Women's Take - The NWLC Blog

Pennsylvania Governor Signs Bill Banning Insurance Coverage for Abortion

ywang — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:50:27 +0000

Posted by:

Bethany Van Kampen, Law Student Intern, Health and Reproductive Rights

Yesterday, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett signed into law a ban on insurance coverage of abortion in the new insurance marketplaces set up by the health care law. This bill makes it impossible for Pennsylvanian women to purchase comprehensive insurance coverage that includes abortion in the new exchange — even women whose health may be seriously at risk because of their pregnancy.

Pennsylvania now becomes the 22nd state to prevent women from obtaining the health insurance they need. These laws are dangerous to women and make it clear that abortion opponents are doing everything they can to make abortion unaffordable and interfere with a woman’s ability to make her own health care decisions.

Governor Corbett offered no comment upon approving the bill. But you can comment. If you oppose this ban and think that abortion procedures should be covered by insurance, you can click here and vote in a pennlive poll.

Why is Pregnancy Still a Job-Buster in the 21st Century Workplace?

djackson — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:24:11 +0000

Posted by:

Cortelyou Kenney, Fellow

Thirty-five years ago the Pregnancy Discrimination Act outlawed discrimination against pregnant workers. But still today, pregnant women across the country are being fired from their jobs, forced onto unpaid leave, or made to quit when they need temporary accommodations like staying off high ladders or refraining from heavy lifting. Many women can work throughout their pregnancies without any changes to their jobs. But for some pregnant workers – particularly those in low-wage and physically demanding jobs – slight job modifications can be crucial to their ability to continue safely working during pregnancy. Despite the fact that comparable accommodations are routinely offered when employees need them because of disabilities, employers often refuse to make even simple accommodations for pregnant women. As a result, many pregnant women are prevented from continuing to work even when they are willing and able to do so. Other women stay on the job despite a lack of accommodation because they can’t afford not to, potentially jeopardizing their health and the health of their pregnancies.

Today, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), in tandem with A Better Balance (ABB), is releasing It Shouldn't Be A Heavy Lift: Fair Treatment for Pregnant Workers, which tells the stories of eight women who were refused the same sorts of accommodations during their pregnancy that their employers provided to other workers. As the report describes, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) requires employers to treat pregnant workers the same as those “similar in their ability or inability to work.” So if employers make reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities, as they must under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the PDA requires employers to provide accommodations to pregnant workers with similar limitations, too. But all too often, employers and the courts misunderstand and misinterpret these requirements.

Take the case of Peggy Young, whom the Center has written about before. Young worked as an air driver for UPS. When she became pregnant, UPS told her she had to bring a doctor’s note with her restrictions. Her doctor recommended she lift no more than 20 pounds. UPS told Young that UPS has a policy of no light duty for pregnancy – even though the company provided it to employees injured on the job, those protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and to others with conditions ranging from high blood pressure to sleep apnea that prevented coworkers from maintaining a commercial driver’s license. As a result, UPS forced Young to go without pay and benefits, including health insurance. She sued and lost in both the district court and Court of Appeals. Both courts held she was not “similarly situated” to the other workers who were accommodated, despite the fact that her lifting restriction was similar to the limitations of some accommodated workers.

Or take the story of Svetlana Arizanovska. She worked two jobs to support her family: one as a packer at a medical supply company and another as a stocker on the overnight shift at Wal-Mart. She had had a previous miscarriage (after being forced to lift heavy merchandize at Wal-Mart) so her doctor characterized her pregnancy as “high risk” and gave her a lifting restriction. The medical supply company had no problem honoring her doctor’s note and this time Wal-Mart even put her in the toothbrush aisle for a couple of days. But soon after, her employer announced that there was no light duty available to pregnant workers. Wal-Mart then asked Arizanovska to “fill out some forms,” which turned out to be papers stating that Arianovska had a serious health condition and needed unpaid leave. Her doctor refused, saying she was healthy and could work, as long as she wasn’t required to do heavy lifting. Since she couldn’t fill out the FMLA forms, Arizanovska was terminated. Shortly thereafter, she miscarried again, which her doctor said could have been the result of work-related stress and depression. Arizanovska filed suit, and also lost because she couldn’t identify a nonpregnant co-worker who received light duty, despite Wal-Mart’s stated policy of accommodating workers with disabilities, including through job reassignment. The ordeal tore her family apart and contributed to her divorce and severe financial difficulties.

Young and Arizanovska are not alone. Too many pregnant women are being forced to make an impossible choice between their jobs and their health. The report tells the stories of cleaners, fast food workers, postal workers, and others who were fired or forced to take unpaid leave when their employers refused to make any adjustments to their job duties.

Luckily, it doesn’t have to be this way, as the report explains by setting out a straightforward agenda for change. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should issue guidance to employers, employees, practitioners, and the courts that employers must make accommodations to pregnant workers just as they provide accommodations to workers with disabilities. Congress should pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which would unambiguously require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers who need them unless doing so would present an undue hardship. All states should take action to ensure accommodations for pregnant workers. For example, advocates in New York are pushing for passage of the Women's Equality Agenda, a 10-point plan to promote fairness and equality for women, which includes a provision that would guarantee reasonable accommodations for medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth. Finally, employers need to adopt policies for accommodating pregnant workers just as they have policies for accommodating workers with on-the-job injuries. It’s long past time to make room for pregnancy on the job and give pregnant women the equal opportunity they deserve.

