“I Will NOT Be Denied” Health Care

The Women’s Law Project is proud to join the National Women’s Law Center’s  I Will NOT Be Denied™ campaign to educate the public about the benefits of the health care law and what is at risk if it is repealed.  We are pleased to participate in releasing NWLC’s new campaign video which uses intimate portraits of women to highlight the importance of protecting the benefits that women are already receiving from the law and will continue to receive as new benefits roll out through 2014.

While opponents spread misinformation about the Affordable Care Act, the bottom line is that the health care law is already making a meaningful difference in peoples’ lives.

• Millions more women can now receive preventive services like mammograms, Pap smears, and colonoscopies without a co-pay;
• It is now illegal for insurance companies to deny children care because of a pre-existing condition.
• Later this year, millions more women will have access to well-woman exams and birth control without a co-pay, and all health plans will have to include maternity care.

And this is just the beginning. But opponents of the law are fighting to take all these important benefits and common-sense protections away from you.

Take a stand and help us protect women’s health care. Join the campaign by signing our online petition, learn the facts, share the video and tell opponents of affordable care “I Will NOT Be Denied.”™
And join the #NotDenied conversation on Twitter.

Pennsylvania is Making Improvements for Incarcerated Moms, But Much More Needs to Be Done

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette recently published an article praising Pennsylvania’s number one status among state prison systems with regard to treatment of pregnant inmates. Post-Gazette reporter Tracie Mauriello cites examples from a study titled “Mothers Behind Bars” (PDF) conducted by the National Women’s Law Center and the Rebecca Project for Human Rights. According to the study, Pennsylvania received an overall grade of A-, the highest of all 50 states.

In addition to the overall grade each state receives, the study provides letter grades for following policy areas: prenatal care, shackling of pregnant inmates, family-based treatment as an alternative to incarceration, and prison nurseries.

The study has good intentions and we’re glad that NWLC and the Rebecca Project worked on this issue, but it ultimately falls short because it relies solely on legislation and does not include any empirical evidence that any of the policies in question are actually working effectively. The study’s executive summary addresses this obstacle:

Ultimately, our goal is to encourage federal and state governments to reevaluate policies that fail to protect the interests of this growing at-risk population and adopt policies that recognize the needs of incarcerated pregnant women and mothers, as well as their children. But we also know that good laws and policies are not enough. Just as critical is whether state and federal institutions actually comply with what is required and whether they punish and correct violations. Just because a state has a high grade in any particular area does not mean that the pregnant and parenting women in that state are benefiting from the good policy.

It’s confusing to simultaneously grade a state’s policies and say that the grades may not mean anything, which is why the Post-Gazette’s article calling the PA prison system “the best in the nation when it comes to treatment of pregnant inmates” is misleading. Many states received low grades (six F+ grades is pretty awful), but without testimony from those who are subject to these policies, it’s too early to claim that the state is doing everything it can for incarcerated mothers.

Ann Schwartzman, the Policy Director for the Pennsylvania Prison Society, discusses the study’s shortcomings in a letter to the editor criticizing the Post-Gazette article. Schwartzman points out that Pennsylvania is indeed putting forth effort to improve conditions with the recent shackling ban and a committee to review children’s needs that will convene in June 2011. She goes on to say:

Meanwhile, the number of women in prison over the last 25 years has increased by 400 percent, and roughly 75 percent are mothers of young children. Many need drug/alcohol treatment but programs are lacking. Health care including mental health and trauma-focused treatment for violence and abuse would address many issues of incarcerated moms, but the treatment available is limited. More community-based alternatives for women, who are mainly nonviolent, first-time offenders, are needed to keep families intact. Such programs are vital to successful re-entry.

We agree with Ms. Schwartzman, and we think talking to women who have been in jail or have been released and can share their first-hand experiences should be a crucial part of measuring how effective these policies are. Okay, Pennsylvania, you can pat yourself on the back for a minute and be proud of the steps being taken to improve the lives of incarcerated mothers, but do not let this praise in any way halt efforts to reform the prison system. It’s more important that the problems still occurring are worked on and solved, rather than focusing on where Pennsylvania stands compared to other states – especially since, upon further inspection, being number one in this study doesn’t seem like much of an accomplishment.

Justice Souter Leaves a Feminist Legacy

Feminists across the nation are calling for President Obama to fill Justice David Souter’s soon-to-be-empty seat on the Supreme Court with a woman. As we look to the future, a review of the past should remind us of the important role Justice Souter has played in defending women’s rights. The National Women’s Law Center has posted on its blog a summary of Justice Souter’s record, including the following key stands:

• Justice Souter was part of the 5-4 majority in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education (2005).  In that case, the Court held that Title IX protects those who complain of sex discrimination in schools against retaliation.
• Justice Souter joined the 5-4 majority in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003).  In this case, the Court held that public universities could use affirmative action in their admissions policies to promote diversity.
• Justice Souter was a co-author of the decisive “joint opinion” in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), in which the Court reaffirmed the essential holding of Roe v. Wade, protecting a woman’s right to choose.

Justice Souter’s voice will be missed. The fact that he has been such a staunch defender of women’s rights only highlights the need for his replacement to be someone who shares his commitment to protecting the constitutional rights of women. As we blogged last week, another female justice could go a long way in keeping the court on track with regards to women’s rights.

San Francisco AG Files Suit Over Discriminatory Health Insurance Policies

The City of San Francisco’s Attorney General has filed suit against state health insurance regulators  because of the current regulations’ discriminatory effects on women.  The suit contends that insurance commissioner Steve Poizner and director of the Department of Managed  Health Care, Cindy Ehnes, approved a system that allows insurance companies to impose “gender rating” when pricing policies.  This system affects women who are seeking individual health care polices.  Under current regulations, women are paying as much as 39% more for the same exact coverage as men, coverage that excludes costs related to pregnancy.

Currently, ten states outlaw “gender rating” health insurance rates for individual coverage, but not California.  Since December, two bills have been introduced in the state legislature which aim to remedy the situation.  However, until the law in California changes, lawsuits like this will be the only means to end discrimination in health insurance.

Other states in the United States are dealing with the same issues regarding women’s health insurance discrimination.  The National Women’s Law Center published a report, Nowhere to Turn (PDF), detailing the many problems women encounter when dealing with current health insurance policies.  The situation, which we previously blogged about here, is exacerbated by the continuing economic downturn. As more and more women are having trouble paying for their health insurance, the fact that they already pay more than men does not help.