Womenstake

Gender Stereotypes No Longer Belong In Marriage

by Rachel Peck, Fellow, 
National Women's Law Center

Wednesday, in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a federal district court judge in California struck down Proposition 8, a voter enacted amendment to the California Constitution which declared that marriage could only be between a man and a woman. The decision is the first to find that a provision limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the U.S. Constitution.

In his decision, Judge Vaughn Walker found that Proposition 8 violated both the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. In setting out the reasons men and women should be able to marry the person they desire, regardless of that person's sex, the decision drew out important connections between the movement for marriage equality and the movement away from a legally-enforced notion that marriage requires men and women to play particular, distinct gender roles. Judge Walker recognized that views of marriage have changed drastically over time and these earlier, discarded views are not a valid basis for current marriage law. 

None of Your Business: Bus Driver Refuses to Bring Women to Planned Parenthood

by Micole Allekotte, Health Fellow,
National Women's Law Center

A bus driver in Texas is suing after a transportation company allegedly fired him for refusing to take women to a Planned Parenthood clinic. He claims that the employer must accommodate his religious beliefs against abortion by allowing him to refuse to do his job, which was to take people who live in rural areas to their destinations. Not to pass judgment on the moral acceptability of that destination and impede women's access to a public transportation service because he thinks they are being bad girls. It is none of a bus driver's business where his passengers are going or why. 

The bus company argues that accommodating the driver's refusal to pick up the women would have been an undue hardship on their business, the sole purpose of which is to deliver people to their destinations. While there are many unanswered questions about whether an accommodation would have been possible, the driver didn't give his employers much of a chance, having apparently stated his objection only after being assigned to pick up the passengers.

Now That It Made History with Elena Kagan, the Senate Should Do Our Lower Courts Justice

by Marcia Greenberger, Co-President
National Women's Law Center

The Senate did the right thing today by confirming Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. I was honored to testify in support at the Judiciary Committee hearings, given her outstanding qualifications, exceptional legal talents, and dedication to the rule of law. It has been a special source of pride and inspiration that our country will see this remarkable trailblazer – the first woman Dean of Harvard Law School and United States Solicitor General – make history once again by becoming only the fourth woman confirmed to the Supreme Court in its 221-year history. When the Court hears arguments the first Monday in October, moreover, three women will be sitting together on the nine-Justice Supreme Court for the first time.

During this time of celebration, we have concrete evidence of how much progress the country has made and can make. But we cannot lose sight of how much more remains to be achieved. Only 220 of the more than 750 active federal appellate and trial court judges are women, and only 54 among them are women of color. There is only one Asian-American judge among the almost 160 active judges on the federal courts of appeal, and there are no Native American judges anywhere on the federal bench. This great imbalance coincides with a large number of vacancies on the federal courts that need to be filled. But a small, but determined, set of Senators are blocking the confirmation of 21 nominees for seats on the lower federal courts. And of the 21 nominees being blocked, two-thirds are women and/or racial or ethnic minorities.

The Supreme Court has the final say on how the Constitution and our laws are interpreted. But the lower courts try the cases and hear the appeals of the thousands upon thousands of people whose claims never make it to the Supreme Court. During her confirmation hearings, Elena Kagan testified that the courts are a unique forum where every party is treated equally – and gave the example of Justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom she clerked, who was able to turn to the courts for justice in challenging racial inequality when other doors were slammed shut. Today, too many Americans are waiting needlessly for their day in court because there are too few judges in place to hear their claims. And the cruelest irony of all is that those who not only could dispense justice, but whose diverse perspectives and life experience would add to the quality of the justice system as a whole, are the very nominees whose confirmation votes are being blocked in the Senate. The courts are our nation's crowning achievement in offering equal justice for all – but that promise is a hollow one if those who have been nominated as judges, especially those who would improve the diversity of those courts, are stuck at the back of a line that the Senate never allows to move.

