Comprehensive Health Care Reform – Unless You’re a Woman

On Saturday night, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 220-215 to overhaul the health care system in the United States. Media outlets are framing this as a victory for progressives, and to be sure, some elements of the bill will be helpful in the long run. But the Stupak amendment, which was attached to the bill at the last minute on Saturday and was approved by a vote of 240-194, makes this bill a setback for women’s equality.

The amendment reads:

No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made to this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

This cripples women’s access to abortion in several ways:

The provision would apply only to insurance policies purchased with the federal subsidies that the health legislation would create to help low- and middle-income people, and to policies sold by a government-run insurance plan that would be created by the legislation.

Abortion rights advocates charged Sunday that the provision threatened to deprive women of abortion coverage because insurers would drop the procedure from their plans in order to sell them in the newly expanded market of people receiving subsidies. The subsidized market would be large because anyone earning less than $88,000 for a family of four — four times the poverty level — would be eligible for a subsidy under the House bill. Women who received subsidies or public insurance could still pay out of pocket for the procedure. Or they could buy separate insurance riders to cover abortion, though some evidence suggests few would, in part because unwanted pregnancies are by their nature unexpected.

Abortion is fundamental to women’s equality. It’s that simple. Without the ability to decide when and if to have children, women will never be able to control their destinies as men have been able to do for centuries. Contraception is available – though not as widely as you may think – but abortion must also be available, it must be accessible, and it must be affordable.

Over half of the women seeking abortions in the United States were using contraception at the time of their pregnancy. The Hyde Amendment – which looks strikingly similar to the Stupak amendment above and which bars the use of federal funds for abortions for women on Medicaid – has forced women who would have terminated their pregnancies to carry them to term.

To carve out this specific procedure which is so crucial to women’s autonomy and deny coverage for it – even for women who buy their own insurance with their own money – is unacceptable. And even as they spoke out against it, supporters of women’s rights voted for the final bill:

“If enacted, this amendment will be the greatest restriction of a woman’s right to choose to pass in our careers,” said Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, one of the lawmakers who left Ms. Pelosi’s office mad.

Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, said the bill’s original language barring the use of federal dollars to pay for abortions should have been sufficient for the opponents. “Abortion is a matter of conscience on both sides of the debate,” Ms. DeLauro said. “This amendment takes away that same freedom of conscience from America’s women. It prohibits them from access to an abortion even if they pay for it with their own money. It invades women’s personal decisions.”

But Ms. DeGette, Ms. DeLauro and other defenders of abortion rights said they would nonetheless vote in favor of the health care bill and fight for changes in the final version, to be negotiated with the Senate.

We hope that the final version of the bill, after the Senate votes on it, will not include this restrictive provision on abortion coverage, and that supporters of women’s rights in Congress will not allow women’s equality to be hijacked as legislation moves forward. We will work as hard as we can to ensure that this doesn’t happen and hope you will too. The rights hanging in the balance are too crucial to women’s equality to do otherwise.

The Shriver Report: “A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything”

Maria Shriver, journalist and First Lady of California, worked with the Center for American Progress this year to release the Shriver Report, which assesses the situation of American women and families during this economic recession.

The title of the report comes from women being half of the nation’s non-farm workforce for the first time in history, and how this milestone “changes everything.” The findings aren’t very shocking to feminist activists, but bear mentioning anyway:

• Only 20.7% of American families with children fall into the “traditional” category, meaning a married heterosexual couple where the husband works and the wife doesn’t hold a wage-earning job. The majority of families with children are ones where the parents are married and both work (43.5%) or where there is an employed single parent (22.1%).
• 63.3% of American mothers are breadwinners or co-breadwinners.

The report focuses on various factors in women’s lives, from the economy to caregiving to the experiences of immigrant women. Although the report focuses too heavily on married, heterosexual women, it is a good resource for information about women’s experiences at this pivotal point in our nation’s history.

Don’t Forget – Vote for the WLP!

We’re counting on your vote for our grant proposal to work for gender equity in western PA. It only takes a minute – vote for the WLP today!

Female Soldiers and PTSD: “People Underestimate What These Women Have Been Through”

Damien Cave writes in the New York Times about female veterans with stress disorders, and the unique challenges they face upon returning home.

