economic Justice
Ending Sex Discrimination
Lesbian Rights
Promoting Diversity & Ending Racism
Stopping Violence Against Women
