Women News Oct 27, 2009

Jane: Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress recently released the report The Shriver Report-A Woman's Nation Changes Everything to highlight the rise of women in the workforce while emphasizing that working women and their families lack the critical support they need to thrive in today's changing world. Appearing in the news, Maria Shriver confirmed what many of us already knew, that equity in numbers has not translated into gender equity in America's workplaces, educational institutions, or government agencies. There is still much work to be done.

Joan: President Obama nominated Jane Branstetter Stranch of Nashville, Tenn for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Jane Stranch, is a partner in Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings. As an experienced trial lawyer, she brings with her the important understanding of the real life impact of the law on everyday people. She has represented labor unions in federal employment litigation, as well as pensioners and retirees making claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. She also served as a member of the AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee from 2003 to 2006. Unlike many appellate judges who advance through the ranks of the courts, she has never been a judge. At her confirmation hearing last Wednesday she stated "If I have the privilege of serving, I will do what the law calls me to do, not to be a respecter of anyone, but to be an equal treater of all." A decision about her confirmation is likely to come within the next couple of weeks.

Jane: Several months back Women Matters had the all-female rock group Kore as musical guest. We are happy to announce that this Tampa Bay area band was named 'Band of the Year' by Mamapalooza All Stars. Congratulations to Susan, Traci and Jax. We will play one of their songs following the news.

Joan:  A new law in Oklahoma was to take effect on NOV 1 mandating the publication on a state Web site of detailed  information about patients who have abortions. Last Monday, this law was blocked by a temporary restraining order that for now prevents the law from going into effect. This legal action was filed by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of two Oklahoma women challenging the state constitutionality of the law that requires physicians to ask patients, described as "mothers," up to 37 personal questions, including their age, marital status, race, years of education, number of prior pregnancies, reason for the abortion, method of abortion and payment and whether an ultrasound was performed.

Former state Rep. Wanda Jo Stapleton, an Oklahoma City Democrat and Lora Joyce Davis, a resident of Shawnee, Okla., are challengers in the lawsuit. Stapleton said, "This is one of dozens of bills piled on year after year by the Oklahoma legislature to place obstacles in the path of women." She also said that this law violates patient privacy protection that is guaranteed under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (that's HIPPA) and that it violates a woman's federally-protected right to choose without state interference during the first trimester of pregnancy.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion reporting requirements nationwide, 46 states require hospitals, doctors and facilities that provide abortions to submit confidential reports to the state. But only 15 states require providers to give information about a woman's reason for seeking the procedure. "The Oklahoma bill takes all of the intrusive information from very personal questions and puts it all in one place," said Elizabeth Nash, who specializes in state policy for the Guttmacher Institute. "It's the most egregious."

Jane: This week the House health care reform legislation came "to an impasse" over the language regarding coverage of abortion services, reports the AP/Houston Chronicle. There are about two dozen Democrats led by Representative Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) who oppose abortion-rights and they threaten to stall the entire health care legislation claiming the bill would "effectively allow federal funding of abortion."

The proposed House legislation would require that everyone purchase health care insurance and would provide government subsidies to help low income people purchase the mandated health coverage from private insurance plans. Since about 80% of private insurance policies pay for abortion, Stupak contends that "Once you get the affordability credits (that is, the subsidies) in there, that's public funding of abortion," which, according to the Hyde Amendment is against the law.

This fight over handling abortion payments is crucial. If insurance companies stop funding abortions so that people who qualify for subsidies can purchase their insurance, women may have to pay for the procedures themselves, making it difficult for most women to afford, effectively banning abortion.

Joan: On October 15, National Women's Liberation activist Allison Guttu was arrested along with 13 others when she joined scores of people across the country in civil disobedience actions for real national health insurance with Mobilization for Healthcare for All. She was one of 54 people in nine cities who blocked the doors or sat-in in the lobbies of health insurance companies that make exorbitant profits by denying health care.

The mobilization demands a single, simple national health insurance system--more than just a ‘public option' for some, but full health care for all--meaning no insurance companies, no deductibles, no tying coverage to jobs or marriage, everybody in, nobody out. Allison writes: “I have been fighting for national health care for eight years within the women's liberation movement. I don't want to be dependent on a job or a husband for my health insurance. I have heard from scores of other women who have to consider health 'benefits' in deciding whether to marry or divorce--women are staying in marriages that are not safe or that they simply don't want to be in because they need the health coverage for themselves and their kids. Legislators have threatened to kick real national healthcare ('single-payer') off the table since the debates began, so we need to push for what we really want in order to win.

