Legal Momentum Briefing Room

It's a Woman's Nation -- Now What Are We Going to Do About It???

A new report, spear-headed by Maria Shriver, in collaboration with the Center for American Progress, brings together big thinkers to answer a big question: now that women have come to comprise at least half of America's workforce, what does that mean for the country as a whole?

The report does not limit itself to economics, but sets out to illustrate just how many social institutions -- like work, education, health care, childcare, family life, to name a few -- are impacted by this new reality. Most importantly, it illustrates just how many of them are failing to adapt.

Heather Boushey and Ann O'Leary explain:

Although our report is titled “A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything,” this is not just a woman’s story. This is a report about how women becoming half of workers changes everything for men, women, and their families. The Rockefeller/Time nationwide poll, conducted in early September as the chapters of the report were being finalized, finds that the battle of the sexes is over and is replaced by negotiations between the sexes about work, family, household responsibilities, child care, and elder care. Yet, while men generally accept women working and making more money, men and women both express concern about kids left behind. Whose job is it? Men and women agree that government and business are out of touch with the realities of how most families live and work today. Families need more flexible work schedules, comprehensive child care policies, redesigned family and medical leave, and equal pay. The aim of this report is to take this conversation up to the national level, to engage men and women in thinking about what this new reality means for our vision of ourselves, our families, our communities, and the government, social, and religious institutions around us.

More analysis to come over the next few days...In the mean-time, visit A Woman's Nation for the full report.

Oklahoma Law Infringes Upon Reproductive Autonomy

In an appalling new attack on reproductive rights, an Oklahoma law to take effect next month will require physicians to provide detailed information on their patients’ abortions to the State’s Department of Health.  The information will then be posted on a public website.  Doctors who do not provide the information could lose their medical license or face criminal sanctions.  The collected data will include:

- Date of abortion
- County in which abortion is performed
- Age of mother
- Marital status of mother
- Race of mother
- Years of education of mother
- State or foreign country of residence of mother
- Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother

Because the “Annual Abortion Report” does not require disclosure of the patient’s name, the Department of Health has repeatedly insisted that the law does not threaten a woman’s privacy.  Yet, the highly personal information that is reported “could easily be used to identify any member of a smaller community,” argues Feminists for Choice.  In recognition of the political implications of the law, Former state Rep. Wanda Jo Stapleton, D-Oklahoma City, and Shawnee resident Lora Joyce Davis have filed a lawsuit challenging the bill.  The lawsuit argues that the law violates the state’s constitution by: “1) redefining various abortion-related terms used in state law; 2) banning sex-selective abortion; 3) creating reporting requirements; and 4) creating new duties for the Oklahoma State Department of Health, Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision, and state Board of Osteopathic Examiners.”

The law not only threatens abortion rights, but it will also cost taxpayers.  The public website will cost $281,285 the first year and $256,285 each subsequent year, coming at a time when Oklahoma is already struggling to survive a budget crisis.  “As taxpayers of this state, we expect our representatives to follow the state Constitution, not pick and choose what measures suit them, then pass unconstitutional legislation that shortchanges their constituents by a quarter of a million dollars," Stapleton said.  Stapleton and Davis have joined forces with the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), who previously sued, and won, against another Oklahoma law which would force a woman seeking an abortion to undergo a mandatory ultrasound in which the doctor would describe the fetus to her.  The “Annual Abortion Report” reflects yet another attempt to provide obstacles to women seeking abortions. 

The law’s restriction of abortions that are based on discovery of the fetus’ gender are particularly damaging to women’s ability to obtain abortions, argues Jennifer Mondino, a staff attorney at the CCR. "The sex-selective bans in effect limit access to abortion because it may chill doctors from providing the service. It's difficult for a doctor to determine the reason why a woman is having an abortion. So it's yet another hurdle for doctors who are simply trying to provide a legal safe service. The legislature has chosen to pass this law rather than doing something that may actually combat a problem that may or may not exist in Oklahoma."

The abortion restrictions in Oklahoma have profound implications for the state of reproductive rights in our nation at large.  Indeed, "Oklahoma serves as a sort of test case for new and extreme anti-choice legislation, and others in the anti-choice movement will watch what happens in that state to see if some strategy is successful,” explains Modino.  As pro-choice activists, we must fight the implementation of this law, along with all future attempts to prevent abortion through measures that erode women’s privacy and reproductive autonomy. 

