Legal Momentum Briefing Room

Legal Momentum Commemorates Equal Pay Day

The gender pay gap still plagues women nationwide. On average, women workers still earn 77 cents on every dollar their male counterparts make, an income gap that translates to a loss of over $10,000 per year. The gender wage gap is even more striking for women of color: African-American women make 61 cents and Latinas make 52 cents for every dollar white men earn.

April 12th, the 102nd day of the year, is Equal Pay Day, designated as such because women would have to work 102 more days into 2011 to earn what their male counterparts made in 2010 alone.

Today Congress will re-introduce the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that died in committee last November. The Paycheck Fairness Act would strengthen the Equal Pay Act, signed into law by President Kennedy in 1963. While the Equal Pay Act was a major victory for women, it is in dire need of updates to ensure that women have full equality. The Paycheck Fairness Act would give women the same remedies for gender wage discrimination that are now available to victims of discrimination based on race or national origin. It would also bar employers from retaliating against employees for discussing their salaries with each other—a problem that continues to plague many women.

Equal Pay Day reminds us that there is progress to be made when it comes to women’s economic equality – and just in time. While the White House and the Congress have agreed on a the FY 2011 budget, it will soon consider the budget for FY 2012. Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced the GOP 2012 budget plan last week, a blueprint that would further imperil women’s bid for full equality, with severe cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Pell Grants for education and other programs that benefit Americans in poverty – most of whom are women. Indeed, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Ryan’s 2012 budget gets about two-thirds of its $4 trillion in cuts from programs that benefit low-income Americans.

On Equal Pay Day, Congress should reconsider and pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. But future equality also depends on budget that is both balanced and fair to all – a fact that must be remembered as Congress begins to debate the FY 2012 budget.

Learn more about Legal Momentum's work on employment discrimination.

Geraldine Ferraro: Trailblazer and Advocate

Legal Momentum mourns the passing of Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman to run for Vice President on a national party ticket.

Ferraro advocated for women's rights throughout her professional career. In the 1970s, she developed and directed one of the nation’s first Special Victims Bureaus in the Queens Country District Attorney's Office, investigating rape, domestic violence, child abuse and other crimes that predominantly affect women and their families. As a Congresswoman from Queens, Ferraro supported public funding for abortion. She fought for the Equal Rights Amendment and the Pension Equity Act.

As the nominee for Vice President in 1984, Ferraro battled sexism in her characteristically calm and collected manner. In the Vice Presidential debate that year, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush insisted on referring to her as "Mrs. Ferraro" rather than "Congresswoman Ferraro." An excerpt from the debate highlights the Vice President's attempt to undermine his opponent and Congresswoman Ferraro's wry response:

Vice President H.W. Bush: "Let me help you with the difference, Mrs. Ferraro, between Iran and the embassy in Lebanon. Iran: we were held by a foreign government. In Lebanon, you had a wanton, terrorist action where the government opposed it."

Moderator: "Congresswoman Ferraro?"

Congresswoman Ferraro: "Let me just say, first of all, that I almost resent Vice President Bush, your patronizing attitude – that you have to 'teach me' about foreign policy!"

Geraldine Ferraro blazed a trail for American women in politics. Her ability to highlight and combat sexism set an example for the female candidates who followed her. She will be sorely missed.

New Report Highlights Women's Advancements and Persistent Inequities in the United States

In 2009, President Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls to ensure that the federal government provides a coordinated response to women’s issues. In honor of women’s history month, the Council, in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget and the Economics and Statistics Administration, released "Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being," a report analyzing five key issues facing women: demographic and family changes, education, employment, health, and crime and violence.

"Women in America" demonstrates that women have advanced dramatically in American society, particularly in education.  More than ever before, women, from diverse racial and ethnic groups, enroll in institutions of higher education. In 2011, there are more women than men in both undergraduate and graduate schools. Women also have higher graduation rates at all academic levels than men.
Despite this progress, female students score lower than male students in mathematics assessment tests. While science, math and technology careers are dominated by men, women comprise two-thirds of global graduates in the humanities. Gender segregation in career and technical education – the path to jobs in the skilled trades, which lead to occupations with high wages, benefits, and opportunities for professional growth – continues. Legal Momentum's Pipeline Program seeks to address this disparity, forging systemic change in educational institutions to end the long history of gender segregation in these schools and career fields, while increasing the earnings potential and future economic security of low-income women.

