Legal Momentum Briefing Room

Stupak-Pitts Amendment Threatens Women's Health and Reproductive Rights

Legal Momentum has relentlessly advocated for health care reform within the United States.  We believe that all people should have access to affordable, quality health care.  But health care reform should not come at the expense of women’s reproductive rights.  The inclusion of abortion restrictions within the health care legislation passed by the House of Representatives on Saturday represents a serious attack on reproductive rights.  Anti-choice Repulicans forced the inclusion of an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak and Rep. Joseph R. Pitts that directly and negatively impacts women who may seek abortions by severely restricting their insurance options. Under the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, federal insurance subsidies cannot be used to buy insurance plans that offer abortion coverage.  Thus, while insurance companies are not prohibited from providing abortion coverage, they have little incentive to do so because most potential buyers will be unable to purchase them.  Indeed, if insurance companies seek to receive the benefits of subsidized buyers, they cannot simultaneously cover abortions.  In turn, women who seek safe, affordable abortions will face enormous difficulties in obtaining insurance coverage.  The consequences of this will be hardest felt among low-income women who will face high abortion costs and no insurance. 

Anti-choice activists who support the amendment argue that its absence will violate the Hyde Amendment, a 30-year-old ban on the use of federal funds to finance abortions.  However, pro-choice advocates correctly insist that the Hyde Amendment would not be infringed upon, since insurers would have to distinguish between public subsidies and private funding when covering abortions.  Pro-choice activists are not suggesting that subsidies be used for abortion coverage, merely that people should be allowed to remain with their insurance provider and use their own money to fund abortions.  Yet this distinction clearly has not stopped anti-choice Representatives, who were willing to sacrifice the health of millions of Americans in order to push forward their anti-choice beliefs.

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment will negate the central promise of Obama’s health care reform proposals – that nobody will be forced to change from the insurance they now have.  Yet the Stupak-Pitts Amendment dramatically curbs insurance choices for women, thus forcing many to leave the insurance coverage they currently have.  In an interview with ABC News on Monday, Obama discussed his concerns about the amendment, stating that he wants to make sure “we’re not restricting women’s insurance choices,” after he promised that “if you’re happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, it’s not going to change.”

Many pro-choice activists are mounting opposition to the health care legislation, arguing that despite the desperate need for health care reform, they cannot support any legislation that threatens the reproductive rights of women.  It is no question that pro-choice Representatives were presented with an unthinkable decision on Saturday as they faced the possible loss of critical health care reform. But providing affordable quality health care for Americans cannot come at the loss of affordable quality health care for American women.  Many pro-choice organizations have noted that the Stupak-Pitts Amendment will ultimately harm the health care of women.  In a recent statement, Planned Parenthood wrote, “On behalf of the millions of women Planned Parenthood health centers serve, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America has no choice but to oppose HR 3962. The bill includes the Stupak/Pitts amendment that would leave women worse off after health care reform than they are today… As a health care provider, Planned Parenthood is committed to passing health care reform that will guarantee affordable, quality health care coverage for all, including access to comprehensive reproductive health care.”

It is critical that as pro-choice activists we join together to ensure that neither President Obama nor the Senate include the Stupak-Pitts Amendment in the final health care bill.  If the amendment is included, health care legislation will ultimately harm the health of many of the women it is designed to protect.  “American women demand that members of the Senate refuse the political bait which sullied the House vote and protect women’s health. Health care reform is supposed to provide affordable health care coverage to all Americans. Yet for women, this legislation gives with one hand and takes away with the other, forcing millions to buy insurance that does not meet all of their medical needs,” argued the Center for Reproductive Rights.  Indeed, in addition to severely threatening the health of countless American women, the inclusion of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment in final health care legislation would represent the largest attack on reproductive rights in decades.  It is time we stand together to denounce the Stupak-Pitts Amendment for what it really is – an assault on women’s reproductive autonomy.  We will not sacrifice our reproductive rights for health care reform, but instead will continue struggling until we have both – an affordable, quality health care system and full control of over our bodies and our rights. 