Cave writes that never before has the United States witnessed so many female veterans affected by the crippling nature of stress disorders. As of June 2008, almost 20,000 female veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan had received diagnoses of mental disorders from the Department of Veterans Affairs, including more than 8,000 women with a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder — and this number does not include troops still abroad, or those who have never sought help from the Veterans Affairs system. These difficulties are a result of a “historic shift,” where women are finding themselves on the front line more often than ever before—and distinguishing themselves there.

Cave describes the struggle of veteran Vivienne Pacquette, who has seen everything from a suicide bomber exploding a nearby tent to a mortar attack hitting the motor pool where her unit worked, where she saw friends blown up “beyond recognition.”

Cave writes:

Recalling the scene nearly five years later, Mrs. Pacquette’s dark brown eyes began darting back and forth, as if looking for another rocket. She was in St. Croix, the island where she grew up, but her body stiffened like a wound coil — releasing only after her twin sister brought their faces together, in a silent hug that lasted several minutes.

Her mind had returned to the moment. And this emotional flashback is just one in a long list of post-traumatic stress symptoms that female veterans now know intimately. Fits of rage, insomnia, nightmares, depression, survivor’s guilt, fear of crowds — women with the disorder, like men, can and do get it all.

Although early research suggests that rates of stress disorders for men and women veterans are the same, Cave points out that the way men and women deal with their stress disorders upon return can be very different. As a result of military life and the way people receive women veterans when they return home, women, lacking the support system many male soldiers have, are much more likely to isolate themselves, or “go into hiding,” as Cave puts it. Patricia Resick, director of the Women’s Health Sciences at the National Center for P.T.S.D, says, “Some of the issues come up because they’re not given the combat title even though they may be out on patrol standing next to the men. … People underestimate what these women have been through.”

Cave rightly points out that many of the challenges that women veterans face are related to “old-fashioned ignorance” and stereotypes about the way women should behave. These challenges include “male veterans and friends who do not recognize them as ‘real soldiers’; husbands who have little patience with their avoidance of intimacy; and a society that expects them to be feminine nurturers, not the nurtured.” Indeed, Mrs. Pacquette’s therapist, Dr. Carrie-Ann Gibson, suggests that women feel guilty because they feel like they have no coping mechanisms: “they’re not supposed to punch a wall,” and “they’re not supposed to get aggressive with their spouse,” because society doesn’t accept anger and aggression as ‘normal’ behavior for women.

Because society does not know how to understand the symptoms of PTSD in women, it makes it harder for women to find equilibrium in their social and personal lives. For example, PTSD often makes sufferers want to pull back from loved ones, a symptom that is especially problematic for women with families. Even with support from home, however, female veterans’ struggles are exacerbated by the fact that many people don’t see them as ‘real’ veterans:

For many female veterans today, war and their roles in it must be constantly explained. For those with post-traumatic stress, the constant demand for proof can be particularly maddening — confirming their belief that only the people who were “over there” can understand them here.

Furthermore, while it is often difficult for veterans of both sexes to get the help they need, some therapists, case workers, and female patients also say that women must work harder to prove they saw combat and get the benefits they deserve.

These veterans possess courage and strength beyond comprehension, and we would encourage everyone to read the whole article as well as previous articles in the “Women at Arms” series.

U.S. Court of Appeals Upholds Modified Pittsburgh Buffer Zone Law

On October 30, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an 83-page ruling (PDF) in Brown v. City of Pittsburgh, in which an anti-abortion protester challenged the constitutionality of Pittsburgh’s Medical Safety Zone Ordinance.  Chief Judge Scirica, writing for a three-judge panel that included Judges Ambro and Smith, upheld the constitutionality of both operative provisions of the ordinance—a 15-foot fixed no-protest zone around clinic entrances and a floating 8-foot personal bubble zone of protection around each person approaching the clinic.

The court determined that both zones are content-neutral and consistent with the First Amendment speech and free exercise clauses, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act.

However, while noting that “the question is close” and that the Supreme Court’s clinic buffer zone jurisprudence did not dispose of the issue, the appeals court concluded that the combination of the two zones was, “on this record,” insufficiently narrowly tailored, and that the City could therefore keep one but not both kinds of protective zones.  (The record before the appeals court, developed at a preliminary stage of litigation, did not include any testimony of any clinic escorts, staff or patients.)  The appeals court remanded the case to the trial judge to permit the City to determine which of the two types of buffer zones it wished to keep.

