Womenstake

A Mother's Day Wish List

by Helen Blank, Director of Leadership and Public Policy
National Women’s Law Center

As we celebrate the mothers in our own lives this Mother's Day, we should also remember that many parents are denied the best gift of all — knowing that their children are in high-quality child care.

This care gives parents the support and peace of mind they need to be productive at work, and helps children learn and develop skills they need to succeed in school and in life. However, if current federal funding trends continue, more and more children will lose child care assistance, and will not be able to participate in Head Start.

In honor of Mother's Day, please write a Letter to the Editor of your local newspaper, reminding our nation’s leaders to make child care and Head Start national funding priorities — and please also send an eCard to your family, friends, and co-workers inviting them to do the same.

And check out MomsRising’s Mother’s Day eCard. 

When America supports child care, we encourage children, families, and our nation to reach their full potential.

Thank you, Congress

by Lara Kaufmann, Senior Advisor
National Women’s Law Center

Ever wonder what Congress is up to while most of the country (or the media, at least) is focused on the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination? Well, the House Science and Technology Committee (the Research and Science Education Subcommittee) had a hearing this morning about the participation of women and girls in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) studies and careers. And we understand that Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson plans to introduce the Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Act of 2008, which provides for federal programs to address the institutional and cultural barriers to recruitment and retention of women faculty in science and engineering fields, including: workshops to increase awareness of implicit gender bias in grant review, hiring, tenure, promotion, and selection for other honors based on merit; extended grant support for caregivers; and improved demographic data collection on federal grant-making. We welcome and appreciate Congress’ attention to these important issues.

Since When is Health Insurance that Covers Pregnancy or Cancer Considered "Cadillac" Health Care????

by Lisa Codispoti, Senior Advisor
National Women’s Law Center

This post is part of a weekly series on Women and Health Reform.

There is a very dangerous concept being sold out there that “something is better than nothing” when it comes to health insurance. That is, for the uninsured, having inexpensive bare-bones coverage is better than having no coverage at all.  It’s this notion that for people who can’t afford health insurance, we’ll just strip it down, cut out all those “extras” and poof! It’s affordable health coverage! This dangerous notion has most recently popped up in Florida, as the legislature there just passed legislation to allow insurers to sell bare-bones health coverage.  Governor Crist said that while he realized it wasn’t “Cadillac” health care, he called it "a model for the rest of the nation” and said that it would “provide a ‘golden opportunity’ for uninsured Floridians.” This sounds more like fool’s gold to me, because bare-bones coverage could only be a golden opportunity if you never get sick; the only golden opportunity here is for the insurance industry.

While it is good that plans would cover preventative care, insurers would sell supplemental plans that cover health services for pregnancy or cancer; basically, if you want this coverage, you have to choose it and pay more. But what’s not made clear is that if you buy one of these bare-bones plans and then you actually need more extensive coverage because you get sick, all too often you can’t get it, because insurers may exclude coverage for pre-existing medical conditions. Furthermore, people who have decent health insurance could lose what they have if their small employer switches to one of these bare-bones plans.

The "Matriarch of Interracial Marriage" and Other Groundbreaking Female Plaintiffs

by Jen Swedish, Health Law Fellow 
National Women’s Law Center

The recent death of Mildred Loving, hailed by the Associated Press as the “matriarch of interracial marriage,” struck me as a good opportunity to blog about women who have used the court system to challenge discrimination. Mrs. Loving, a black woman, and her husband, a white man, made history in 1967, when their lawsuit led the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage. 

Though certainly a trailblazer, Mrs. Loving was by no means the first woman to use the court system to fight discrimination. That distinction may belong to Myra Bradwell, who in 1873 challenged Illinois’s denial of her application to practice law because she was a woman. Unfortunately for Ms. Bradwell, however, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Illinois, and one justice who defended the ruling claimed that women’s “timidity and delicacy” rendered them unfit for work outside the home. 