The Impact of Immigration Policy on Children

Yesterday Legal Momentum co-hosted a Congressional briefing in the House of Representatives entitled “The Impact of Immigration Policy on Children” in cooperation with Representatives Lynn Woolsey and Lucille Roybal-Allard.   Both Rep. Woolsey and Rep. Roybal-Allard spoke at the briefing about the need for humane and fair enforcement of immigration policies, in particular, those that affect the children of immigrants.  Both Representatives have sponsored legislation to further these goals.  A panel of distinguished experts on the topic spoke, including: Wendy Young of Kids in Need of Defense; Omar Riojas of DLA Piper; Professor David Thronson of the William S. Boyd School of Law of the University of Las Vegas; and Dr. Manuel Casas of the American Psychological Association.  The panel was moderated by Michelle Brane of the Women’s Refugee Commission.

Omar Riojas, an associate at DLA Piper who has represented two immigrant mothers whose parental rights were terminated after they were placed in immigration detention on a pro bono basis, spoke in detail about one of these mothers, Encarnacion Bail.  Encarnacion was placed in immigration detention after a worksite raid in 2007 at which she, and 136 other undocumented workers, were arrested.  Encarnacion asked her brother to care for her young son, Carlos, while she was in detention.  However, in a sequence of events which snowballed from Encarnacion’s separation from her son, Carlos's babysitters ("clergy" of a local church) gave Carlos away to a local family without Encarnacion's consent. That family later petitioned for the adoption of Carlos and in a private adoption preceeding, Encarnacion’s parental rights were terminated without affording her proper due process.  Omar’s moving recount of Encarnacion’s story detailed how the system violated the due process rights of this immigrant mother by unjustly terminating her fundamental right to be a parent by failing to provide her with an opportunity to be notified of court proceedings in her native language or be heard in court.  Encarnacion, who was also present at the briefing, is now fighting to regain custody of Carlos.  Legal Momentum will submit an Amicus Curiae brief in support of the restoration of Encarnacion’s parental rights. 

Legal Momentum has endorsed: the Immigration Oversight and Fairness Act (HR 1215), introduced by Ms. Roybal-Allard, which ensures the safety and fair treatment of unaccompanied minors; and the Human Enforcement and Legal Protections (HELP) for Separated Children Act (HR 3531), introduced by Ms. Woolsey which ensures that certain safeguards are put in place for separated families when immigrant parents are detained, so as to prevent another situation like Encarnacion’s from unfolding.

For Riojas' full testimony about Encarnacion’s plight, click for the full post...

Barriers to Insurance Coverage for Domestic Violence Survivors

On Monday, Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett hosted a webchat to discuss the impact of health insurance reform on disadvantaged communities across America.  Throughout the online session, Jarrett answered a number of questions poised by participants, which often centered on healthcare concerns for domestic violence survivors.  “In some states if you have been a victim of domestic violence, you can be considered as having a pre-existing condition,” noted Jarrett.  Indeed, in Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, and Washington D.C., insurers are able to consider domestic violence a “pre-existing condition,” reports the National Women’s Law Center. The Center also notes that “pre-existing conditions” can include a Caesarean section or medical treatment following an assault.

This disturbing report reinforces the dire need for health care reform.  While American women require more health care than men, they also suffer from the most insurance-related problems and pay more for coverage.  Denying coverage to survivors of sexual assault is yet another devastating health insurance policy that must be corrected.  Punishing survivors by refusing healthcare could have dramatic consequences for survivors in already precarious situations.

 "It infuriates me an insurance executive can sit in his safe world and decide how to make money," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash said. "For them it's all about the bottom line. Abused women don't have a voice." Murray has been trying to raise the issue in Congress for almost a decade without success.  Deeming domestic violence a “pre-existing condition” is proof that our current health insurance system is broken and needs serious and immediate care.  Health care policies should be determined by their effect on human lives, not on financial gain.