Today, women's advances in education do not always translate success in the workforce. The gender pay gap continues: among those working full time, women earn, on average, 80 cents for every dollar men make.

"Women in America" also addresses the impact of criminal activity in American communities. Women are disproportionately affected by certain types of crime, particularly sexual victimization and intimate partner violence.

A recent study by Dr. Dean Kilpatrick of the National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center at the Medical University of South Carolina, Drug-facilitated, Incapacitated and Forcible Rape: A National Study, found that "during the past year alone [2006], over 1 million women in the U.S. have been raped…Our estimates do not appear to support the widely held belief that rape has significantly declined in recent decades."

While sexual violence remains a persistent problem for American women, "Women in America" does note that the rate of nonfatal intimate partner violence against women declined by more than 50 percent between 1994 and 2008. 1994 marked the passage of the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Legal Momentum was instrumental in passing VAWA and has advocated for its subsequent reauthorizations in 2000 and 2005. Since Congress passed VAWA in 1994, law enforcement and justice system officials have become increasingly involved in domestic violence cases, matters which were once perceived to be private concerns. The declining rate of intimate partner violence achieved by VAWA affects not only victims but their children as well. As "Women in America" explains, "Research demonstrates significant adverse impacts on children’s health and developmental well-being as a result of exposure to domestic violence."

"Women in America" finds that while women have achieved significant advances in education and employment, much work remains. Legal Momentum continues to confront the issues facing American women and children, from poverty to sexual violence. Learn more about Legal Momentum.

Legal Momentum Celebrates International Women's Day

March 8th marks the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day, first observed in the 1901, when thousands of women poured into the streets across the world to raise their voices against oppression and inequality. We have made significant progress toward ensuring women's health, safety, and economic security. But much work remains. From a persistent gender pay gap to the gender bias in schools, women and their families remain those hardest hit by the failure of governments across the world to provide adequate social services, especially during economic crises.

Since 1970, Legal Momentum has consistently worked to ensure the economic and personal security of women and girls. Our work includes advocacy and litigation to incorporate principles of international human rights law into United States law to strengthen the human rights of all women. Through amicus curiae briefs and policy advocacy, our work on international human rights law focuses on Congress and the courts. This work includes:

• Advocating for the U.S. government to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), a "women's bill of rights" ratified by over 180 countries. The United States is one of only seven countries in the world that have failed to ratify this landmark international human rights agreement.
• Serving as a member of the New York City Human Rights Initiative, an organization that advocates for Human Rights in Government Operations Audit Law (HR-GOAL), which requires city agencies to examine whether opportunities (including jobs) and services are being fairly distributed to women, people of color and other historically marginalized groups in New York City.
• Submitting several amicus curiae briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Court should consider international human rights law and U.S obligations in considering constitutional questions.

While we celebrate International Women's Day and the enormous achievements and contributions made by women across the world, Legal Momentum also recognizes the critical work that must be done to ensure full equality for all women.

• Read Legal Momentum's full statement in support of CEDAW.
• Learn more about Legal Momentum.

U.S. Women and Their Families Hurt by Lack of Paid Leave and Supportive Services

A new report by Human Rights Watch, "Failing its Families: Lack of Paid Leave and Work-Family Supports in the U.S.," finds that U.S. women desperately need paid leave laws, breastfeeding accommodations, and laws barring discrimination against workers with families. The lack of paid leave and protective laws for workers disproportionately affects women and their children. Many of the working women interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that their careers were derailed as a result of employer bias against women with family responsibilities. Many also recounted problems with postpartum depression and noted that they the lack of workplace breastfeeding accommodations forced them to give up the practice early.

