Womenstake

DC Council Takes Steps to Protect Poor Families

by Amy Rosenthal, Outreach Intern, 
National Women's Law Center 

I attended a rally earlier this week outside the DC mayor’s office to protest Mayor Fenty’s proposal to cut Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a critical safety net for poor women and children, and other vital services, including low-income housing and food assistance. It was exciting to find out today that the DC City Council rejected the proposal to cut or eliminate TANF benefits for families that failed to meet work requirements and mitigated the proposed cuts to a number of other services for poor families.       

In a recession everyone suffers. And the city’s budget shortfall is real. But it is important to keep the most vulnerable individuals in mind when the city decides to take action. Individuals should not be tossed aside simply by crossing out numbers on a balance sheet.

I found the response to news of the Mayor’s proposed budget cuts encouraging. People are struggling to get by – but they are willing to do what it takes to be heard. Our partners responded to the alert we sent from the National Women’s Law Center. A petition that had circulated only since Monday had reached 1,700 signatures by the rally, and a wide range of participants turned out for the rally in full force. “It’s time to provide a voice for those who cannot speak,” a person behind me shouted. I am pleased that the DC Council decided to listen. 

The Right to Equality: Why We Need the ERA

by Amy Rosenthal, Outreach Intern, 
National Women's Law Center 

Earlier this week, I attended a rally for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Sound familiar? It should. The ERA was first proposed in 1923, and with 35 states independently ratifying it, it only requires 3 more states, or passage by Congress, before the ERA officially becomes the 28th amendment.

The spectrum of people who would be affected by the ERA was shown through the many diverse groups at the rally. There was a veritable who’s who of women’s organizations present, including groups that advocate for women of color, young women and elderly women. 

With such a large base of support, why hasn’t the ERA been ratified yet? The text seems simple enough. The ERA is just three sections long, stating only that sex is a suspect class under law. This means that actions taken by the government that affect women or men in a unique way would be held to strict judicial scrutiny. Current law already allows the same protection for race. 

What other reason is there for not ratifying the ERA? Speaker after speaker described what they consider to be the largest roadblock: the view that gender equality has been achieved. This simply is false. As a speaker from the National Women’s Political Caucus explained, “men hold certain rights, but women must prove they hold these rights.”  Countless examples poured in, highlighting case after case of gender discrimination.  As far as we have come, there are still great strides that must be made.

Legislators must act; after 86 years isn’t it time?

Judge Sotomayor's Confirmation Hearing: the Supporting Characters

by Amy Rosenthal, Outreach Intern,
National Women's Law Center 

This post is part of a series about the nomination of Judge Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.

Yesterday, I was able to attend the tail end of the confirmation hearings and hear testimony from several supporters of Judge Sotomayor. Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) spoke to the character and professionalism of Judge Sotomayor. On a personal level, she spoke of Sotomayor’s great “heart, soul, intellect, and temperament.” But she also explained the high regard that Judge Sotomayor holds for the law, and Judge Sotomayor’s fidelity to the law. 

After Rep. Velazquez concluded her statements, Columbia law professor Theodore Shaw, who attended Cardinal Spelman High School with Judge Sotomayor, testified in support of Judge Sotomayor. He spoke of the inspiration that she provides for minorities everywhere and his own personal esteem for Judge Sotomayor.  

Judge Sotomayor’s testimony was both elegant and powerful. But I was struck by her supporters, from many diverse backgrounds, who have been touched by Judge Sotomayor’s works. She is able to unite politicians and professors, to reach out to ordinary people, yet still maintain an inner integrity and impartiality. While the Supreme Court is shielded from the public’s opinion, Americans must trust in the legal system and believe they are getting a full and fair representation. In her supporters’ testimony, Judge Sotomayor demonstrates that should she be confirmed to the Supreme Court, she will bring with her this important qualification. 

Talking Points: A New York Times interview with Ruth Bader Ginsburg

by Amy Rosenthal, Outreach Intern, 
National Women's Law Center

This post is part of a series about the nomination of Judge Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.

As an observer of the Supreme Court, I have always been impressed with the achievements of Justice Ginsburg. But in concentrating on Justice Ginsburg’s past accomplishments, I often overlook her current battles, where she must not only rule fairly, but seek to educate others. In Stafford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, a case involving strip searching a thirteen-year-old girl, Ginsburg told USA Today that “I didn’t think that my colleagues, some of them, quite understood.” Justice Ginsburg, as a woman and as an advocate for women, seeks to fulfill an additional burden of shedding light on underlying gender issues that are not always apparent to others. In the Redding case, this required that Justices Ginsburg and Souter speak to the unique vulnerability of an adolescent girl.