Obama Administration Takes Critical Step Towards Granting Domestic Violence Survivors Asylum

In a monumental step towards the protection of domestic violence survivors within our nation’s borders, the Obama administration has recommended political asylum for a Guatemalan woman who escaped from her abusive husband 14 years ago.  On Wednesday, following a prolonged legal battle to remain in the United States, the Department of Homeland Security filed a document in the San Francisco immigration court stating that Rody Alvarado Peña “is eligible for asylum and merits a grant of asylum as a matter of discretion.”  The recommendation represents an indication that the current administration may grant asylum to foreign women seeking protection from domestic violence.  Ms. Alvarado originally fled Guatemala after extensive battering by her husband, a former Guatemalan solider, which included dislocating her jaw, kicking her, beating her in an attempt to cause an abortion, and pistol-whipping her.  She was forced to leave behind her two-children who she has been unable to reunite with since leaving Guatemala.

Originally, Ms. Alvarado was granted asylum by an immigration judge in 1996.  The decision was later overturned by an immigration appeals court in 1999.  Then, in 2001, Attorney General Janet Reno threw out the appeals court decision and proposed regulations to clarify whether domestic violence survivors qualified for asylum. Regulations were never determined and debate on the issue continuously stalled throughout changing administrations.

While the asylum must still be granted by an immigration judge, the government’s recommendation practically ensures Ms. Alvarado’s asylum approval.  Matthew Chandler, spokesman of the Department of Homeland Security, stated that the department “continues to view domestic violence as a possible basis for asylum” and that regulations regarding domestic violence allegations are currently being written.  Ms. Alvarado’s lawyers and supporters hope that Wednesday’s recommendation will set a precedent for other domestic violence survivors to be considered part of a “particular social group” that is able to receive asylum.  Under current law, applicants for asylum and refugee states must present a “well founded fear of persecution” due to their nationality, race, religion, political opinion, or “membership in a particular social group.” 

As applications for asylum are considered confidential, the number of women who have applied, been denied, or received asylum is unknown.  However, domestic violence remains prevalent across the world, and in Ms. Alvarado’s home country alone more than 4,000 women have been killed violently in the last ten years.  Often, women who report abuse in their countries are dismissed by their surrounding communities and local authorities.  These women must be able to find the necessary support and protection within the United States that they are unable to find at home.  To turn desperate women away from the very help they are in search of is inhumane.  Legal Momentum praises the Obama administration on their long-awaited step towards offering a safe haven to battered women across the world.

Politicians Oppose Providing Health Insurance to Legal Immigrants

Legal immigrants pay taxes, have passed intense examinations to obtain legal status, and tend to use public health programs less that citizens. And yet some members of Congress still do not think they should receive the health care benefits that American citizens would if health care reform passes.

 

Today the New York Times published an article discussing the health care reform debate and the effect different pieces of legislation would have on legal and undocumented immigrants. While no one has proposed insurance coverage for  undocumented immigrants, members of Congress are at odds over whether legal immigrants should be included. According to a study by the Migration Policy Institute, certain proposals would exclude coverage for more than one million legal permanent residents and seven million undocumented immigrants. To make matters worse, immigrants not covered by the plans would still be required to purchase insurance (at a higher cost), placing them at an even greater disadvantage.

 

Giving legal residents access to health care is not only the right thing to do for  them, it is the right thing to do for American citizens. Professor Steven P. Wallace, Associate Director of the UCLA research center discussed the fact that providing legal permanent residents health insurance now will save tax payers money in the future: “You can either keep those immigrants healthy now, or exclude them and wait until they get really sick, then pay for it down the line…If you don’t pay now, you’re going to pay for them later.”