National Women’s Law Center Urges Senate to Remember Women in Immigration Bill Debate

djackson — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:45:38 +0000

Posted by:

Amy Tannenbaum, Program Assistant

This week and next week, the Senate is debating S. 744, the comprehensive immigration reform bill. The current version of the bill includes provisions that are important for immigrant women, including protections survivors of domestic violence and for workers who report abuse, discrimination, or wage law violations on the job. As the bill is debated, we urge Senators to protect these provisions, ensure that women have full access to the path to citizenship, and to guard against amendments that harm women and families.

In a letter to the Senate, sent out this morning, we urge Senators to be guided by the following principles as they consider comprehensive immigration reform:

Ensure that immigrant women have fair access to the path to citizenship and to green cards.

Protect against employer exploitation of immigrants.

Ensure work authorization for spouses.

Make affordable health care available to lawfully present immigrants.

Maintain access to Social Security benefits for lawful immigrants.

Preserve tax credits for lawful immigrants.

Extend critical safety net protections to lawful immigrants.

Protect survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and trafficking.

Help keep families together.

Immigrant women’s work is important to our economy and immigrant women are important contributors to our communities. Comprehensive immigration reform must meet the needs of immigrant women and the families that rely on them.

High Court Strikes Down Arizona’s Proof of Citizenship Law, Providing Important Protection for Voters

djackson — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:50:00 +0000

Posted by:

Lauren Hartz, Intern

It’s a good week for residents of Arizona!

Just a few days ago, the Arizona state legislature passed Governor Jan Brewer’s Medicaid expansion proposal, bringing health care coverage to 238,000 low-income Arizonans.

And yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down an opinion that will make it easier for Arizonans to exercise their right to vote.

This morning the Supreme Court decided Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. In this closely-watched case, Arizona residents and civil rights groups challenged a state law that made it harder to vote. The controversial law put the burden on would-be voters to affirmatively prove their U.S. citizenship in order to register.

This law and others like it are serious threats to our right to vote, and they are especially harmful to women voters. Recent studies show that these restrictive voter registration laws disproportionately affect women, who often lack proof of citizenship in their current legal names. Only 66% of voting-age women with access to documents proving citizenship have documents in their current legal names, and only 48% of these women can show birth certificates with their current legal names [PDF]. Women also make up the majority of college students and senior citizens – both populations that are less likely to have qualifying forms of identification. Restrictive voting laws like Arizona’s require these women to jump through hoops in order to register, expending time and money to obtain the necessary documentation.

Yesterday the Supreme Court struck down Arizona’s law, holding that it conflicted with a less burdensome federal law. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires a simple registration form that asks applicants to confirm – no documentation required – that they are citizens. Writing for a 7-2 majority, Justice Scalia pointed out that the federal form aimed to increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for federal office. Arizona’s law frustrated this goal, discouraging many eligible voters from registering. It upset the careful balance that the NVRA strikes between registering every eligible voter while protecting against voter fraud.

The Court’s ruling is an important step forward. It brings us closer to ensuring that voter registration is open and accessible to all citizens, regardless of their identities and without hassle, headache, or economic hardship. Threats to this promise are real, and we must continue to stand guard against active efforts across the country to exclude eligible voters from exercising their rights.

NWLC and A Better Balance Release New Report: It Shouldn’t Be a Heavy Lift: Fair Treatment for Pregnant Workers

djackson — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:48:22 +0000

Posted by:

Amy Tannenbaum, Program Assistant

Every time I think about why we need laws like the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, I feel sad and angry. To me, the law is just common sense: providing adjustments for pregnant workers on the job – adjustments that can be as small as a stool to sit on behind a counter, or permission to carry a water bottle on a sales floor – is usually free or cheap, helps pregnant workers continue to work and to provide for their growing families, and are good for business. The stories we hear from these pregnant workers make my heart sick from the injustice, and my brain dizzy from trying to comprehend the logic behind not providing these accommodations. After all, we offer seats on crowded trains to people who are pregnant all the time. It isn’t a heavy lift – and nor should it be for pregnant workers to get these workplace accommodations.

Yet, we hear time and again from employees who have been pushed onto unpaid leave, or terminated, just for asking for a small accommodation. Others have suffered complications in their pregnancies due to their employer’s refusal to accommodate them. For example, Hilda Guzzman’s employer refused to let her sit on a stool, which caused her to bleed and have premature labor pains. Guadalupe Hernandez* was told that she had to ask permission from her boss each time she needed to use the restroom, which was not required of non-pregnant employees. And Natasha Jackson was forced onto leave due to a lifting restriction, when she rarely needed to lift anything and when other non-pregnant employees who temporarily couldn’t lift were accommodated.