Cross-posted from Huffington Post

Tuesday's Referendum in Missouri Certainly Wasn't about Health Reform

by Lisa Codispoti, Senior Counsel,
National Women's Law Center

If you read some of the press accounts of Tuesday's primary election in Missouri, you might think actually that voters approved a referendum on the ballot to reject health reform, for example, the New York Times headline "Missouri Voters Reject Health Law". But that would be wrong. Missouri primary voters did approve a ballot measure concerning one singular aspect from the health reform law. Let's clarify a few things. 

First, the ballot measure was not about the health reform law. The MO measure purports to target one specific piece of the new law—the so-called individual mandate, which is the requirement effective in 2014 that people—unless exempt—take personal responsibility and have health insurance so that we all have lower premium costs. The new health law is so much more than that. So the referendum had nothing to do with any of the law's important requirements, such as the requirement that insurance companies provide free preventative care, or stop charging women higher premiums just because they're women, or dropping people’s coverage when they get sick, or rejecting people due to pre-existing conditions.

Second, a word about turnout and who voted. The referendum occurred during a primary race in Missouri—which was heavily skewed toward Republican races; they outnumbered Democratic primaries races by almost a third. Accordingly, turnout was expected to heavily skew Republican. Given that those who showed up on Tuesday were not representative of the voting public in Missouri, let alone the rest of the country, the results in Missouri have little if any predictive weight about how the few other ballot measures like this might go. 

Finally, the ballot measure was incredibly confusing—with the exact text of the measure as follows:

Shall the Missouri Statutes be amended to:

• Deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services?
• Modify laws regarding the liquidation of certain domestic insurance companies?

If you had to vote on this, would you have known what a yes or no vote meant?

Let's be clear. Passage of Referendum C in Missouri has little practical effect—the health reform law is very much alive. The courts will ultimately decide about the personal responsibility requirement that the Missouri ballot measure addressed. In the mean time, key provisions of the law we all are counting on continue...

Do Babies Need Student Loans?

by Stephanie Robinson, Intern,
National Women's Law Center

It used to be that parents had to start saving for their children's college funds when their children were young. Now, parents may have to start saving for a child care fund before their children are even born. On Tuesday, the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies released a study revealing that, in 40 states, the average annual cost of child care for an infant is greater than a year's tuition and fees at a four-year public college. In the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, New York, and Wyoming, the average cost of child care was more than double the average cost of college tuition. Low-income parents already struggling to afford basic necessities for their families cannot afford these costs without help. 

As child care costs continue to rise, it is essential that states continue to expand assistance to help low-income families pay for child care. However, as a result of the economic downturn and budget shortfalls, many states are instead cutting funding for child care assistance programs and only providing it to the neediest families. But without assistance to afford the care they need to work, low-income parents may be unable to keep their jobs and gain financial stability. Alternatively, parents may have to resort to lower-quality and less reliable (but more affordable) care that does not promote children's development and learning.

Without more federal funding for child care, the states already cutting their child care programs may make additional cuts, and other states may follow, leaving low-income parents with few options. Just as the cost of college should not keep young people from getting the higher education they need to succeed, the cost of child care—which is often even more expensive—should not keep young children from getting the early learning experiences they need to succeed.

Elena Kagan's Confirmation Vote to be Held Today

by Rachel Peck, Fellow, 
National Women's Law Center

After months of discussion and debate, we are excited to report that the Senate will be voting today on Elena Kagan's confirmation as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. With five Republicans already announcing their support for Solicitor General Kagan's confirmation, we are expecting that she will be confirmed handily. We look forward to Elena Kagan beginning her work on the Supreme Court as soon as she is sworn in (which could be as early as this weekend). 