Jane: The Miami Herald claims that Republican Bill McCollum in his campaign for governor is saying that  Democratic rival Alex Sink is ducking tough issues. Shannon Gravoitte, a spokeswoman for  McCollum claims that  Sink won't disclose how much money she's received from a group that solicits donations for Democratic women who favor abortion rights. They are talking about Emily's List which is perceived as a liberal women's group. Sink has raised $1.6 million between July and September, outraising McCollum, 2 to 1, partly due to her success at courting some top Republican donors. Sink has not declared how much money was raised by Emily's list because, though federal candidates have to report such donations, state candidates do not, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington.

Joan: Campaign finance is caught in a tug of war between two important rights: the regulation of election finance in order to promote truly democratic elections, and the free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment including political free speech rights of corporations, both for profit and non-profit corporations. This is tricky. Campaign finance laws were enacted to stop corruption in elections. Elections of course are the constitutional mainstay of our democracy. But restrictions on certain campaign spending may limit free speech. Two recent cases have pointed this out. Both involve women in politics and the groups of interest to women are on opposite sides of their particular case (not against each other): First: Hillary Clinton. This case revolves around a movie made to raise intensely negative suspicion about Hillary during last year's hard fought primary campaign for president, clearly an anti-Hillary campaign action. The distribution of the movie was temporarily halted when suit was filed arguing the movie and its distribution violated McCain-Finegold campaign finance laws requiring disclosure of the movie's financial backers and restricting when the film could air. The court rejected the argument that it was a non-electioneering documentary. A section of the McCain Feingold law bans the broadcast of electioneering communication by corporations, unions and advocacy groups if such broadcast would be aired close to election dates and would identify candidates by name or image. The court action had the desired effect of postponing the showing until it didn't matter any more anyway. The case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the case in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor is said to have asked more questions than Justice Thomas has asked in his entire career on the bench. The question is: Can Congress protect against electoral corruption but at the same time protect the right of expression of corporations as well as individuals? The decision is expected in November.

Emily's list is on the other side of the debate, argues that campaign finance regulations violate its free speech rights. Emily's List has gathered a group of individuals under its large umbrella to have more money and therefore more power than the individuals alone. Campaign finance regulations among other things limit how independent political groups can raise and spend money to advocate for candidates. The regulation contested in the Emily's list case requires that they use federal funds rather than private donations to pay for many campaign activities. Federal funds are extremely limited, so this would be extremely limiting to the group. Groups like Emily's List, are generally corporations whether for profit or not, and according to old Supreme Court rulings they have the same free speech as individuals. The federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia voted in favor of Emily's List, and the FEC has decided not to appeal it further. So that is one for free speech and one for regulation.

So, can corporations be regulated and barred from pouring money into election campaigns, or do they have the same rights to spend their cash to influence elections as individuals who generally are not so regulated? Can the court find a dividing line? It makes for strange bedfellows such as the ACLU joining with the NRA in support of free speech for corporations. And it means there is no predicting how the court will rule. The current Roberts Court prides itself on respecting precedent. They don't want to be known as those activist judges who try to legislate from the bench. Yet it likely welcomes the opportunity to strike down regulations that interfere with what they see as the free market. The more liberal judges who generally shiver in the sight of anything that smacks of censorship and support of a broad construction of the First Amendment generally like to constrain big business from overpowering little individuals.

What I like about these cases is that they show how our constitution, courts and laws can work for all of us, trying to ensure that the little guys can have the same rights as the big guys. What I don't like about it is that people who disagree with me have the same rights and powers that I do, so my wishes might lose out. But overall at least there is a set-up for everyone to have a chance, and even though it is far from perfect and sometimes I feel totally hopeless and powerless, I really like to view it as the beauty of democracy at work. So it looks interesting and we eagerly await the outcome.

Jane: Thursday the Senate voted to extend new federal protections to people who are victims of violent crime because of their sex or sexual orientation, bringing the measure close to reality after years of fierce debate. The measure, attached to an essential military-spending bill, broadens the definition of federal hate crimes to include those committed because of a victim's gender or gender identity, or sexual orientation. It gives victims the same federal safeguards already afforded to people who are victims of violent crimes because of their race, color, religion or national origin. The bill was sponsored by Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Federal protections for people who are victims of violent crime because of their sexual orientation have been sought for more than a decade, at least since the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming college student.