The stories of these women are detailed in It Shouldn’t Be a Heavy Lift: Fair Treatment for Pregnant Workers, a new report by the National Women’s Law Center and A Better Balance. The report looks at the stories of these women, along with several policy solutions for ensuring that pregnant workers receive the accommodations they need.

You can download the report here.

*name changed

Montana Governor Creates Equal Pay for Equal Work Task Force to Address State’s Wage Gap

djackson — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:28:00 +0000

Posted by:

Valarie Hogan, Fellow

Image source:Beartooth NBC

There are a lot of different metrics used to rank the states and the District of Columbia. Geographic size, population, and various economic measures are particularly popular. Naturally, I’m sure you’ve wondered how Montana, or “The Treasure State,” compares to all of the other states. Well, Montana is big: it is ranked 4th in geographic size. It doesn’t have too many people, though, and it ranks near the bottom on population metrics: it is 44th in population and 48th in population density. Unfortunately, Montana also ranks near the bottom of all the states, and the District of Columbia, based on its wage gap. Data compiled by the National Women’s Law Center places Montana 43rd in the wage gap rankings: women in the state earn 74.6 cents for every dollar earned by their white, non-Hispanic male counterparts.

On the 50th Anniversary of the Equal Pay Act, Montana Governor Steve Bullock decided to tackle the wage gap problem head on by creating the Equal Pay for Equal Work Task Force to determine whether there is inequality in pay for women. Montana has an impressive history of advocating for women: Montana women earned the right to vote in 1914, six years before the Nineteenth Amendment was passed, and the first woman ever elected to Congress, Jeannette Rankin, hailed from “Big Sky Country.”

Unfortunately, history has failed to repeat itself and the 49.8% of women who currently reside in the state are being undervalued. The creation of the Equal Pay for Equal Work Task Force signals a great leap forward for the women of Montana. As the NWLC Report, 50 Years and Counting: The Unfinished Business of Achieving Fair Pay found:

Both at the federal level and in the states, commissions and taskforces have played an important role in focusing policymakers on the need to close the wage gap. . . . [M]any of the states that have implemented strong equal pay policies have begun the process with the help of a commission tasked with identifying solutions to close the wage gap.

The Report also highlights a number of states that successfully implemented commission recommendations with great results: New Mexico Taskforce on Fair and Equal Pay brought about the passage of the Fair Pay for Women Act and Vermont’s Commission on Women has brought stakeholders from all sectors together on the issue of fair pay.

The Governor’s announcement comes on the heels of the Equal Pay Today! Campaign’s delivery of a letter to the Governor of every state about the need to close the gender wage gap and the steps to do it. The Campaign letter went out on June 10, 2013 in recognition of the 50th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act. We applaud Governor Bullock and we hope that other Governors will soon follow suit! A commission is not enough to bring about wholesale change, but by raising the profile of the issue and providing state-specific recommendations, state commissions and taskforces, like the one created in Montana, have shown real leadership in the fight for equal pay.

The Hastily Added Sexual Assault Exception to H.R. 1797 Proves How Much Its Sponsors Just Don’t Get It

djackson — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:22:09 +0000

Posted by:

Leila Abolfazli, Senior Counsel

H.R. 1797 is still a really really bad bill. It imposes a federal ban on almost all abortions after 20 weeks. It has no exception for when a woman’s health is threatened, or when there is a severe fetal anomaly. The one exception in the original introduction only applied to when a woman was on her deathbed from a physical illness (suicidal? sorry not good enough). The bill is an unconstitutional whopper – a paternalistic piece of legislation that cruelly ignores the lives of women it will affect. But don’t just take my word for it, see it for yourself. Just see how the bill’s sponsors view sexual assault, and its victims…

This is last week: House Judiciary Committee holds mark-up of H.R. 1797. During said hearing, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Trent Franks, makes now infamous comment that pregnancy does not often result from rape. Franks makes this comment just before every Republican committee member votes against an amendment that would have included an exception for rape or incest. Committee members complain that the exception doesn’t include a reporting requirement.

Next up – huge fallout from Franks’ comments, Washington Post gives him four pinocchios for his statement. House leadership scrambles. Bill is taken out of Franks’ hands, and given to a female Republican to manage on the floor. But what else can be done to get bill back on track? That’s right -- add that pesky rape/incest exception on a late Friday afternoon.

But the exception itself shows how bill sponsors really don’t get it. And think we really are stupid. That the public won’t see through this crass political calculation. Should we feel good about this bill now that it includes an exception for rape and incest THAT REQUIRES FIRST THE SEXUAL ASSAULT TO BE REPORTED?

Indeed, this new “exception” just made the argument against the bill that much easier. The exception just shows how little its sponsors care about the women their bill would affect so personally, so seriously. Set aside the fact that they have yet to include the exception for when a woman’s health is in danger…this new “exception” cruelly ignores the fact that some women are not able – for a variety reasons – to report their sexual assault. In fact, the DOJ reports that in 2010 just 35% of sexual assaults or rapes were reported.

So what of all of the other women, Dear Sponsors of the Bill? Are their rapes not worthy enough? Is there a difference between a rape that should be excepted and a rape that should not? Really, you want to go down that road?