On Tuesday, The New York Times published an illuminating interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  She spoke about her confirmation process, her hopes for Sotomayor’s confirmation, and the importance of female Justices.  Never afraid to confront issues, Justice Ginsburg spoke about the different standards for women and men, and how she, herself, was a product of affirmative action.

As anticipation builds for next week’s hearings on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Court, reading this interview heightened my awareness of the great pride and sense of responsibility that Justice Ginsburg feels on the bench. Through her example, Justice Ginsburg inspires me, and others, to advance not only ourselves, but those who depend on us.

No Justice for Rape Victims: Realities of Budget Cuts

by Amy Rosenthal, Outreach Intern, 
National Women's Law Center 

Many cities, in attempting to balance their budgets in light of decreased revenues, are making deep cuts into women’s health service, including rape kits. Administered in hospitals and then turned over to the police, rape kits contain DNA and have the power to help place the guilty behind bars and exonerate the innocent. Their efficacy is remarkable, with Human Rights Watch estimating that their use has contributed to a 30 percent rise in arrest for rape in New York City. 

A recent editorial in the New York Times drew attention to the huge backlog of rape kits that have yet to be tested because of budgetary concerns. Citing “a shortage of funds” the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department has decided to cease testing rape kits. This is particularly interesting, and disheartening, given the city’s over $2 billion dollar budget of which some money is earmarked for additional employees in the city crime lab who are trained to test rape kits.

These women are already rape victims. We should make sure they aren’t also victims of a poor justice system.

Birch Bayh, Dominique Dawes Speak in Briefing Co-Hosted by NWLC

by Amy Rosenthal, Outreach Intern, 
National Women's Law Center 

Earlier this week, I attended a briefing on Capitol Hill on two bills that would require high schools to publicly disclose gender equity information about their athletics programs. Currently, colleges are required to make such information publicly available each year, but high schools are not required to disclose these data, making it difficult to ensure fairness in high school athletics programs.

The briefing included remarks by Neena Chaudhry, Senior Counsel here at NWLC, as well as former Senator Birch Bayh, who was the principal Senate sponsor of Title IX, and Olympian Dominique Dawes (shown here with me - second from the left - and my colleagues Mary Robbins, Catherine Kruse and Kolbe Franklin), among others. After moving words from Senator Bayh, who recounted his wife’s struggles against discrimination and his own pledge to stop it, and inspiring remarks by Ms. Dawes about the importance of sports in encouraging participation in school and preventing drug use and low self-esteem, it was time for questions. 

To my surprise, question after question focused on the common myths about Title IX. “Does this mean there will be quotas now, and men’s sports will be cut?” asked someone from the back. A woman closer to the front asked about the revenue often brought in from men’s sports. The truth is that not only does the current legislation simply require data collection (no budget cuts of any kind), but that under Title IX schools have many options for complying with the law, none of which require or encourage cuts to men’s sports. And in reality, the overwhelming majority of men’s programs are operating huge annual deficits. I was still surprised the question was asked, however. Does the fact that some men's programs might raise money make it ok to discriminate against women?

The Parenting Dilemma: Discrimination in Pay Rates of Parents Versus Non-Parents

by Amy Rosenthal, Outreach Intern, 
National Women’s Law Center 

Compare the pay of an average woman to that of an average man, and gender discrimination is clear. Women are paid on average only 78 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts. But according to a recent study awarded the 2008 Rosabeth Moss Kanter Award for Excellence in Work-Family Research, discrimination exists at more subtle levels when comparing the hiring rate and pay of mothers to non-mothers and fathers to non-fathers. Mothers were 100 percent less likely to be hired, offered $11,000 less in pay, and ranked as “less competent and less committed” than non-mothers. For men, however, being a parent actually resulted in better subjective judgments, with fathers deemed as “more competent and committed” than their counterparts. 

So while women are judged to be less dedicated to the job when they devote time to their children and are judged to be less dedicated to their children when they devote time to their jobs, men face no such tension. In fact, a 2000 study found that fathers were paid a “wage premium” when compared to non-fathers.

What does all of this mean? In light of the anniversary of the Equal Pay Act this serves as a reminder of what must still be done in the fight to end gender discrimination. We might have come a long way, but discrimination is still a prevalent problem, and one that affects parents everywhere.