"Failing its Families" demonstrates that existing legal protections do not fully protect working women and their families. The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows U.S. workers with new children or severely ill family members to take unpaid, job-protected leave, but the FMLA covers only half the workforce. Only 11% of civilian workers (and 3% of the lowest-income workers) have paid family leave benefits. Roughly two-thirds of civilian workers have some paid sick leave, but only about a fifth of low-income workers do.  And studies show that the number of employers voluntarily offering paid family leave is declining.

As Legal Momentum has testified, the United States has much less generous parental leave than other rich countries and far less public support for child care. Notably, countries with paid leave policies also have higher levels of economic competitiveness compared to the United States.

Legal Momentum has long advocated for paid leave and workplace family supports. Learn more about Legal Momentum's advocacy for working women.

House Passes Bill Banning All Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood

Today the U.S. House of Representatives voted to deny all federal funding to Planned Parenthood health centers .The Pence Amendment, introduced by Mike Pence (R-IN), bans all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, despite the fact that the vast majority of their services are providing women with birth control, cancer screenings, HIV testing, and other lifesaving care.

It is important to note that the Hyde Amendment already prevents Planned Parenthood from using government funds to provide abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or when a woman's life is in danger. 

Most of the federal money Planned Parenthood receives is through Title X, which pays for pelvic exams, breast exams, safe-sex education, and basic infertility counseling, among other services. Title X money cannot be used to pay for abortions. Abortions made up just 3 percent of the patient services that Planned Parenthood offered in 2008. But Pence doesn't care: "If Planned Parenthood wants to be involved in providing counseling services and HIV testing, they ought not be in the business of providing abortions," the Indiana Representative told POLITICO. "As long as they aspire to do that, I’ll be after them."

Gail Collins of The New York Times points out the glaring hypocrisy of Pence’s legislation:

But here's the most notable thing about this whole debate: The people trying to put Planned Parenthood out of business do not seem concerned about what would happen to the 1.85 million low-income women who get family-planning help and medical care at the clinics each year. It just doesn’t come up. There’s not even a vague contingency plan… There are tens of millions Americans who oppose abortion because of deeply held moral principles. But they’re attached to a political movement that sometimes seems to have come unmoored from any concern for life after birth. (emphasis mine)

These women will have no where to turn for preventative health care. This is not just a women's issue -- it is also a public health issue. 

Please stand with Planned Parenthood to stop the Pence Amendment. Sign Planned Parenthood's open letter to Congress. Contact your Representative and Senators.

Minnesota Republicans Introduce Legislation to Repeal Pay Equity Act

If there was any doubt about whether discrimination against women in the workforce persists, Minnesota Republicans have stepped in to clear up the debate. In a shocking attack against working women, Minnesota Republicans have introduced legislation that would repeal the 1984 Local Government Pay Equity Act (LGPEA), which ensures that women and men are paid the same. HF7/SF159 not only repeals LGPEA, but countless other mandates on local governments, including grants for libraries, regulations on part-time police officers, and agricultural programs for low-income farmers.

The repeal is backed by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, which wrote in a December report on public employee compensation, "State pay equity/comparable worth law should be repealed. Its purpose is outdated, and requiring governments to correct perceived 'errors' in labor markets based on bureaucratic and subjective assessments of the relative value of government jobs is an unnecessary and costly mandate."

This statement couldn’t be further from the truth. A drastic pay gap persists not only in Minnesota, but across the country, where women make only 77 cents for every dollar that men earn. This gap is no small number – it translates to a loss of over $10,000 a year. In Minnesota, women still earn less than men, and the divide is even greater among women of color.  White women earned 76 cents for every dollar that men earn, while Native American women earned 69 cents to the dollar, African American women 61 cents and Hispanic women earned 51 cents to the dollar. These numbers were for all workers in Minnesota, not only workers in the public sector, reported the Women’s Foundation of Minnesota and the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota.