So thank you for adding an exception that just shows how much this bill doesn’t walk in the shoes of the many women it would affect. Thank you for reminding us why we fight. We fight to be the voices of women you cruelly ignore.

Adding Insult to Injury – The Hypocrisy of the House Leadership About Abortion and Rape

tnguyen — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:26:43 +0000

Posted by:

Sharon Levin, Director of Federal Reproductive Health Policy

As our regular readers know, earlier this week the House Judiciary Committee voted against adding an exception for rape and incest to the 20 week ban bill. At the hearing, Rep. Trent Franks said that the likelihood of a woman becoming pregnant due to a rape was low. The public was outraged and a maelstrom broke out on the internet and in the press.

Today, in an attempted bit of sleight of hand, the House Leadership added an exception to the bill for reported rapes and incest with a minor. There is SO MUCH wrong with this, so here are my top 10:

They seem to believe that women are illiterate. This new language is insulting. If they think they can dress up this piece of garbage and we’ll believe it is a Chanel suit, they have another think coming.
They don’t understand the reality of what happens to women who are raped. According to the Department of Justice, only 35 percent of sexual assaults are reported. That means the vast majority of women – out of fear, or trauma or a desire for privacy – do not report rapes to the legal authorities.
A reporting requirement also suggests that women lie about rape. Really? What can we expect from men who think rape doesn’t cause pregnancy. They don’t get the facts.
The bill doesn’t acknowledge that women over 18 can be victims of incest.
The bill still has no exception for women’s health.
This bill still has no exception for women with wanted pregnancies but find out that there is a serious fetal anamoly.
The bill still has no exception for women whose lives are endangered by their mental health. Do they not understand that suicides happen?
This bill still criminalizes doctors who meet their professional responsibilities by giving needed care to patients.
This bill still violates the Constitution.
This bill still takes a fundamental personal decision out of the hands of women.

Please let your Representative know to oppose this dangerous and extreme bill today.

Arizona Scores Huge Medicaid Win: Legislature Passes Governor Jan Brewer's Expansion Proposal

pfurey — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 19:20:39 +0000

Posted by:

Kimberly Miller-Tolbert, Intern

Approximately 238,000 uninsured Arizonans will now have access to health care coverage in the coming months, thanks to the state legislature's passing of Governor Jan Brewer's expansion proposal.

Over two hundred thousand. That's a lot of people.

The legislature made the right decision yesterday, and now hundreds of thousands of hard-working, low-income women and families will have access to health care because of it. Not only will these residents have access to health coverage that includes preventive care, chronic disease treatment and other essential health services, but they also benefit from an increased sense of economic security and knowing that they will not be subjected to financial ruin in the case of a medical emergency. This is good fiscal policy on the state level too, as the federal government will be covering 100% of the expansion costs in the first few years and then at least 90% in later years. This decision will bring Arizona $8.8 billion in federal dollars and will save about $50 million in health care costs.

Women in Arizona will especially benefit from this decision, as close to 21% are currently uninsured. When combined with other initiatives in the Affordable Care Act, up to 177,000 women in Arizona who are currently uninsured will have access to affordable health insurance. The health benefits these women are eligible to receive include primary care, necessary screenings such as mammograms, prescriptions including contraception, and chronic disease treatment.

"Too Late" and the "Turnaways": Women Denied Access to Abortion

pfurey — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:30:15 +0000

Posted by:

Hillary Schneller, Fellow

What happens to the women denied access to abortion? What does it mean to be "too late" to get an abortion? What contributes to a woman ending up at the clinic "too late"?

The New York Times Magazine article What Happens to Women Who Are Denied Abortions? delves into these and other questions. The article describes a study by a University of California at San Francisco researcher that looks into what happens to women who are turned away from clinics that perform abortions (the "turnaways"), often because they arrive at the clinic "too late" or because they cannot afford the procedure. The study aims to fill a missing piece of current research: what is the impact of not being able to have an abortion on a woman's physical and mental health and her financial situation?

The study responds in a way to the hollow claim made by the Supreme Court majority in the 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart case. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy stated that one of the "reasons" (yes, there's a need for those scare quotes) for upholding the abortion ban at issue in that case was: "While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow." (Citations omitted.)

Translation: Although we have no evidence for it, we can assume that women regret having abortions so that's enough reason to ban them. Besides the fact that the Court admittedly cited no data to support this claim (hint: none exists), no thought was given to the impact on women who want to but don't (read: can't) get abortions.

The study described in The Times Magazine article does just this. It confirms the reality that a turned-away woman generally has worse health and financial outcomes than a woman who was able to have an abortion when she wanted it. The study also shows that most women who carry their pregnancies to term instead of having a wanted abortion bond with their children. In addition, it demonstrates (as others have) just how unfounded Justice Kennedy's claim is: "post-abortion syndrome" is the myth we know it to be. To summarize, as a bioethicist quoted in The Times Magazine article says: "It's wonderfully functional for women who have children to be glad they have them and for women who did not have children to enjoy the opportunities that afforded them."

