Legal Momentum Briefing Room

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which wrote in a December report on public employee compensation, "State pay equity/comparable worth law should be repealed. Its purpose is outdated, and requiring governments to correct perceived 'errors' in labor markets based on bureaucratic and subjective assessments of the relative value of government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.

Conservative Legislators Attack Abortion Rights

On the heels of their victory in the November midterm elections, conservative legislators are pressing forward with their campaign to severely limit abortion rights. Several lawmakers are working on, or have already introduced, bills that attack women’s reproductive autonomy, including banning most abortions at 20 weeks after conception, forcing women considering abortions to view a live ultrasound of the fetus, and preventing insurance coverage of abortions.

In both Florida and Kansas, where previous governors vetoed anti-abortion measures, legislators are reintroducing bills to their newly instated, anti-choice governors. “I call on the Legislature to bring to my desk legislation that protects the unborn, establishing a culture of life in Kansas,” said Gov. Sam Brownback in his first State of the State message. There are now 29 governors considered to be strongly anti-abortion, compared with 21 last year. Similarly, in 15 states, compared with 10 last year, both the legislature and the governor are anti-abortion, including larger states like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Georgia and Oklahoma.

Pro-choice advocates are taking notice of these measures, and have called this “the best climate for passing pro-life laws in years." Ted Miller, a spokesman for NARAL Pro-Choice America, called the new anti-choice governors worrisome, because they “have been the firewall, they’ve vetoed a lot of bad anti-choice legislation."

These measures are just stepping stones on the path to achieving anti-choice advocates’ final goal – banning abortion completely. We must understand that any attempt to make abortion less accessible to women is an attempt to eradicate the right to choose completely. Reproductive autonomy is a fundamental human right.  The welfare of all women and children is based on the ability of women to access safe, quality health care, including reproductive health care services. As with other attacks on access to healthcare, prohibiting women’s access to abortions disproportionately affects low-income women. If not challenged, these bills will have real life consequences for countless women. We must stand together to fight against the passage of these bills, along with all future attacks on our constitutional right to reproductive freedom.

• Learn more about Legal Momentum's history of work on Reproductive Justice and Sexuality and Family Rights.

Social Safety Net Must Be Bolstered, Not Cut

"In 2008, the number of Americans living in poverty rose by 1.7 million to nearly 47.5 million. While hugely painful, that rise wasn’t surprising given the unraveling economy. What is surprising is that recent census data show that those poverty numbers held steady in 2009, even though job loss worsened significantly that year," wrote the New York Times editorial board last week.

This trend is the result of the strengthened social safety net, which provided millions of Americans with desperately needed assistance in 2009. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that government intervention, bolstered by the stimulus package, kept 4.5 million people above the poverty line in 2009 who would otherwise have fallen into poverty. These interventions came in the form of federal jobless benefits, tax credits for workers, and a strengthened food stamp program, among many others.

While these numbers are expected to be fairly similarly for 2010, a year which saw the same assistance offered as in 2009, the future doesn't look so bright. Federal aid is being drastically cut, as Republicans blocked the extension of a successful stimulus program that had created 250,000 subsidized jobs for young people and low-income parents.

Republicans were determined to renew the Bush tax cuts for the rich while simultaneously insisting that the stimulus was an expensive failure. The result of this pressure from the Republicans was an extension of federal jobless benefits in 2011, but in a drastically weaker form. Checks will be $25 less a week than before, potentially resulting in 175,000 more people falling into poverty in 2011. The Times writes:

"Clearly, the sheer scale of poverty — 15.7 percent of the country’s population — is unacceptable. But to keep millions more Americans from falling into poverty during a deep recession is a genuine accomplishment that holds a vital lesson: the safety net, fortified by stimulus, staved off an even more damaging crisis.

Congress should take a good look at those numbers, and consider that lesson carefully, before it commits to any more slashing and burning."

While Americans from all walks of life make up the 47.5 million people now in poverty, it is women and children who have been the hardest hit by the economic crisis. Adult women were thirty two percent more likely to be poor than adult men in 2009, with a poverty rate of 13.9% compared to the 10.5% rate for men. 16.4 million adult women were poor, compared to 11.7 million adult men. More than one in five children lived in poverty, one in three for African American children. A report by Legal Momentum, entitled "Reading Between the Lines: Women's Poverty in the United States, 2009," details this disparity.