Blech!  Thankfully, it’s 2008, and women like me are allowed to practice law despite our “delicacy.” Of course, many women still face discrimination solely based on our gender, including lower pay for the same work. Lilly Ledbetter is another amazing woman who attempted to use the court system to challenge discrimination. After learning that she had received lower pay than her male colleagues for over two decades, Ms. Ledbetter sued her former employer, but the Supreme Court ruled against her, saying that she hadn’t sued in time. Not one to give up, Ms. Ledbetter brought her challenge to the U.S. Congress – you’ve probably heard of the bill named after her, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would reverse the Supreme Court’s decision. The House passed the bill last summer, but two weeks ago, the Senate couldn’t reach the 60 votes necessary to schedule a vote on the bill. Ms. Ledbetter’s fight is not yet over, however; tell your Senators that the bill deserves fair consideration on the Senate floor.

Ms. Ledbetter, Ms. Bradwell, and Mrs. Loving are just a few of the groundbreaking female plaintiffs whose courage to fight discrimination through the legal system we all benefit from!

Children and Families Need the Starting Early Starting Right Act

by Helen Blank, Director of Leadership and Public Policy
National Women’s Law Center

Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) wants to give an important gift to America’s mothers as Mother’s Day approaches. In these tough economic times, recognizing that affordable high-quality child care is a basic that helps children develop the skills they need to be ready for school and helps families get ahead by giving parents the peace of mind they need to be productive at work, he introduced the Starting Early Starting Right Act.

The bill is mindful of that fact that high-quality child care is often unavailable to low-income children and their families. Senator Casey’s bill addresses this problem by increasing funding so states can provide more high-quality child care opportunities for low-income families and help the hundreds of thousands of children across the country on waiting lists for child care assistance.

This is a bill that also understands that families with our youngest children—infants and toddlers—need the most attention given the difficulties with finding care as well as the clear research about the importance of  children’s earliest years. The Starting Early Starting Right Act supports infants and toddlers by requiring states to set aside 30 percent of the bill’s total funding for this underserved group of children.

Child care develops America’s potential by helping children, families, and communities prosper. However, even though child care is immensely important, federal funding for child care assistance has been virtually flat-funded for seven years. Senator Casey’s bill, which helps our nation stay competitive by encouraging children to do well in school and supporting working parents, is right on target.

For more information about Senator Casey’s Starting Early Starting Right Act please see the National Women’s Law Center’s summary at http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/CaseyBillSummary.pdf.

Washington Women Seeking EC Not Helped by 9th Circuit

by Gretchen Borchelt, Senior Counsel
National Women’s Law Center

Late last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction issued against a rule passed by the Washington state board of pharmacy. The rule ensures patient access to medication, but was challenged in court by Washington pharmacists and a pharmacy who do not want to give women emergency contraception. As we reported, last November a lower court issued a preliminary injunction that halts the rule as it applies to Plan B emergency contraception.

The Ninth Circuit decision came from a divided panel that illustrates the importance of who our judges are. In the majority were Judge Thomas G. Nelson, who was appointed by the first President Bush, and Judge Jay Bybee, appointed by the current President Bush. Their decision means that while the case is pending, Washington women who want access to EC may face a refusing pharmacist and delay in accessing the time-sensitive medication.

Judge A. Wallace Tashima, who was appointed by President Clinton, wrote a strong dissent. It not only explains the problems with this panel’s decision but also points out the errors of the lower court in issuing the injunction in the first place. Judge Tashima recognizes that rules like Washington’s do not violate pharmacists’ right to free exercise of religion; they help ensure that women are not delayed in their efforts to prevent unintended pregnancies. Hopefully, when the case reaches the merits, Judge Tashima’s logic will carry the day. 

Weekly Round-Up

by Mary Robbins, Program Assistant
National Women’s Law Center

A poll released Thursday by the Kaiser Family Foundation reveals that 7 percent of Americans say they or someone in their household married in the last year in order to receive health care benefits from their spouse. 

At least 54 women have joined a class-action lawsuit against Bloomberg L.P., accusing the company of discriminating against pregnant employees (via Think Girl).

Columnist Ellen Goodman wrote about the tale of Lilly Ledbetter, calling her “the star of a long-running drama about how hard we have to run to keep from slipping backward.” 

Melissa of Shakesville reflected on the Western Oregon University softball player who was injured after she hit a home run during a game - and wound up getting some unusual support by members of the opposing team.   