The article also raises questions about what are the obstacles to accessing abortion that make some women "too late" or result in women seeking abortions becoming "turnaways".

Federal and state legislators are trying to move up the definition of "too late." Congressman Trent Franks has introduced legislation to ban abortion after 20 weeks; in other words, to make all women who seek abortions have 20 weeks "too late." Legislators in Arkansas passed a law making women who sought abortions after 12 weeks "too late." Not to be outdone, North Dakota legislators passed a law making 6 weeks "too late." That's before most women even know they are pregnant. And, personhood laws, like ones floated in Oklahoma and Virginia, that ban abortion from the moment fertilization will in effect make all women in those states "turnaways."

Each of these laws, of course, is clearly unconstitutional. And, considering these laws in light of this study forcefully demonstrates their practical impact: women will be unable to get abortions and will likely be unhealthier and poorer for it.

Other barriers that contribute to making women "turnaways" are piling up around the country. Laws that make it harder for women to pay for abortions — like federal bans on public coverage of abortion services (like the Hyde Amendment) and state bans on private insurance covering abortions — delay women being able to get abortions because it often takes time for women to collect the money to cover the cost of the procedure, along with any travel. TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider) laws that aim to — and often do — shut down clinics, also create more turnaways. For some women, the shuttered clinic may have been the only place they could have received an abortion. Others may have the option of going to another clinic, but that may mean travelling tens or hundreds of miles away, which means more money, more travel and — ever diminishing time.

The bans and the barriers must stop. It's not too late.

Congresswoman DeLauro, Champion of Fair Pay Policies

pfurey — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:15:56 +0000

Posted by:

Fatima Goss Graves, Vice President for Education and Employment

All too often, pay discrimination goes undetected because employers maintain policies that punish employees who dare try to inquire about their salary. These punitive pay secrecy policies mean that employees could be fired, demoted, or otherwise penalized simply for trying to inquire about wages. Unfortunately, research has shown that nearly half of private sector employees believe they will be punished if they dare talk about their wages.

This week Congresswomen DeLauro tried to do something about these unfair policies. She offered an amendment that would have meant that defense contractors could not retaliate against workers who try to share or inquire about salary information. Who would disagree with that? Well, apparently the House Rules Committee did. Her amendment was voted down and the House will not consider this important issue when it considers defense appropriations.

Congresswoman DeLauro knows that as long as employees are kept in the dark about their wages, pay discrimination will continue to flourish. I'm hoping that Congress gets that memo soon too.

A Tale of Two Companies: EEOC Files Complaints against BMW and Dollar General Alleging Improper Use of Criminal Background Check

djackson — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 20:28:38 +0000

Posted by:

Valarie Hogan, Fellow

2010 Chicago Demographics
Source: radicalcartography.net

‘Tis the season of the summer blockbuster, but while moviegoers are treated to the decadence of the 1920s, deep space exploration, and 6x the car chases, the familiar tale of racial discrimination in employment plays on a loop in the background. The City of Chicago and the state of South Carolina are not new characters in this story, but *Spoiler Alert* there is a new plot twist: a year after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released guidance for employers on the proper use of criminal background checks, two employers – Dollar General in Chicago and BMW in South Carolina – are allegedly using criminal background checks to weed out potential and current African-American employees.

The guidance released by the EEOC last April draws attention to the general increase in the number of people involved in the American criminal justice system and the disproportionate impact that it has had on minorities:

In the last twenty years, there has been a significant increase in the number of Americans who have had contact with the criminal justice system. . .By the end of 2007, 3.2% of all adults in the United States (1 in every 31) were under some form of correctional control involving probation, parole, prison, or jail.

Arrest and incarceration rates are particularly high for African American and Hispanic men. African Americans and Hispanics are arrested at a rate that is 2 to 3 times their proportion of the general population. Assuming that current incarceration rates remain unchanged, about . . .1 in 3 African American men [are expected to serve time in prison during their lifetime].

1 in 3 African American men will spend time in prison?! Is this some sort of Wes Craven-created nightmare sequence?

According to the Wall Street Journal, the complaints filed by the EEOC allege that Dollar General revoked conditional employment offers for 10 percent of its black applications, but only 7 percent of its nonblack applicants, which has created a “gross disparity” based on race. The complaint against BMW alleges that, after hiring an outside contractor in 2008, BMW required all of the employees (some of whom had worked at the BMW plant for as long as 14 years) to undergo new background checks. Fifty-five percent of the contractor’s employees were black, but a whopping 80 percent of terminated employees were black.

Notwithstanding the tense racial histories of both locales, reality for many black Americans includes living in heavily policed areas and racial profiling by the police (a la NYC’s controversial stop-and-frisk policy) that contributes to the greater number of arrests and contact with the criminal justice system. There are valid reasons why an employer may want to exclude someone with a criminal record and the EEOC is not forcing employers to take on unjustified risks. The April 2012 guidance advises employers to make sure that criminal conduct exclusions are job related and consistent with business necessity, so that valuable employees who have either served their time or were never convicted of wrongdoing are not excluded wholesale from employment opportunities.

Let’s hope this tale has a happy ending.