And the Office of Minnesota Management and Budget found that in 2010, there was almost a 10 percent inequity in the wages that women were paid in public sector jobs. The MMB directs municipalities, school districts, counties and other public employers to correct pay differences. "Before the inequities were corrected, the average pay for females in the examples was $16.27 per hour. After adjustments were made, the average pay for females was $17.86 per hour. Prior to the adjustments, females were paid 83% of what males were paid, but after the adjustments, the wage gap narrowed and females were paid 91% of what males were paid," wrote the authors of the report.

This effort by the MMB to correct wage inequities is exactly what Minnesota Republicans are fighting against. This attack is a sharp departure from the state’s legacy of actively working to close the gender pay gape. Indeed, Minnesota was the first state to pass pay equity laws. In 1982, it passed the State Government Pay Equity Act, which covered state employees, and in 1984 the LGPEA was passed to cover all public employees in the state. The law protects the right of cities to give performance raises and pay more to workers who have seniority, but it also says that there cannot be substantial pay differences between jobs held by men and jobs held by women. Each public institution must track the pay of its employees and report the figures to the state every three years. If they fail to report this data or correct any inequities, they risk losing their portion of government aid.

Shannon Drury, president of the Minnesota chapter of the National Organization for Women, said, "Pay equity laws won’t be archaic until pay discrimination ends. As long as discrimination exists, these measures will remain necessary to ensure compliance. Repealing this law takes money out of women’s wallets. It’s that simple."

The introduction of HF7/SF159 comes on the heels of the failure of the Paycheck Fairness Act to pass in the Senate. The act would have helped to close loopholes in the Equal Pay Act with harsher penalties against employers who discriminate against workers on the basis of gender. The Senate’s failure to remedy income inequality is not representative of American voters, 84 percent of whom said they supported such a bill.

The consequences of gender pay disparities are felt within the homes of millions of American women, particularly during these difficult economic times, when many more families depend on female breadwinners. Indeed, women make up half of the workforce, and two-thirds of American families with children depend on this income for survival. "Why the legislature would repeal this measure in such a difficult economic climate is beyond me," said Drury. "Women are now the majority of the American workforce, due in part to the recession’s disproportionate toll on men."

Legal Momentum recently reported about the Census Bureau’s release of five-year data from the American Community Survey (2005 to 2009) that broke down occupational data by gender. The data demonstrates a stark contrast in occupations held by men and women, with many fields highly segregated by gender. On average, the median pay in jobs dominated by men are higher than in those dominated by women, and for jobs held by both men and women, median pay for men almost always exceeds that for women.

Remapping Debate, a non-profit media project dedicated to reporting on domestic public policy issues, graphed the data to highlight gender segregation and pay disparities in the American workforce. Within the highest-paying top 25 occupations for men, women workers made up less than 50 percent of the total workers. In 10 of these occupations, women workers made up less than 20 percent of the total. In 23 of the 25 cases, median earnings of women were less than 90 percent than those of men. And in more than 100 occupations, men are more than 90 percent of the workers.

This data affirms the critical need for Minnesota’s Local Government Pay Equity Act and other legislation across the nation that combats gender pay disparities. Legal Momentum has worked tirelessly to further employment rights, particularly through our Equality Works Program, which uses policy initiatives and impact litigation to challenge discrimination and expand opportunities for women working in historically male-dominated fields such as the skilled trades and firefighting. We strive to strengthen TANF and the social safety net, support job training, and combat workplace discrimination. These initiatives our motivated by our belief that workplace equality is an essential component of ensuring economic security for all women and families. We will continue to fight until all women receive full economic equality.

• Check out the New York Time’s map of the gender pay gap, state by state here.

Authors of “No Tax Payer Funding for Abortions Act” Alter Language of Bill

In response to mass outrage from pro-choice advocates, media pundits, and Democratic politicians, the authors of "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act" have altered the bill's most disturbing language. Under the original version of the bill, federal abortion funding would be limited to victims of "forcible rape." If a woman couldn’t prove she'd been raped by force, her abortion wouldn't be covered, even if she’d been drugged, raped while unconscious, or the victim of incest.