Despite the enormous assistance provided by federal aid in assisting Americans, the safety net is not working as well as it should. Indeed, those most in need are often unable to access government assistance. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the main federal welfare program, has repeatedly failed to serve as a safety net for many of these individuals. Last January, Legal Momentum wrote:

"The number of persons receiving TANF increased just 12% over the first twenty two months of the recession, rising from 3,833,449 in December 2007 (excluding Michigan) to 4,286,905 in September 2009 (excluding Michigan). This 12% TANF increase was far less than the growth in the real need for assistance implied by the increase over this same twenty two month period of 35% in the number of Food Stamp recipients (from 27.56 million to 37.18 million) and of 96% in the unemployment rate (from 5.0% to 9.8%). Even before the recession began, TANF was reaching only a minority of eligible families and an even smaller minority of poor families."

Indeed, despite the desperate need for assistance, Americans are often unable to access the very help they require. Last December, Legal Momentum and the Institute for Policy Studies released a report, "Battered by the Storm: How the Safety Net Is Failing Americans and How to Fix It," which argues that despite the continued rise of the economic crisis, America's social safety net is not sufficiently supporting Americans in need. TANF has barely increased since the onslaught of the recession, and even programs that have expanded, such as unemployment insurance, still fail to assist nearly half of the unemployed. Federal action must be taken to make TANF, along with all other social assistance programs, more accessible and responsive at such a critical time. As poverty rises, social safety nets must be in place to help all in need, particularly women and children.

14.5 million people are still out of work, and 6 million of them have been jobless for more than six months. The social safety net must be expanded and improved, not cut. This safety net is the only reason why more Americans did not fall into poverty in 2009 and 2010 and it is a critical component of keeping millions afloat during these devastating times. Indeed, the New York Times editorial concludes, “President Obama must explain to the American people that the country needs to continue relief and recovery efforts, especially programs to create jobs. Without that, tens of millions of Americans stuck in poverty will have little hope of climbing out — and many more could join their ranks.”

• To learn more about Legal Momentum’s work to strengthen the social safety and reform TANF, click here.
• To read Legal Momentum’s report, "Reading Between the Lines: Women's Poverty in the United States, 2009," click here.
• To read Legal Momentum’s report, "Battered by the Storm: How the Safety Net is Failing Americans and How to Fix It," click here.

Maternal Mortality Rates Decline, Direct Result of Improved Access to Health Care and Social Services

For the first time in decades, maternal death rates have significantly declined. Rates decreased 34% from 1990 to 2008. In 1990, an estimated 546,000 women died from complications during pregnancy and childbirth, while 358,000 women died from the same causes in 2008. The data, released in a new report, "Trends in Maternal Mortality," was published in the medical journal, The Lancet.

The study, which analyzed maternal mortality in 181 countries from 1980 to 2008, ultimately accumulated around three times as much data as previous researchers had found. Researchers used all available material from countries, including death records, censuses, surveys and published studies. They cited a number of reasons for the declining rates, including lower pregnancy rates in some countries; higher income, which directly relates to better nutrition and access to health care; more education for women; and more "skilled attendants" to help women give birth.

Progress rates varied significantly among poor and wealthy countries, even rising in some locations. Six countries made up more than half of all the maternal deaths in 2008: India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Sub-Saharan Africa held the highest maternal death rates. And while the maternal death rate dropped 8.8 percent in the Maldives from 1990 to 2008, the figure rose 5.5 percent in Zimbabwe.

Dr. Christopher J. L. Murray, an author of the study and the director of the institute for health metrics and evaluation at the University of Washington, said that one of the major factors in rising mortality rates in Africa is AIDS. The study’s finding show about 60,000 pregnant women died from AIDS. "Really to a large extent that’s why maternal mortality is rising in eastern and southern Africa," Dr. Murray said. "It means, to us, that if you want to tackle maternal mortality in those regions, you need to pay attention to the management of H.I.V. in pregnant women. It’s not about emergency obstetrical care, but about access to antiretrovirals."

Thus, despite remarkable progress in declining maternal death rates, maternal mortality remains a pressing issue. The World Health Organization still reports about half a million maternal deaths a year. Indeed, many advocates of women’s health fear that the news will remove urgency from their cause. "People who have spent many years committed to the issue of maternal health were understandably worried that these figures could divert attention from an issue that they care passionately about," said Dr. Richard Horton, The Lancet's editor.