A Bad Day for Sexual Assault Victims in Congress

djackson — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:30:09 +0000

Posted by:

Sharon Levin, Director of Federal Reproductive Health Policy

Yesterday, two different Congressional committees voted against protections for sexual assault victims:

The House Judiciary Committee, while considering a 20 week abortion ban, voted AGAINST including an exception for victims of rape and incest. During the Committee meeting, Representative Trent Franks joined the long list of abortion opponents who have claimed that the chance of “rape resulting in pregnancy is very low.”
The Senate Armed Services Committee, in considering a set of new protections for victims of sexual assault, voted AGAINST a provision to give the responsibility for addressing these crimes to independent prosecutors and away from the chain of command. As you may recall, there have been several very public stories in the last few months of commanders failing to pursue claims of sexual assault and overturning sexual assault convictions. And, even reports that the officers charged with enforcing these laws accused of sexual assault themselves.

It is important to note that these two votes took place in very different contexts – the House vote took place during consideration of a bill designed to limit women’s rights while the Senate vote took place during consideration of a bill that will otherwise strengthen the military’s prevention of and response to sexual assault.

That being said, both of these actions have something very fundamental in common. In both cases, the Members of Congress who voted for these provisions could not move past their long-standing way of looking at things in order to really understand the reality of what is happening to women.

In the House Judiciary Committee, Trent Franks relied on the old and disproved idea that women rarely get pregnant from rape. That is not the reality. Not only is it false, but it really is beside the point. If even one woman who has been raped is forced to carry a pregnancy she does not want, that is wrong.

In the Senate Armed Services Committee, a very thoughtful debate took place about the best way to approach the troubling issue of sexual assault in the military. The Senators who voted against the amendment support pushing the chain of command to do a better job in dealing with sexual assault. Again, this ignores reality. For over two decades (at least since the Tailhook scandal in 1991), people outside of the military have been demanding that the chain of command’s response to these crimes improve. It never has. New approaches are needed – and the best idea is to give authority to the independent prosecutors.

PS: Just so the states don’t feel left out, I should note that this wasn’t just a bad day in Congress – did you know that a bill just passed by the Iowa legislature would allow Governor Terry Branstad to personally review each individual case of a woman applying for Medicaid to receive coverage for an abortion in cases of rape, incest, severe fetal anomalies and life? Talk about intimidating women and an unprecedented political intrusion into medical privacy!

Iowa Governor Will Have Final Say Over Medicaid Reimbursement for Abortion

djackson — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 21:24:08 +0000

Posted by:

Charlotte Cassel, Intern

Imagine being a twenty-something year old woman, caring for a toddler, working to make ends meet, and finding yourself facing an unintended pregnancy. Who would you want to talk to? Your partner? Your doctor? Maybe your friends? Siblings? Parents? Religious leaders? Would you want this guy to have a say in what you can and cannot do?

Last week, the Governor of Iowa indicated that he will sign the state budget, which includes a provision giving him the final decision making authority over who can and cannot receive Medicaid funds to cover the cost of an abortion. He will now have the authority to review each and every individual’s case separately. Since 1976, federal law has restricted Medicaid coverage of abortion. While the language has changed a bit over time, it currently states that Medicaid cannot cover abortion except when the women’s life is at risk, or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Each state must comply with the federal law and must at least provide coverage of abortions in those circumstances. Iowa goes beyond federal law, and also provides state Medicaid coverage of abortion in cases of fetal anomalies. Physicians providing abortions in these cases have been required to certify that an abortion meets the exceptions.

But now Iowa has decided to take the decision away from women and their doctors and give it to the Governor. Now, what if that same woman realizes that it doesn’t matter what her doctor, partners, faith, or parents say, and that instead, her medical care is subject to the whims of the Governor? If she does not want to disclose her personal information to the highest elected official in the state, it is not hard to imagine that she will second-guess her decision to obtain the procedure.

House Committee Approves Ban on Abortion That Only Men Supported

djackson — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 20:49:28 +0000

Posted by:

Leila Abolfazli, Senior Counsel

There’s a lot going on in Congress. Immigration reform, hearings on sexual assault in the military, investigations of alleged IRS wrongdoings, etc. So what else should be added to the list? Oh, of course, BANNING ABORTIONS. Because nothing says Congress is at work than marking up a terrible bill that would hurt women and their families.

It’s hard not to get upset while attending the House Judiciary Committee mark-up of a bill that would ban almost all abortions after twenty weeks. It’s just saddening to watch amendments that would marginally improve this otherwise-horrendous bill get voted down, one by one.

You see, the bill as it stands now, only has a very narrow exception that allows an abortion when necessary to save a woman “whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, but not including psychological or emotional conditions.” What does this mean? It means that Rep. Trent Franks (who is pushing this bill) and his cosponsors don’t really think mental illness can be life threatening. That’s right, suicide – it’s all in your mind, just that pesky “emotional condition” that can end in death.

But let’s look beyond the one incredibly insensitive exception that actually made it into the bill. What about the Judiciary Committee’s rejection of amendments that would slightly make this bad bill better, like adding an exception for rape or incest survivors, or an exception that would adequately protect a woman’s life and health.