But yesterday morning, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), the lead sponsor of the bill and chair of the House pro-life caucus, announced he would remove the phrase "forcible rape" from the bill. The phrase will be replaced with the same wording used in the Hyde Amendment, a 30-year-old ban on the use of federal funds to finance abortions, renewed yearly. Sponsors hope to make the Hyde Amendment permanent, federal law. "The word forcible will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment," said Jeff Sagnip, a spokesperson for Smith.

This decision comes on the heels of immense protest to the bill's original phrasing, which encouraged the notion that rape is only rape if a woman is physically forced. But in fact, some experts suggest up to 70% of rape victims are not raped by forced. In response to the bill, Legal Momentum wrote, "H.R. 3 only serves to re-victimize rape survivors by forcing them into unwanted pregnancies. It empowers rapists who drug their victims and who rape women while they’re unconscious, and it empowers rapists who rape minors and family members. None of these rapes would count under this bill, unless they used 'force.'"

Despite the phrase change, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act" still includes several provisions that appear to significantly expand federal limits on abortion funding. Indeed, Talking Points Memo writes, "The new version of the bill apparently retains the clause that limits the incest exemption to girls under the age of 18 and language that makes it tougher for women to obtain abortion coverage through their private insurers." Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) said, "Look, my reaction is this is not really changing things that much. This exposed them for what their true intentions are. Now that they're exposed they're trying to put the genie back in the bottle, and it's not going to work." And Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) noted, "It's still a totally flawed bill. I would call it the deepest attack on a woman's right to choose in my lifetime." Indeed, H.R. 3 is yet another tactic in a long campaign to limit abortion rights. As we recently wrote, conservative lawmakers and governors have introduced legislation to limit abortion access in many states across the country. These measures are just stepping stones on the path to achieving anti-choice advocates’ final goal – banning abortion entirely. Any attempt to make abortion less accessible to women is an attempt to eradicate the right to choose completely.

• Learn more about Legal Momentum's work on behalf of women victims of violence.
• Learn more about Legal Momentum's history of work for reproductive rights.

Congress Introduces Bill That Sharply Limits Abortion Coverage for Rape Survivors

According to 174 members of Congress, a "real rape victim" is one who is assaulted by force. Yes, despite the fact that a great many victims - some experts suggest up to 70% - are raped by intoxication or incapacitation, Congress recently unveiled the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" (H.R. 3), a bill that would limit federal abortion funding to victims raped by force.

Federal law already prohibits the use of federal dollars to finance abortions, except for pregnancies that are the result of rape, incest, or pregnancies that endanger the mother's life. But this new legislation, introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and 173 co-sponsors, and considered a top priority for Congress by House Speaker John Boehner, limits the federal abortion funding even further. Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown explained:

Under this new bill, the only rape survivors who would be able to receive funding would be those who were able to prove that their rapes involved "force." If your rapist drugged you, intoxicated you, or raped you while you were unconscious, you don’t get coverage. If your rapist used coercion, you don’t get coverage. If this is a case of statutory rape — that is, if you are a thirteen-year-old child, raped by someone outside of your family — you don’t get coverage. If you’re an incest survivor over the age of eighteen — if, say, years of abuse only culminated in a pregnancy after your nineteenth birthday — you just don’t get coverage.

H.R. 3 also redefines abortion funding for mothers who whose lives are endangered. "Endangerment" now only refers to physical threats. Mental health issues are, yet again, marginalized.

As Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post wrote, "'Forcible rape'? The very concept is offensive on its face. How is that even defined? There is no definition in the bill…rape isn't sex, it's violence. But if a woman or girl gets pregnant through incest or rape (in all ways it is defined or understood) the government should not limit her choice by withholding the funding she could use to end the pregnancy -- if she chooses to do so.”

Mother Jones tells the story of a 13-year-old girl who is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult. Under the bill, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. And because the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, the victim's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. Nor would they be able to deduct the abortion cost or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense. While health insurances costs are typically tax-deductible for employers, under H.R. 3, those that opt for insurance plans that cover abortion will no longer be eligible for the deducation.