Good News for Early Childhood from Our Smallest State

by Stephanie Robinson, Intern,
National Women's Law Center

While a number of states have seen their waiting lists for child care assistance skyrocket, one small state has recognized that it is critical to maintain its investments helping families work and children succeed. Rhode Island passed its FY 2011 budget in June, demonstrating its continued commitment to children and families. The state, which actually guarantees child care assistance to all families earning up to 180 percent of the federal poverty level (an income of $32,958 for a family of three), will continue this guarantee in its FY 2011 budget. In addition, the legislature rejected a gubernatorial proposal for a 5 percent reduction ($1.1 million) in the rate it pays to child care providers serving low-income children. This will mean a lot to the low-income women in the state's child care workforce and we hope will allow these providers to maintain the quality of care they offer to children.

Pre-kindergarten programs will also benefit from the new FY 2011 budget. The state will continue to offer $800,000 to supplement the federal Head Start program. These funds will allow 129 low-income three- and four-year olds to receive Head Start comprehensive services. Meanwhile, Rhode Island's new budget will also provide some funding for free, voluntary high-quality prekindergarten programs that will be phased in over 10 years beginning in FY 2012. The state's pre-kindergarten programs will be offered in a range of settings, including child care, Head Start, and public schools. Until recently, Rhode Island was one of only twelve states that did not have a state pre-kindergarten program.

These budget decisions are good news for Rhode Island's children. Children and families would benefit if other states followed suit.

Procedural Ruling in Virginia Doesn't Change the Fact that Health Care Reform Benefits Women

by Kelli Garcia, Fellow,
National Women's Law Center

Yesterday, a federal district court in Virginia issued a procedural decision that will allow a law suit challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) filed by Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to proceed. This decision was merely procedural and says nothing about the merits of the Virginia Attorney General's claim that the requirement that individuals purchase insurance or pay a fine beginning in 2014 is unconstitutional. Judge Hudson simply found that the court will hear further arguments.

As this lawsuit proceeds, it is important to remember the real lives that will be improved by the ACA. Right now, insurance companies can refuse to sell insurance to adults that have diseases such as breast or ovarian cancer, or who had a disease or medical procedure in the past, such as having had a c-section or even for having been raped. Even when people with pre-existing conditions can find insurance, the rates are often unaffordable. Women in particular will be helped by the ACA's ban on pre-existing condition exclusions and guaranteed issue requirement (e.g. a requirement that insurance companies sell health insurance to anyone who applies), because women are more likely than men to suffer from chronic conditions. 

We Commemorate the 45th Anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid

by Natalie Koski-Karell, Intern,
and Grace Lesser, Program Assistant,
National Women's Law Center

Ever wonder what a birthday party is like at the Capitol? Last week, the typical stoicism of behind-closed-doors politics gave way to birthday cake, red, white, and blue balloons, and—yes!—members of Congress singing Happy Birthday! The President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare was joined by a handful of former and current elected representatives, local union members and health care advocates to commemorate the 45th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid.

On July 30th 45 years ago, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicare and Medicaid programs into law. At that time in 1965, 50 percent of America's seniors were uninsured, and many young people were going without the medical care they needed on a regular basis. As we look back now upon the last 45 years, it is easy to see the impressive impact that these programs have had on the lives of everyday Americans.

Friday Night Lights: The Discussion Continues

by Stephanie Drahan, Outreach Associate
National Women's Law Center

Last week, I blogged about the incredible Friday Night Lights episode depicting a teenage girl’s decision to have an abortion, and I expressed my concern that this storyline might disappear. Well, this week's FNL put this concern to rest.

In last week's episode, Tami Taylor, the football coach's wife and principal of the high school featured in FNL, counseled Becky, a pregnant sophomore at a neighboring high school. This week, FNL did not duck away, but instead, took the debate head on again.

In this episode, Luke's mother demands Tami be fired for "instructing" Becky to have an abortion. As a result, Tami faces an investigation by the school board. Tami's response to the accusation throughout the episode is that she counseled according to protocol and district policy. Although the school board ultimately sides with Tami (with a 5-1 vote), through this episode viewers witness how the anti-choice movement portrays abortion.