I guess if you’re of the mindset that “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down”, then you probably don’t think there is even a need for an exception for survivors of sexual violence. Which could explain why Rep. Franks opposed the amendment. Although he later disputed in the hearing that he said as much, it seems that Rep. Franks thinks that rapes do not result in pregnancy very often. But all of this debate begs a much more important question – why are we even talking about “how many”? If even ONE pregnancy is a result of rape, then the bill should include an exception. But this is not how Rep. Franks and his colleagues saw it, and so the amendment was voted down.

So, Mr. Franks, what should we say to a woman when she can’t get an abortion after 20 weeks because, well, a politician who she had never met, who never knew her, had no idea about her circumstances, and in fact discounted the violence she experienced, thought it best for her to block her ability to get an abortion. What do we say to her?

What do we say to the women who would be affected by this ban? Do we tell them that some men in Washington said they knew better than the women themselves what is best for them?

BREAKING: Amendment Adding the High School Data Transparency Act to ESEA Reauthorization Passed!

djackson — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:41:24 +0000

Posted by:

Valarie Hogan, Fellow

Yesterday, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee debated Senator Harkins’ reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which included an amendment to add the High School Data Transparency Act to the ESEA. The amendment would require high schools to publicly report data on how many girls and boys are playing sports and how much money schools are spending on their teams.

The amendment passed by a vote of 13-9 this morning with bipartisan support – Senator Murkowski (R-AK) joined all of the HELP Committee Democrats in supporting this amendment that will help ensure that girls in high school get equal opportunities to play sports! Click here for more information on this issue.

Celebrating Milestones in Women on the Judiciary; But There Is Always More to Be Done

djackson — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:33:47 +0000

Posted by:

Cortelyou Kenney, Fellow

The President should be applauded for the giant leap forward he has made in placing women in federal judgeships. Indeed, the President nominated and seen confirmed a higher percentage of female nominees than any other president in U.S. history, according to a new report from Alliance for Justice.

The Report contains numerous causes for celebration:

Forty-two percent (42%) of President Obama’s confirmed judges have been women—almost double the rate of President George W. Bush (22%) and almost fifty percent greater than that of President Clinton (29%).
President Obama already has nominated and seen confirmed more minority women judges (33) than President George W. Bush (22) or President Clinton (23), and has quintupled the number of Asian Pacific American women judges (from 2 to 10).
Nine district courts now have their first female judges: the District of Wyoming; the District of Alaska; the Eastern District of California; the Eastern District of Washington; the Middle District of North Carolina; the District of Vermont; the Southern District of Iowa; the District of Maine; and the Middle District of Louisiana.

Nevertheless, as the NWLC has chronicled, much work remains to be done.

53 of the 164 active judges currently sitting on the thirteen federal courts of appeal are female (about 32%). When broken down by circuit, women’s representation on several of these individual courts is even lower than on the courts of appeals overall:

There is currently only one female judge among the Tenth Circuit’s ten active members (10%).
Women are also vastly underrepresented on the Eighth Circuit (where they make up 18% of judges), the Third Circuit (about 21%) and the Fourth Circuit (about 27%).
Approximately 30% of active United States district (or trial) court judges are women.

There are over a dozen districts that have not had a woman judge in their entire history.

These include the Middle District of Alabama; the Middle District of Georgia; the District of Idaho; the Southern District of Illinois; the Southern District of Mississippi; the District of Montana; the Western District of New York; the District of New Hampshire; the Western District of North Carolina; the District of North Dakota; the Eastern District of Oklahoma; the Eastern District of Tennessee; the Western District of Virginia; and the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
It is good news indeed that female nominees to the District of Montana; the Western District of New York; the District of New Hampshire; and the Eastern District of Tennessee are currently pending.

In sum, thanks to the President for this important progress and thanks to AFJ for highlighting this important issue.

What Do Auto Parts Have to do with Contraception: Autocam, the ACA, and Why Women in Manufacturing Can’t Seem to Win

djackson — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:44:56 +0000

Posted by:

Shari Inniss-Grant, Fellow

Women in manufacturing continue to lose out. As we’ve said before, women aren’t seeing any of the gains from the recovery in the manufacturing sector. While the nation has gained over half a million manufacturing jobs since 2010, women have lost 36,000. In March alone, women lost 12,000 manufacturing jobs.

But these aren’t the only kinds of losses hitting women in the manufacturing industry; even women who have managed to hold onto their jobs might find themselves stripped of some benefits if employers like John Kennedy, CEO of Autocam, have their way.

The man at the helm of Autocam Corporation, a Michigan-based for-profit company that manufactures auto parts and medical equipment, is arguing he should have the right to deny employees and dependents all forms of contraception. The district court did not agree. It denied his request for a preliminary injunction, stating that, “Implementing the challenged mandate will keep the locus of decision-making in exactly the same place: namely, with each employee, and not the Autocam plaintiffs.