H.R. 3 only serves to re-victimize rape survivors by forcing them into unwanted pregnancies. It empowers rapists who drug their victims and who rape women while they’re unconscious, and it empowers rapists who rape minors and family members. None of these rapes would count under this bill, unless they used “force.”

H.R. 3 is yet another tactic in a long campaign to limit abortion rights. Last week, we blogged about anti-choice state governors' efforts to restrict reproductive autonomy.

Make your voices heard by contacting your representatives, especially if they are among the Democrats who have signed on to the bill or Democrats who are likely to speak out against it. But either way, please contact your congressperson – preferably by calling them – and ask them to vote against it. If you’re on Twitter, tweet at Boehner (@SpeakerBoehner) and use the hashtag #DearJohn.

• Learn more about Legal Momentum's work for victims of gender-based violence.
• Learn more about Legal Momentum's history of work on Reproductive Justice and Sexuality and Family Rights.

Health Care Reform Bill Repeal Efforts Represent Attack on Women and Children

This month, Republicans in the House worked feverishly to repeal the health care reform bill that was approved last year by Democrats with no Republican support. While the Democrats have a veto-proof hold on the Senate, the repeal is an immensely symbolic act that demonstrates the Republicans' commitment to pursing their "repeal and replace" strategy. The Republicans’ repeal efforts represent an assault on the health of millions of Americans, particularly women and children who are most aided by the health care bill, and conversely, hardest hit if the Republicans are in fact successful. The current health care bill makes massive strides towards fixing the gaps and inequalities in America's health care system, and contains countless benefits aimed directly at women and youth. These new benefits include:

• 50% of whom delayed seeking medical care because they couldn't afford it, as compared to 39% of men, will now be able to access care.
• Insurance companies can no longer cancel policies when individuals get sick. 
• Insurers can no linger set lifetime and annual limits on the care they will pay for, resulting in a lifetime of medical debt.
• Dependant children can be on their parents' insurance plans up until their 26th birthday.
• Older women receive assistance for paying for prescription drugs that aren’t covered by Medicare drug coverage because of the donut hole.
• Women are able to choose the primary care provider who is best for them and their family.
• All new private health plans in the country must cover a range of preventive health services without any out-of-pocket costs to consumers, such as co-payments or deductibles. The list of these services includes many related to reproductive health, including breast and cervical cancer screening, screening and counseling for HIV and several other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), vaccination for human papillomavirus, numerous aspects of prenatal care, and pediatric care for adolescents that can include reproductive health counseling.
• Insurance companies can no-longer deny coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions.

Raising Women’s Voices, a national initiative addressing the impact of health care reform on women, has warned that repeal of the health care reform bill would:

• Repeal would roll back the promise of more affordable insurance that's easier to obtain for the 4.5 million women who will be newly eligible for Medicaid in 2014 and the 11 million women who will be eligible for tax credits to subsidize the cost of premiums and out-of-pocket costs.
• Repeal would take away the protections that will make it easier for women to find comprehensive health insurance that covers maternity and mental health care by requiring all plans sold to individuals and small employers to cover these essential health benefits.
• Repeal would give insurance companies the green light to continue charging higher rates to women and denying us coverage if we've had breast or cervical cancer, a Cesarean section delivery or received medical treatment for domestic violence.
• Repeal would take away the tax credits that are making it easier for small employers to provide health insurance for their employees, many of whom are women.

Repealing health care would be a devastating blow for advancing the health of all women in this country. Despite the fact that there remain significant steps to protecting both the rights and health of all Americans, the health care bill is a major step towards ensuring that coverage is a right, not a privilege. The health care bill has, and will continue to have, a dramatic impact on the lives of millions of Americans, most notably women and families. We must fight against any measures to repeal the health care bill with the health and well-being of millions of women on our minds.

• Email or call your Representative to ask them to vote NO to all efforts to repeal the health care reform bill. Find your representative here and call 877-667-6650 if you are contacting your representative.