For more information on Oklahoma’s new law, check out “Abortion Bill is Challenged” and “Oklahoma Abortion Law: Details to Be Publicly Posted Online.”

EEOC Holds Employer Accountable for Discriminating Against DV Victim

On October 5, 2009, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a female employee who was fired from her job because she got a restraining order against her former boyfriend, who was also a co-worker.  Apparently, when she told her employer that she obtained the order of protection because her ex had hit her, the employer asked her to change the order so the ex could keep working at the company.  When she refused, she was fired.  She filed a complaint with the EEOC, and after an investigation, the EEOC decided to sue the employer for sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII. 

 

Unfortunately these types of situations happen more than you think.  Every week we receive calls from women whose jobs are threatened, or who lose their jobs, because of the violence against them, whether it’s domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.  In fact, Legal Momentum has represented women who were fired from their jobs after obtaining orders of protection in response to threats or actual violence by co-workers or clients of the employer. 

 

That’s why EEOC’s decision to file a lawsuit is significant.  It strengthens the argument that firing someone because she’s a victim of violence, or because she obtained court order to protect herself from violence, can be a form of sex discrimination in violation of the law.  It also highlights the difficulties faced by employees who are brave enough to challenge actions by employers who blame them -- instead of the perpetrator -- for the abuse and its effects in the workplace.  People shouldn’t have to choose between keeping a job and keeping safe.

 

Link to EEOC release: http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-5-09.html

 

Link to EHRSA: http://www.legalmomentum.org/our-work/domestic-violence/

 

 

Lawmakers Focus on Fraying Social Safety Net

Recognizing the desperate need for a safety net for struggling families, the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support of the House Committee on Ways and Means held a hearing today on “The ‘Safety Net’s’ Response to the Recession.” The subcommittee overseas the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Unemployment Compensation (UC) programs.  As job employment rates rise, poor families are experiencing increasing difficulties making ends meet.  These families cannot hold out until the recession is over – they need help now.  Yet, TANF has become dramatically less accessible since its inception in 1996 due to restrictive eligibility policies that prevent those in need from gaining assistance.

In testimony before the Subcommittee, LaDonna Pavetti, the Director of the Welfare Reform and Income Support Division of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities described the “lack of responsiveness” to TANF, noting that “Many states have policies and procedures that make it difficult both for eligible applicants to get benefits and for recipients to continue receiving benefits even if they continue to be eligible.”  Pavetti outlined a number of steps towards improving TANF accessibility that will confront rising poverty rates amidst a vulnerable U.S. economy.

Ismael Ahmed, the Director of the Michigan Department of Human Services expanded upon Pavetti’s arguments, describing the limitations of the TANF work participation rate requirement.  The work participation rate requirement does not include basic adult education, English as a Second Language, or high school completion for adults as a required “core” activity.  Because of this, Michigan was unable to meet the rate requirement.  Pavetti recommended that the definition of core activities be expanded and that the work participation rate requirement be less stringent in order to provide “better and more efficient ways to serve Michigan’s most vulnerable children, and adults and families.”

Both Pavetti and Ahmed’s testimonies reflect the critical need for revamping TANF.  It is not sufficient to continue funding for the program – it must be implemented in a more effective and accessible manner. America’s low-income families desperately need an efficient safety net,now more than ever.  Indeed, “Even as our economy shows signs of turning the corner, we know that many of our fellow citizens are hurting.  Recovery will take time, and that means we need a good safety net now more than ever.  We should continue to build on the historic steps in the Recovery Act to ensure basic assistance for all those who are struggling to make ends meet,” stated Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA), the chair of the Committee.

To submit a written statement for consideration by the Subcommittee and for inclusion in the record of the hearing, go to http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=8079

Legal Momentum Applauds Senator Franken’s Amendment to Guarantee Sexual Assault Victims Their Day in Court

In 2005, a 19-year-old Halliburton/KBR Contractor named Jamie Leigh Jones was drugged, gang raped by her coworkers in Iraq, and imprisoned in a shipping container for 24 hours without food or water when she tried to report the assault. Halliburton/KBR stationed security guards outside the shipping container and warned Jones that she would lose her job if she left Iraq for medical treatment.   

Through a sympathetic security guard, Jones contacted her father who, with the help of their congressmen, sent agents from the American Embassy in Iraq to free his daughter. Though Army doctors who examined Jones stated that she had been anally and vaginally raped, her rape kit “disappeared” in the hands of KBR security officers.  