Not satisfied with the court’s order, Kennedy appealed to the Sixth Circuit asking for two forms of temporary relief. The Sixth Circuit not only denied his request for an injunction pending appeal; they refused to reconsider the order. Today the Sixth Circuit panel will hear oral arguments on the preliminary injunction.

Kennedy says that “in order to build auto parts, we need employees.” He admits that Michigan has been hit by the upheaval in the auto industry. Yet, he’s still litigating to deny his employees and their families a federal health care benefit that would provide affordable access to quality contraceptive care. While he insists that “[he doesn’t] tell [his] employees how to live their lives or how make decisions about family planning,” today his lawyers will argue that his employees and their dependents should not receive the comprehensive coverage the law requires. They’ll argue that HE (and other bosses) should be able to decide what reproductive healthcare his employees and their dependents can access.

Healthcare decisions belong between a woman, her family and her doctor; they shouldn’t be in the hands of her boss. We hope the Sixth Circuit will uphold women’s right to access quality health care and make these private decisions.

El Salvador Case is a Reminder that Abortion Restrictions Threaten Lives

djackson — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:13:45 +0000

Posted by:

Kelli Garcia, Senior Counsel

Today, reproductive rights advocates in D.C. will hold a vigil in support of safe, legal, and affordable abortion care for all women, no matter where they live. This vigil comes after the Salvadorian Supreme Court denied a critically ill woman, known only as Beatriz, a therapeutic abortion. Beatriz was pregnant with a nonviable, anencephalic fetus. Due to complications related to lupus, cardiovascular disease and kidney functioning, the pregnancy threatened Beatriz’s life. The Supreme Court waited seven weeks while Beatriz’s health deteriorated before issuing its ruling. Last Monday, the Health Ministry allowed Beatriz to undergo a cesarean section. Beatriz is currently recovering; but, as expected, the fetus, which was missing part of its brain and skull, did not survive.

Think this can’t happen here? Think again. If anti-abortion activists get their way, abortion could be banned in all circumstances. Already, women seeking care at Catholic affiliated hospitals may be denied medically appropriate treatment. One study found that doctors practicing at Catholic-affiliated hospitals, which are required to adhere to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, were forced to delay treatment for miscarriages while performing medically unnecessary tests. Even though these miscarriages were inevitable and nothing could save the fetus, some patients were transferred because doctors could still detect a fetal heartbeat or required to wait until there was no longer a fetal heartbeat to provide the needed medical care. A Seattle woman, who was suffering a miscarriage, was denied an abortion because the fetus still had a heartbeat even though nothing could be done to save the pregnancy. She was told she could wait for the heartbeat to stop or she could unhook herself and go to another hospital. "It was a nightmare," she said of her experience "It still is."

If it had passed, the misnamed “Protect Life Act” introduced in 2011 would have allowed hospitals to deny women emergency abortion care even when an abortion would be necessary to protect the woman’s life. Hospitals could have even refused to transfer women to another hospital to receive care. Medical providers and politicians shouldn’t be allowed to deny women medically necessary care. What happened in El Salvador should serve as reminder of what is at stake and how far abortion opponents are willing to go.

NWLC Releases a New Report: 50 Years and Counting: The Unfinished Business of Achieving Fair Pay

ywang — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 21:04:59 +0000

Posted by:

Valarie Hogan, Fellow

This might be difficult, but try, for a minute, to imagine Congress as a group of artisans – glass blowers, perhaps – who must use their breath to shape the world we live in. Actually, that shouldn’t be too difficult. They may not be artistically inclined (or maybe they are) but obviously, Congress is in the business of shaping our lives through debate (aka their breath) and legislative action.

Today marks the 50^th Anniversary of the Equal Pay Act, yet Congress has apparently forgotten the importance of using its power for positive change. If you’ll indulge me for a second, I would like to quote from The Glass-Blowers by Daphne du Maurier, which was #1 on the NY Times Bestseller List the day the Equal Pay Act became law:

A glass-blower, remember, breathes life into a vessel, giving it shape and form and sometimes beauty; but he can with that same breath, shatter and destroy it.

The Equal Pay Act helped breathe life into workplace equality and shaped the debate concerning the value of women’s work. However, as the National Women’s Law Center’s new report, 50 Years and Counting: The Unfinished Business of Achieving Fair Pay, shows, much more is needed to ensure that discrimination in the workplace does not shatter the promise of the Equal Pay Act.

Women continue to face significant barriers to equal pay, including things like: active discouragement from pursuing careers in high-paid, nontraditional fields; clustering in low-paid “women’s work”; the maternal wall; and, shockingly, overt discrimination in wages.

Congress has previously intervened to ensure that the fight for equal pay is not destroyed – in 2009, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act reinstated the law as it existed prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., and reopened the courthouse doors to women who have experienced discrimination in the workplace.

But there is much more to be done.

50 Years and Counting: The Unfinished Business of Achieving Fair Pay bundles together a package of solutions to achieve fair pay for women once and for all:

Strengthen our equal pay laws;
Build ladders to high-wage jobs that are nontraditional for women;
Lift up the wages of women in low-wage jobs; and
Adopt modern workplace policies and enforce existing protections for women in the workplace against discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and caregiving.

Check it out!