The new data demonstrates that a decline in maternal mortality is directly linked to increased attention to women's health. For example, In India, women are paid to get prenatal care and skilled care for delivery. Nepal provides home visits for family planning and Malawi is training non-physicians to perform emergency Caesarean sections. Brazil was able to reduce the under five death rate by 4.8 percent each year since 1990 because of direct efforts to offer health care to all people, regardless of economic status. All Brazilians are given free primary care and skilled attendance at birth.

The study argues that politicians must give more funds to pregnancy-related health matters. "We know this global problem can be solved even in the poorest countries," said Dr. Flavia Bustreo, the Director of the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn & Child Health at the World Health Organization. "It will take commitment of donors and recipient countries, and considerable ingenuity. We are seeing that Malawi, Nepal, Brazil, and Rwanda are making progress in saving the lives of women and children."

Thus, the decreasing rates of maternal mortality are a result of increased attention and action to provide women with better social services and health care. Adequate health care is a critical step towards ensuring healthy, safe, and productive lives for women and their families.

High School Cheerleader Dismissed From Squad After Refusing to Cheer for Her Rapists

In 2008, a sixteen-year-old cheerleader reported that she was raped by a basketball player at her school. The girl, known as H.S., said that she was at a party when Rakheem Bolton and a fellow athlete pushed her into a bedroom and locked the door. They proceeded to sexually assault her. Bolton was arrested, but not charged.

Instead of advocating for the victim and working to create a safe educational environment, officials at H.S.'s school encouraged her to avoid the cafeteria and homecoming so as not to raise attention to the issue. But she declined to take part in the school officials' "out of sight, out of mind" approach, and instead refused to cheer for Bolton. She sat on the sidelines while her teammates cheered "Two, four, six, eight, ten, come on, Rakheem, put it in." She was dismissed from the team for her actions. "As a team, I cheered for them as a whole. When he stepped up to the free-throw line, it didn't feel right for me to have to cheer for him after what he did to me," she said.

Bolton eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor assault charge, and H.S.'s family sued the school district for inhibiting free speech. But the suit was dismissed as "frivolous" and the family was ordered to reimburse the school's costs. A Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, "stating that a cheerleader serves as a 'mouthpiece’ for the school' and that H.S.'s refusal to cheer "constituted substantial interference with the work of the school because, as a cheerleader, [she] was at the basketball game for the purpose of cheering, a position she undertook voluntarily."

Now, her lawyer, Laurence Watts, is appealing the case to the Supreme Court over whether or not her refusal to cheer in fact constituted "substantial interference with the work of the school." The case also has implications for student free speech.

"All I wanted was for somebody to come forward and say, 'Yes, it happened,'" H.S. said. But it's clear that for school officials and the Court of Appeals, this was not their intention. Instead, they attempted to protect "the work of the school," which meant glossing over rape accusations, criminalizing victims, and fostering an educational environment where students are discouraged from addressing sexual assault and violence head on. 
   
In December, Legal Momentum reported on efforts by the U.S. Department of Justice to address shocking rates of sexual violence on college campuses across the U.S. In addition to direct measures by the Department, a bipartisan group of members of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act (SaVE Act), a bill that would expand and clearly define the expectations of colleges and universities in their approach towards the prevention and response to sexual assault. This aggressive approach towards combating sexual violence must be enacted throughout all educational institutions, including secondary education.

The ongoing existence of sexual assault within educational institutions is a fundamental human rights abuse that must not be tolerated. Rather than victimizing survivors of sexual assault, educational institutions must work to fight against rape culture and create safe learning environments for all students. Ensuring that students, especially women, are able to live and study free of sexual harassment, sexual violence, and fear is a critical component of any successful educational institution.

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

New Study Shows That Women Ph.D.'s Are Less Likely to Obtain Tenure Than Men

Less than a month after the Census Bureau released data from the American Community Survey that demonstrated a striking segregation by gender between occupations and persisting pay disparities between men and women, The New York Times has reported on a new study that shows that men are more likely to receive tenure at a college or university than women. “Keeping Women in the Science Pipeline,” written by scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, concludes that while more woman than ever are obtaining Ph.D.'s in sciences, they are less likely than their male counterparts to obtain tenure at a college or university. Women who are married with young children are 35 percent less likely to enter a tenure-track position after receiving a Ph.D. in science than their male counterparts.  Married women with young children are 28 percent less likely than women without children to achieve tenure in the sciences. And women Ph.D.’s with young children are 27 percent less likely than men with children to receive tenure after entering a tenure-track job in the sciences.