“Far from striking down the buffer zone ordinance, the appeals court gave a green light to a modified version of it which can remain in place,” said Susan Frietsche, Senior Staff Attorney for the Women’s Law Project.  “We’re pleased that the appeals court recognized that the government has a significant interest in protecting women seeking reproductive health care. But it is an outrage that in the United States such special protective zones are even necessary.”

In the same decision, the appeals court also vacated and remanded the trial judge’s preliminary ruling that the buffer zone ordinance did not unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment based on the layout, location, and noise level surrounding particular clinics, because this ruling may have been influenced by the trial judge’s unannounced site visits to the protected clinics, a practice of which the appellate panel sharply disapproved.  The panel also affirmed the trial court’s preliminary ruling rejecting Brown’s claim that the ordinance had been selectively enforced against her because of her anti-abortion viewpoint, and sustained the trial court’s dismissal of portions of Brown’s complaint.

Vote for the WLP’s Grant Proposal!

The Women’s Law Project’s grant proposal, Equity Now: Southwestern PA, has been chosen as a finalist by the Women and Girls Foundation. Please head over to their website and vote for us!

Our project is two-fold. We will work for public disclosure of information about gender equity in federally funded high school and middle school athletics programs through Senate Bill 890. Given the widespread and often extreme disparities in boys’ and girls’ school sports programs, it is important that parents, students, and community advocates have ready access to public information about participation rates, athletic department budgets, and coaching to determine if schools are treating female and male athletes fairly.  Requiring public reporting and transparency will lead to greater compliance with federal and state laws requiring gender equity.

We will also specifically target Lawrence and Butler counties for intensive advocacy and community organizing, as these counties appear to have unusually severe gender equity problems.

It only takes a second to vote, and every vote counts! Please vote for our proposal – voting ends November 16.

Allegheny County Bar Association Launches Institute for Gender Equality

Yesterday, the Allegheny County Bar Association (ACBA) kicked off its new Institute for Gender Equality with a luncheon featuring judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Marjorie Rendell speaking about the difficulties women face in the legal profession.

The ACBA created the Institute last year after a study revealed that female lawyers in the Pittsburgh legal community had made very little advancement between 1990 and 2005. Some findings:

According to the survey, only about 5 percent of female lawyers make more than $250,000 a year. About 20 percent of men do. No women surveyed who graduated law school in the 1990s made $250,000 or more, while almost 10 percent of the male graduates of the 1990s did.

Nationally, about 17.3 percent of partners in law firms are women. In Allegheny County, 15.8 percent are, said Kim Brown, president of the county bar association.

The association has approximately 6,600 members, and about 1,780 of them women, spokesman Tom Loftus said.

Brown said the gap exists despite high-profile examples of women in leadership positions, such as U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, Allegheny County Common Pleas President Judge Donna Jo McDaniel and U.S. District Judge Donetta Ambrose, who recently stepped down as chief judge.

“There has been a lot of progress in many areas of law, such as on the bench,” Brown said. “There’s an inability to crack that last barrier to succeed in law firms.”

The Institute will be headed by Linda Varrenti Hernandez and will offer classes for local law students, policymakers, and lawyers in the next few months.

At the luncheon, Judge Rendell spoke about the difficulties she has experienced throughout her legal career and the importance of mentoring for young female attorneys:

As a young attorney building a practice in bankruptcy law and commercial litigation, Judge Rendell said she was frequently stressed by the demands of work and family.

“I cried to my husband but I wouldn’t let on at work. I was a good soldier. I was a poster child for ‘Women Don’t Ask,’” she said referring to a book published several years ago about women’s reluctance to ask for better pay and for other things they may need in the workplace as well as at home.

While her husband was a supportive sounding board and “my biggest fan,” Judge Rendell eventually found career help through a male partner at her firm who became her mentor.

“Every woman lawyer needs this,” she said.

The local Institute for Gender Equality will “pave the way out of darkness into light,” and help maximize the potential of female attorneys, she said.

We are thrilled that the ACBA has taken this very encouraging step toward rectifying gender inequality in the legal profession in Pittsburgh. We hope that female lawyers and law students will find it a great resource for ensuring that they get the support and recognition they deserve in every facet of their careers.