The Justice Department declined to investigate the case and a fine-print clause in Jones’s KBR contract barred her from pressing criminal charges in U.S. courts.  Instead, Jones’s contract mandated arbitration – with an arbiter approved by KBR - in secret, with no right to an appeal.

After 15 months in arbitration, Jones took KBR to court to fight the company’s mandatory arbitration policy. In September, the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in her favor, stating that her allegations were not related to her employment with Halliburton/KBR and therefore not subject to arbitration. 

To ensure that no other women would have to endure the emotionally brutal and unjust process that Jones faced, Senator Al Franken (D-MN) introduced an amendment to the FY2010 Defense Appropriations Bill that would prohibit contracting with defense companies that force their employees into mandatory binding arbitration in sexual assault cases. 61 organizations, including Legal Momentum, endorsed Senator Franken’s amendment. On October 6, the Senate passed the amendment by a vote of 68-30.  

Legal Momentum applauds Senator Franken and his Senate colleagues for recognizing the importance of granting sexual assault victims their day in court. All sexual assault victims struggle with the decision to report their abuse, fearing traumatic police investigations and court procedures. Victims like Jamie Leigh Jones, who courageously told and retold her story, should be encouraged to report assault for their safety and their community’s safety. Mandatory arbitration shrouds these cases in secrecy, hiding the victims who bravely decide to report and retraumatizing them through an unjust process.   

The House has yet to vote on their FY 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill. Legal Momentum encourages them to pass the Bill with Senator Franken’s amendment intact.

For more information:

• Read Senator Franken’s press release on the amendment.
• Read Jamie Leigh Jones's harrowing story from ABC News.
• Read the opinion of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Jones v. Halliburton.
• Read Maiming the Soul: Judges, Sentencing, and the Myth of the Nonviolent Rapist, which prosecutors and parole/probation still use to inform judges about the lasting impact of rape of any kind, by Legal Momentum's National Judicial Education Program Director Lynn Hecht Schafran.

Safety Net Reform Must Improve Poor Families' Access to Help

Following Obama’s declaration on Monday that his administration would “explore additional options to promote job creation,” his economic team is now deciphering exactly what these options will look like.  Focusing on rising unemployment, the team is considering plans to further extend unemployment insurance and additional funds (a stimulus extension) to spur job growth. While job creation is critical for recovery, any additional economic recovery legislation must also take into account the widespread hardship faced by poor families and children, whose numbers are growing at alarming rates.

 In our report, “The Bitter Fruit of Welfare Reform: A Sharp Drop in the Percentage of Eligible Women and Children Receiving Welfare,” Legal Momentum revealed that poor families have struggled to access Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Of those eligible, only 40% of families are receiving TANF assistance, down from 84% in 1996. 

“As a national priority, we must reinvigorate TANF, and ensure that America's poor families have a meaningful safety net and a true stepping stone to economic security,” argues Irasema Garza, the President of Legal Momentum.  Poor families are in desperate need of assistance and an effective safety net is a necessary step towards providing the support these families need.

For more on Obama’s discussions on a safety net, check out “Obama Aides Act to Fix Safety Net.”

Roman Polanski and the Myth of the Nonviolent Rapist

On October 1^st, “The Joy Behar Show” featured a debate about Roman Polanski’s recent arrest for fleeing sentencing after vaginally, anally and orally raping a 13-year old girl he had drugged. Behar’s guests highlighted a key barrier to securing justice for rape victims:  the widely held but deeply mistaken belief that unless the victim violently resisted a brutal attack, what she suffered wasn’t really rape.

John Farr, an entertainment writer who called for leniency for Polanski on Huffington Post, stated, “I think that there is a difference between statutory rape and classic rape where there’s violence …where someone is forcibly and violently pinned down and is struggling violently….”

Jane Floyd, a criminal defense attorney who said she didn’t understand why anyone who wasn’t Polanski’s defense attorney would be defending him now, spoke of people’s reactions to what they think of as “stranger, violent rape” as opposed to the reality of sexual assault. “Rape is a crime of violence. And this is something I think to this day men -- many men, not all men – do not understand.  It is a crime of violence.  And they don’t think of it – many men do not – in that way – and that’s part of the problem in discussing this case.”

Health Insurance Reform: More Important for Women?