 

The entire point of health care reform is to provide coverage to the 46 million people who are currently uninsured, 4.6 million of which are legal immigrants. If they remain uninsured they will rely on costly emergency room visits and increase health care costs for every one, all while paying taxes to support the health care system they are not allowed to benefit from. Providing them with access to the basic human rights they sought when they came to this country should be a priority.

"The Impact of Immigration Policy on Children"

The United States’ immigration enforcement and detention policies are negatively impacting thousands of migrant children every year.  As a result of current policies, children are often prevented from accessing the kind of care and support they desperately need.  Despite fleeing precarious situations in their home countries, including persecution, neglect, and violence, children are often treated as criminals within our nation’s borders.  From enduring detainment in border patrol stations to separation from their parents, these migrant children are often unsafely returned to their countries or placed in foster care, against their parent’s wishes.  When parents are detained, they are unable to appropriately care for their children by making child care arrangements.  Shockingly, some have even lost their parental rights after being unable to participate in family court proceedings because of detainment.  Denying migrant children the very help they have come in search of is both destructive and unacceptable.

Join Legal Momentum for a briefing on “The Impact of Immigration Policy on Children.”  This event is brought to you in conjunction with Representative Lynn C. Woolsey, Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard, First Focus, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and the Women’s Refugee Commission.

Speakers will include:

- J. Manuel Casas, PhD: American Psychological Association
- David Thronson, Esq.:, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Las Vegas
- Wendy Young, Esq.,: Kids in Need of Defense
- Moderated by Michelle Brané of the Women’s Refugee Commission

The Impact of Immigration Policy on Children
Thursday, November 5, 2009
11:00am-12:00pm
121 Cannon
Please RSVP to emilybu@wrcommission.org

 

 

 

Essential Hate Crimes Prevention Bill To Become Law

Legal Momentum commends the US Senate's final passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.  On October 22nd, the Senate passed the bill more than ten years after it was originally introduced.  This new legislation is a critical step towards ensuring equal protection

Lisalyn Jacobs, Vice President for Government Relations for Legal Momentum commented, "Legal Momentum fought for over a decade to see the law broadened to encompass hate crimes committed because of gender, gender identity, as well as disability and sexual orientation. We applaud the President and the members of Congress who, in enacting this landmark legislation, recognize that just as all people have the right to be free of bias crimes motivated by race, religion and national origin, individuals should be able to live free of violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity as well."

Michael B. Keegan, president of People for the American Way, correctly noted that "Each year, thousands of Americans become victims of violent crimes because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability" and that the bill "is a key victory for the LGBT community and all those concerned with equality across the country."  Under the new law, the definition of a hate crime will be significantly expanded to include crimes motivated by the victim's actual or perceived gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.  Law enforcement officials will also receive greater funding and support for the investigation, prosecution, and protection against hate crimes.

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act is an essential measure towards ending hate violence across our nation.   Hate crimes terrorize not only the victim but the surrounding community, specifically those who may posses similar characteristics.  By encouraging a culture of fear, hate crimes work to silence and intimidate individuals. While there remains much work to be done, Legal Momentum celebrates the passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

New U.S. Crime Reports: Flawed Methodology Sharply Underestimates Rape Rates Against Women and Persons with Disabilities

By Lynn Hecht Schafran and Jillian Weinberger

The U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) recently released two new reports:  Crime Against Persons with Disabilities, 2007 and Female Victims of Violence, 2008. While we applaud the BJS for producing critically needed research on these populations, because of flawed methodology these new reports sharply underestimate the number of rape victims among persons with disabilities and women in the general population. Accurate data are essential to every aspect of rape and sexual assault: prevention, victim services, concerns of special populations, media reporting, public education and the justice system’s response. Studies published by the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics enjoy particular legitimacy with the media and the public, so it is essential that they be accurate. Following the research methodologies utilized by experts in the field of rape/sexual assault surveys would yield the accurate data we need in BJS studies.