Thursday was International Labor Day, or May Day, a day celebrated by workers around the world to send a message that they “want to live in a world where people live in peace and prosperity.” 

The Malaysian government has proposed a requirement for women to obtain written consent from their families or employers before traveling outside the country. Women’s groups in the country “reacted with outrage.” 

WashingtonPost.com launched an interactive series on the Global Food Crisis, which is having a major impact on women and families around the world.

7 Questions with NWLC's Lara Kaufmann

by Jessica Lauredan, Outreach Intern
National Women’s Law Center

This post is part of a series profiling our blog authors.

Lara Kaufmann is Senior Advisor for Education and Employment at NWLC.

Q: The Senate’s recent vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was a setback in the movement to make pay equity a reality. What will happen next? And how can women join the fight for fair pay?
Lara: The fight is not over yet! We didn’t get the 60 votes necessary to move to the next big step in the Senate — scheduling a debate and a vote on the merits of the bill — but we got very close, and we are calling on the Senate leadership to continue to bring up the bill until it passes. Women (and men) who support equal pay can help by contacting their Senators and encouraging them to support (or, in some cases, to continue supporting) the bill. There are simple instructions on our website for how to do this. It only takes a minute, and it’s really worth it — Senators do pay attention to what their constituents want. Also, there are two more bills pending before Congress right now that address fair pay, one called the Paycheck Fairness Act and one called the Fair Pay Act. Our fact sheet on Pay Equity has information on both of those initiatives too.

Q: The Fair Pay Act has come before the Senate during an election year. Do you think the bill will have an impact on the campaigns, or vice versa?
Lara:  Both, actually. It is just a coincidence that this is being considered in an election year (the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was introduced following the Supreme Court’s May 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, and the House of Representatives passed it back in July 2007). But because of the timing, it may be discussed during presidential debates, which means that more Americans will learn about it than otherwise might, and I think that's a good thing. Senators Clinton and Obama were original cosponsors of the bill and support it, while Senator McCain stated to reporters that he opposes it. We hope voters will take the opportunity to ask all three Senators about this issue and press them to support, or continue to support, the bill.

Go Kansas!

by Sarah Bellows-Blakely, Outreach Intern
National Women’s Law Center

As a born and bred Kansan, I want to say a big thank you to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and the 14 state senators who stood up for women’s health. Last week, Gov. Sebelius vetoed a state bill that would have allowed significant government intrusion into a woman’s most private medical decisions regarding the termination of a pregnancy. On Wednesday, fourteen senators voted to uphold her veto, defeating the two-thirds majority needed to overturn it by only two votes. This is the second time in less than a month (after the Kansas Jayhawks’ awesome victory in the men’s finals of the NCAA basketball championship) that I can proudly yell, GO KANSAS!

If the senate had successfully overridden Gov. Sebelius’s veto, the law would have:

• Allowed public officials, spouses, siblings, parents, and grandparents of women seeking a
  post-viability abortion to file for an injunction to stop the procedure, even when it could
  be necessary to save her life.
• Forced doctors to offer to show women an ultrasound or ask them to listen to the heartbeat of the fetus at least thirty minutes before the beginning of the procedure.
• Provided the attorney general and district and county prosecutors with the jurisdiction to go after doctors who perform post-viability abortions.
• Mandated that the State Government have more access to women’s medical records.   
• And that’s not all—these are only some of the burdensome restrictions in the legislation.

Tell Us How You REALLY Feel...

by Julia Kaye, Health Policy Associate
National Women’s Law Center

On Tuesday, the Missouri Senate accidentally deemed the substance used in medical abortions, mifepristone (aka RU-486), a “restricted” substance on par with heroin. The legislation, which requires pharmacies to keep an electronic log of their sales of controlled substances and certain over-the-counter medications (including cold medicine), also contained a House provision that included mifepristone in the “restricted” category, along with heroin and marijuana. Thirty minutes after the legislation passed, its sponsor, anti-choice Sen. Norma Champion (R-Springfield), noticed the ain’t-that-ironic clerical error and drew the other legislators’ attention to it.  Whoops! They rescinded the first vote, removed the provision and approved it again. Sen. Champion stated that she did not want senators who support abortion rights "to think [she] was trying to sneak something in" the measure—"It simply was an error."