No, Stalking Victims Don’t “Ask For It”

In a very personal column talking about the video taken of ESPN sportscaster Erin Andrews in a hotel room without her consent, Washington Post sports columnist Tracee Hamilton opens up about a stalker who instilled fear and helplessness in her—feelings that still persist to this day. It’s a disturbing read, but one that puts into perspective the fact that this could happen to anyone—not just beautiful, blonde, sportscasters, and makes it perfectly clear why victims of stalkers do not “ask for it.”

Hamilton was stalked for two years by a man she met in school. He followed her around campus, sent her sexually explicit and threatening letters, called her without saying a word night after night, and, at least once, stationed himself outside her window all night, waiting for her to wake up. When she considered reporting her stalker to the police, she was told by school administrators that if she reported him, he might kill himself, so she was discouraged from doing so. Even worse, one night she got a phone call from a mental health professional who blamed her for “her boyfriend’s” (the stalker’s) unstable state of mind. She writes:

I still remember standing there, in the dark, phone in my hand, shaking, as [the therapist] went on and on about my ‘boyfriend’ and my poor treatment of him. You see, my boyfriend wasn’t in therapy. The ‘boyfriend’ he was describing was my stalker. Slowly it came to me: I was being chastised by a mental health professional for being mean to the man who was torturing me. And finally, I snapped.

She furthermore contends that although one might think that the video of Andrews going public is the worst part about this situation, this is not, in fact, the case:

Andrews also has to live with the knowledge that this man stalked her all over the country, that at times only a hotel door separated her from a clearly obsessed and disturbed man. As hard as it is to remove a video from the Internet, that’s how hard it is to remove that kind of fear from your mind. And that’s why I’m tired of the endless debate about whether Andrews somehow “asked for it.”

Although it may seem strange that people would suggest Andrews and other stalking victims “asked for it,” this is just another example of how women are frequently blamed for initiating rape, harassment, and abuse because of the way they look, the clothes they wear, or the way they behave. These attitudes persist despite the fact that about 1 in 12 women will be stalked (PDF) in their lifetime through no fault of their own. In Andrews’s case, people have mentioned that perhaps she shouldn’t have worn “short skirts”; even sports columnist Christine Brennan wrote in her column that “there are hundreds of women covering sports in this country who haven’t had this happen to them. I wish it didn’t happen to Erin, but I also would suggest to her if she asked (and she hasn’t) that she rely on her talent and brains and not succumb to the lowest common denominator in sports media by playing to the frat house,” suggesting that this happened to Andrews because she didn’t rely on her “talent and brains.” Comments like these make it all too clear how essential perspectives like Tracee Hamilton’s are.

We’re so thankful to Hamilton for having the courage to share her terrifying experience, and especially to remind us that the victim-blaming needs to stop: when it comes to stalking, no one “asks for it” and no one deserves it.

Reducing Maternal Mortality Rates through Health Care Reform

It may come as a surprise that the United States ranks first among industrialized nations, and 42^nd worldwide, in its maternal mortality rate. In an op-ed in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Vice Chair of the Women’s Law Project’s Board of Trustees Cathy Raphael reminds us of this unpleasant reality. However, she also tells us that change is on its way:

Healthy women have healthy babies. The pending reform of the American health-care system recognizes this simple equation and would create for the first time a seamless, lifelong continuum of care for women. Women no longer would be charged up to 45 percent more than men for identical health-insurance coverage, and maternity and reproductive health would be part of a basic care package.

Ms. Raphael goes on to offer more detail about the need for better reproductive health care for women, as well as how better health care for women will have a positive impact on everybody. That such arguments still need to be made is somewhat discouraging, but let’s hope that these impending changes to our health-care system are part of a societal shift towards broad acceptance of the idea that women deserve comprehensive health care that does not discriminate against them based on their sex.

Good News for Child Support Enforcement

Last Thursday, Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller introduced the Child Support Enforcement Act, which would restore needed funding to child support enforcement efforts by reinstating the federal policy of matching the state-provided funds.

Joan Entmacher at Womenstake highlighted the impressive bipartisan support behind the bill in her blog post about the act: Democrat Herb Kohl and Republicans Olympia Snowe and John Cornyn join Rockefeller as co-sponsors, working to ensure that parents financially support their children.

The bill is currently in the Finance Committee. We hope that this bill, which directly affects the lives of millions of children, continues to attract the bipartisan support it deserves and soon becomes law.