Victim in High Profile Sexual Harassment Case Dies Days Before Trial

Last week, Bianca Wisniewski died in a fire that ravaged her Flushing apartment.  Her death may have gone unnoticed had it not occurred on the very day she was due in federal court for the hearing of her $20 million sexual harassment lawsuit.  Months earlier, Wisniewski had filed the lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase and her employer, Total Safety Consulting, asserting that she had been sexually harassed by a male construction coworker, Steve Greco.  When Wisniewski, a construction safety coordinator in a business with few women, reported the harassment to her bosses, they simply replaced her with a new male safety coordinator.  The lawsuit claims that in addition to ignoring and then replacing Wisniewski, JPMorgan Chase also knew of similar accusations against Greco by another female worker.

Yet her employer’s actions are only a part of the offensive and retaliatory measures taken in response to Wisniewski’s allegations.  What may be most appalling aside from Wisniewski’s suspicious death is the media’s reaction to her lawsuit.  Mocking Wisniewski, the Daily News wrote, “Working construction is great, but what's even greater is getting $20 million because some creep tried to give me a kiss. I'm so happy I'm writing a book about it called "Hitting the Sex-Harassment Lottery." The mockery of sexual harassment accusations is deplorable and insupportable.  Persecution and shunning of individuals who speak out about sexual harassment creates a climate of fear and intolerance, making it even more difficult for them to speak out about an already sensitive topic. 

Fortunately, the Daily News’ harassment did not silence Wisniewski, who bravely persisted in speaking out on behalf of all working women.  Her lawsuit challenged the far too common sexual harassment that occurs within the workplace, particularly among male-dominated industries such as the construction business. The investigation of Wisniewski’s death must be taken seriously.  Ultimately, time will disclose the specifics of Ms. Wisniewski’s death.  But what remains clear is that accusations of sexual harassment must be treated seriously and without retaliatory actions or comments.  Although Wisniewski’s voice has now been silenced, the issues she spoke out against remain gravely important.

Recession Bolsters Necessity to Improve TANF Policies

Social safety nets like Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) are developed to help families facing difficulties, and should be designed to increase assistance when people need it most. Unfortunately, in the case of TANF, the goal is far from the reality.

 

On October 8^th the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support held a hearing on TANF titled “Safety Net’s’ Response to the Recession.” Legal Momentum staff attorney Tim Casey submitted testimony outlining fundamental flaws in TANF, which is the main social safety net program serving poor women and children in America.

 

Two reports recently released by Legal Momentum, Meager And Diminishing Welfare Benefits Perpetuate Widespread Material Hardship For Poor Women And Children and The Bitter Fruit Of Welfare Reform: A Sharp Drop In The Percentage Of Eligible Women And Children Receiving Welfare highlight the inadequacies of the current TANF system.

 

Meager Benefits examines the plight of families who are receiving support from TANF. Unfortunately, the data shows that the real value of benefits has declined in all but four states, down 20% or more in 28 states, and 17% on average. In every single state TANF benefits are far below the official poverty guideline.

 

The Bitter Fruit report, on the other hand, discusses those families who are eligible for TANF but are not receiving benefits. Not only did the number of eligible families receiving assistance decline from 84% in 1995 to 40% in 2005, but in 2008 the “number of poor children was more than four times the number of children receiving TANF, and the number of extremely poor children almost twice the number of children receiving TANF.” Unfortunately, just when people need it most, TANF participation has continued to decline during the recession relative to the number of poor families.

 

Congress needs to adjust TANF regulations in order to help needy families through the recession. For example, the 60 month lifetime limit for recipients is problematic even when there are jobs available. In particularly difficult times when the unemployment rate is high it is necessary for Congress to suspend termination of benefits based on length of assistance.

 

TANF needs to be changed to address the needs of poor families both during the recession and after the economy has begun to improve. With so many families on the edge, we cannot afford a safey net with so many holes.

 

To read Legal Momentum’s testimony,click here.