The scientists explain that these numbers are related to the absence of paid maternity leave in most research universities. Additionally, there are massive time demands on faculty, which are particularly challenging for women, who must combine their work with caregiving, house work, etc.

"America's researchers do not receive enough family-responsive benefits, particularly the more junior researchers. All major research universities should look to build a family-friendly package of policies and resources," concludes the report. Indeed, the scientists recommend that universities institute more "family-friendly" policies to encourage women Ph.D.’s to continue with their careers. These measures would include paid maternity leave to graduate students and giving extra time to women who give birth before making tenure decisions. "The lock-step timing of academia needs to be more flexible," they write.

The scientists warn that the failure of universities to adopt these policies may have severe consequences for the U.S. "The loss of these women, together with serious increases in European and Asian nations' capacity for research, means the long-term dependability of a highly trained U.S. workforce and global preeminence in the sciences may be in question," they argue.

At least one university is heading the warning – the University of California, the home of the authors of the report. Since 2003, when the University system instituted more family-friendly policies, the number of assistant professors in the system with children has risen 27% percent, to 64% out of all assistant professors.  "It shows that you can change the workplace culture," said Dr. Mason, the report's lead author.

The ability of women to achieve tenure and general workplace security like their male counterparts is an urgent challenge that must be addressed by all colleges and universities. 

• Learn more about Legal Momentum's work in employment rights for women.

Less than a month after the Census Bureau released data from the American Community Survey that demonstrated a striking segregation by gender between occupations and persisting pay disparities between men and women, The New York Times has reported on a new study that shows that men are more likely to receive tenure at a college or university than women. “Keeping Women in the Science Pipeline,” written by scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, concludes that while more woman than ever are obtaining Ph.D.'s in sciences, they are less likely than their male counterparts to obtain tenure at a college or university. Women who married with young children are 35 percent less likely to enter a tenure-track position after receiving a Ph.D. in science than are married men with young children and Ph.D.’s in science. The married women with young children are 28 percent less likely than women without children to achieve tenure in the sciences. And women Ph.D.’s with young children are 27 percent less likely than men with children to receive tenure after entering a tenure-track job in the sciences.

The scientists explain that these numbers are related to the absence of paid maternity leave in most research universities. Additionally, there are massive time demands on faculty, which has a particular consequence for women, who must combine their work with caregiving, house work, etc.

“America’s researchers do not receive enough family-responsive benefits, particularly the more junior researchers. All major research universities should look to build a family-friendly package of policies and resources,” concludes the report. Indeed, the scientists recommend that universities institute more “family-friendly” policies to encourage women Ph.D.’s to continue with their careers. These measures would include paid maternity leave to graduate students and giving extra time to women who give birth before making tenure decisions. “The lock-step timing of academia needs to be more flexible,” they write.

The scientists warn that the failure of universities to adopt these policies may have severe consequences for the U.S. “The loss of these women, together with serious increases in European and Asian nations’ capacity for research, means the long-term dependability of a highly trained U.S. workforce and global preeminence in the sciences may be in question,” they write.

 

At least one university is heading the warning – the University of California, the home of the authors of the report. Since 2003, when the University system instituted more family-friendly policies, the number of assistant professors in the system with children has risen 27% percent, to 64% of all assistant professors.  “It shows that you can change the workplace culture,” said Ms. Mason, the report’s main author.

 

The ability of women to achieve tenure and general workplace security like their male counterparts is an urgent challenge that must be addressed by all colleges and universities.   

Single Mothers Since 2000: Falling Farther Down

Single Mothers Since 2000: Falling Farther Down (PDF), a new report from Legal Momentum, finds that increased joblessness and decreased access to welfare benefits have significantly exacerbated poverty and hardship for single mothers in the last decade.

Between 2000 and 2009, the number of single mothers that earned an income less than the poverty level or less than half of the poverty level increased. The number of homeless single mothers increased and more single mothers and their children were forced to live "doubled up" in someone else's home. Many more single mothers were forced to turn to food pantries to feed their families and, in the last decade, more single mothers were "food insecure" (a term used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to describe families that have "limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways").

• Read Single Mothers Since 2000: Falling Farther Down (PDF).
• Learn more about Legal Momentum's work in Women and Poverty.