Health insurance reform could have a dramatic effect on American women, who are most in need of quality health care and are also the most vulnerable to insurance-related problems, including insufficient coverage.  On the heels of Michelle Obama’s speech regarding the substantial impact of health care on women, a flurry of debate erupted in last week’s Senate Finance Committee meeting regarding her comments.  At the meeting, Senator Kyl, a Republican from Arizona, argued that he should not be required to pay premiums to his insurance company for the financing of maternity care, considering the fact that he himself does not need this care.  Senator Kyl’s statement is indicative of the discriminatory approach towards women’s health that exists within the current health insurance system, an approach that must be changed.

Due to maternity care and family planning, women need more health care than men.  The average American woman alone spends around 30 years using family planning in efforts to avoid pregnancy.  Consequently, women generally pay more than men for health insurance in all but 10 states where gender rating is illegal.  But women do not only use health care, they also provide it – women bear the weight of childbirth, family planning, childcare and care-giving to sick, disabled, and elderly family members (over 59% of informal caregivers are women). 

Yet, at the same time that women pay more for health care and are largely responsible for providing care, they are also the ones most significantly impacted by insurance-related problems.  On average, women earn less income than men and often obtain insurance through their husband’s employer.  Thus, when these husbands lose their jobs or switch to Medicare, wives lose their coverage too.  A recent study by the Commonwealth Fund found that “In 2007, more than half (52%) of women reported problems accessing needed care because of cost and 45% of women accrued medical debt or reported problems with medical bills.”  Additionally, female-headed households also filed over half of all bankruptcies related to medical costs in 2007.

These troubling statistics further reinforce the urgent need for health care reform.  American women suffer severely under the current health insurance system and their medical and financial difficulties are worsened by the ongoing recession. Proposed reforms to the health care system must take the impact of women’s consumption and provision of health care into serious consideration.

Check out Nancy Folbre's  “Health Care Reform is a Woman’s Issue”  at the Economix Blog of NYTimes.com for more information.

Reproductive Health in Cross Hairs During Healthcare Debate

New healthcare legislation could have a devastating impact on American women seeking safe and affordable abortions.  In yet another impediment in the ongoing health care debate, abortion opponents in the House and Senate are fighting against federal insurance subsidies used to purchase health care that covers abortion costs.  Abortion rights opponents are threatening to block any health care bill that does not include abortion restrictions, citing the Hyde Amendment, a 30-year-old ban on the use of federal funds to finance abortions.  Pro-choice congressional leaders argue that proposed health care bills do not infringe upon the ban, because insurers must distinguish between public subsidies and private funding, allowing only the latter to fund abortions.  Yet abortion opponents insist this is an arbitrary demarcation, one that continues to allow for abortion funding to come directly from taxpayer money.

Reproductive rights would suffer a critical blow if a bill passes which prohibits using federal subsidies for abortion coverage.  Indeed, “Private insurers would stop covering abortion because those plans would be excluded from the federally subsidized programs… women who already have this coverage would lose it,” argues Nancy Kennan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.  Such a ban would threaten women’s ability to make decisions regarding their own reproductive health, as those seeking abortions would face enormous obstacles in even finding a provider.  Insurance plans that allow for privately funded abortions do not increase abortion rates, yet denying federal funding for these insurers severely undermines women’s reproductive autonomy.  Blocking the funding of these insurers furthers an anti-abortion agenda and threatens the health and reproductive rights of millions of American women.

 Read “Abortion Fight Complicates Debate on Health Care” for more information about this debate.

Legally Present Immigrant Women Lacking Quality, Affordable Health Care

Today, many legally present immigrant women and children lack access to quality affordable health care and remain largely uninsured due to immigration status. Immigrant women and children who are lawfully present in the United States are often forced to wait five years until they can access affordable health care via Medicaid, with the exception of emergency Medicaid. 

As a result legal immigrant women cannot access pre-natal care or health care for injuries and treatment following rape, sexual assault and domestic violence that is not strictly considered emergency health care. Imposing verification requirements in the health care setting will result in denials and delays in receiving health care for eligible legal immigrant women.  The children of immigrant women face similar barriers.  Young low-income children of immigrants are twice as likely as low-income children of US born women: (1) to be uninsured; (2) to be reported in “fair or poor health” and; (3) to lack a “usual source of health care.”

In order to address the crisis facing legally resident families, Legal Momentum, along with advocates around the country, are proposing that Health Care Reform legislation include the following provisions: