Action Alert: Tell Your State Rep to Reject Rep. Turzai’s Attempt to Sabotage Help for Sexually Exploited Children

As reported yesterday, Speaker of the House Mike Turzai is willing to sink a “safe harbor” bill designed to decriminalize and assist sexually exploited children just so he can use the Legislature to once again express his personal disapproval of Pennsylvania families who seek abortion care.

In this case, he’s targeting families in medical crisis who choose to terminate a pregnancy in the wake of a prenatal Down Syndrome diagnosis.

Unfortunately, this is the type of cynical political posturing that passes for “pro-life” in the Pennsylvania Legislature.

About the “Safe Harbor” Bill (Senate Bill 554)

Sponsored by Senator Stewart Greenleaf, advocates have been working to pass SB554 for the last four years.

Before Turzai’s sabotage, Greenleaf’s bill was written to require law enforcement to report any encounter with a minor who has been subject to sexual exploitation. The legislation also calls for the provision of safe, long-term housing, education, life-skills training, and counseling to the children who have been exploited.

Lead expert-advocates say “Safe harbor” bills such as SB554 are the most effective, victim-centered policy tools that state governments can utilize to protect child victims of sex trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation.    Is protecting sexually exploited children a goal of the Pennsylvania Legislature seemingly obsessed with restricting access to abortion?

The answer remains to be seen with the next vote.

The “Down Syndrome Ban” (HB2050)

If it sounds familiar to you, that’s because the Pennsylvania House already passed a bill in April with the same language as the amendment Turzai is using to sink Safe Harbor for sexually exploited children. Yes, it is unconstitutional and yes, both disability rights advocates and reproductive rights rejected the cynical attempt to divide advocates.

Advocates for Pennsylvania families did not think the Pennsylvania Legislature could not sink any lower.

And now they have.

What You Need to Do Now 

We expect a vote as early as today.

We need you to find your state Representative and contact them in any way possible and urge them to vote NO on Rep. Turzai’s amendment, and to pass the Safe Harbor bill, SB554, WITHOUT it.

Thank you for speaking up for equality and justice in Pennsylvania.

The Women’s Law Project is a public interest law center in Pennsylvania devoted to advancing the rights of women and girls.

Sign up for WLP’s Action Alerts here. Follow us on twitter and like us on Facebook. 

We are a non-profit organization. Please consider supporting equal rights for women and girls by making a one-time donation or scheduling a monthly contribution.

Fighting the Criminalization of Pregnancy in Pennsylvania

Relentless attacks on reproductive rights are colliding with the opioid epidemic in ways that seriously threaten both civil rights and public health.

Attorneys at the Women’s Law Project just authored and filed an amicus (“friend-of-the-court”) brief in Commonwealth v. Dischman, a case in which the defendant was charged with a first-degree felony after she overdosed on opioids while pregnant. We filed the brief on behalf of 28 non-profit organizations and individuals concerned about the public health ramifications and far-reaching consequences of applying punitive sanctions against people who use drugs while pregnant.

As observed in an article in The Nation on this case: “It’s often noted that the victims of the opiate epidemic receive a degree of compassion not usually extended to drug users, but apparently that approach doesn’t extend to pregnant women.”

After delivering prematurely, defendant Kasey Dischman of Butler County went straight from the hospital to jail. Her bail was set at $500,000.

Our Argument

The relevant criminal statute has a clear nonliability provision protecting pregnant women from prosecution for conduct during pregnancy.  For that reason, the charge was dismissed by the Court of Common Pleas in Butler County, but the prosecution filed an interlocutory appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Our brief, which you can read here, supports Appellee Dischman and urges the Superior Court of Pennsylvania to affirm the order of the Court of Common Pleas dismissing the aggravated assault charge against Dischman.

We argue that interpreting Pennsylvania law to allow for the prosecution of pregnant women for aggravated assault in regard to alleged drug use has no basis in law and contradicts legislative intent.

In addition to the clear language of the statute, the lawmakers who authored the legislation repeatedly insisted the law is not intended to apply to pregnant women.

Serious Public Health Consequences

Beyond having no basis in law, prosecuting pregnant women for conduct alleged to harm their fetus undermines public health as well as maternal and fetal well-being. The practical effect of the Commonwealth’s novel reading of the relevant statute would be to drive pregnant women who use drugs out of the healthcare system and away from prenatal care.

It would also punish some pregnant women for failing to undergo or successfully complete treatment that is largely unavailable to them. According to a report issued last year by the Pennsylvania Legislature, there is a significant bed and provider shortage in Pennsylvania “despite a great demand for treatment.”

It also infringes upon a pregnant women’s privacy, and sets a precedent that could have far-reaching consequences beyond the context of drug use.

“The prosecution of Ms. Dischman represents exactly the wrong way to respond to people who use substances while pregnant,” said Women’s Law Project Fellow Margaret Zhang, who co-authored the brief. “Criminalizing the conduct deters them from seeking the specialized medical care they need to be healthy and maintain a healthy pregnancy.”

Disproportionate Negative Effect on Women of Color

It’s no coincidence that the criminalization of pregnant women’s conduct would have harshest impact on low-income women and women of color. The same populations that suffer the greatest risk of maternal and infant mortality face the worst barriers to both prenatal care and treatment for substance use disorders.

Here in Pennsylvania, Black infants are 2.4 times as likely to die before their first birthday, a finding that holds despite variations in income.

Trend: Pennsylvania is Targeting Pregnant Women with Substance Use Disorders

Attorneys at the Women’s Law Project are currently counseling another landmark civil case that will influence how we respond to pregnant women with substance use disorders.

At issue in that particular case, known as In Re: LJB, is whether or not a woman’s use of illegal drugs can constitute child abuse if, by using the illegal drugs, the woman intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused, or created a reasonable likelihood of, bodily injury to a child after birth, under Pennsylvania law.

Read more about that case here.

Just this week, the Pennsylvania House passed a bill that targets women with substance use disorders by re-installing a lifetime ban on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) for people with certain drug convictions. Pennsylvania already had this ban, and lifted it in 2003 in part because it clearly targeted and punished low-income women, people with disabilities, and the elderly in ways that exacerbate poverty and addiction.

Learn more about House Bill 129 here, and get ready to speak up to oppose it when it goes to the Pennsylvania Senate for a vote.

The Women’s Law Project is a public interest law center in Pennsylvania devoted to advancing the rights of women and girls.

Sign up for WLP’s Action Alerts here. Follow us on twitter and like us on Facebook. 

We are a non-profit organization. Please consider supporting equal rights for women and girls by making a one-time donation or scheduling a monthly contribution.

June at the Women’s Law Project

We took a short break from sending a monthly newsletter, but now we’re back. There’s a lot going on, and we want to make sure you have every opportunity to stay up to date on our work and what’s happening in women’s and worker’s rights in Pennsylvania.

We’ve been fighting unconstitutional abortion bans in the state Legislature, and analyzing Trump’s attack on Title X, the only federal funding program devoted to family planning.

In a case called In Re: LJB, we successfully requested that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania re-consider whether a woman’s behavior while pregnant can be considered child abuse under civil law. This case may have profound implications for pregnant people, and anyone who could become pregnant.

We’re living in a time where relentless attacks on reproductive rights are colliding with an explosive opioid epidemic, a combination that threatens both civil rights and public health. In early June, we authored and filed an amicus brief in Commonwealth v. Dischman, a case in which the defendant was charged with a first-degree felony after she overdosed on opioids while pregnant. Yet, the relevant criminal statute has a clear immunity provision protecting pregnant women from prosecution for conduct during their pregnancy.

We are representing the freestanding abortion providers who have a direct interest in a Pennsylvania Right-to-Know appeal before the Office of Open Records. Jean Crocco, an employee of the extremist anti-abortion Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League, is asking the Pennsylvania Health Department to turn over the names of doctors and other clinic personnel contained in the clinics’ license applications. The Department correctly withheld this information; our legal filings argue that the history of violence and disruption against abortion providers justifies the Department’s action. A decision is expected on or before June 29, 2018.

We continue to support the City of Philadelphia in defending the city’s prior-wage equal pay ordinance in a case where WLP attorneys authored and filed an amicus brief on behalf of 27 organizations. The latest update on the case is that both the City of Philadelphia and the Chamber of Commerce have appealed the split decision ruling.

On May 18, we proudly joined our friends from Raise the Wage PA at a press conference in Media, Pennsylvania to explain how raising the minimum wage is a both women’s issue and a worker’s issue, and why eliminating the tipped wage would be an effective strategy to address sexual harassment in the restaurant industry. While we’re on the topic, check out this article highlighting the work of Coalition for Health and Safety in Restaurants, a Philadelphia-based coalition working to prevent sexual harassment in restaurants.

On May 22, we co-sponsored a rally at the Capitol organized by MomsRising. We called on lawmakers to pass legislation to address sexual harassment in Pennsylvania, and highlighted the #MeToo policy agenda we developed to improve and update sexual harassment protections for workers across the state.

Good News Department

Governor Tom Wolf signed an executive order addressing equal pay for state employees. The executive order:

• No longer ask job applicants their salary history during the hiring process;
• Base salaries on job responsibilities, position pay range, and the applicant’s job knowledge and skills;
• Clearly explain the pay range on job postings.

Of course, we are still fighting for the state Legislature to advance a bill that would address equal pay for all Pennsylvania workers.

We were there in person at the federal courthouse in Philadelphia when the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the rights of transgender students to use restrooms and facilities that reflect their gender identity. Attorneys at the Women’s Law Project and co-counsel at Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in support of the Boyertown policy that argues that the presence of transgender students in facilities corresponding to their gender identity does not violate Title IX. Rather, Title IX protects the rights of transgender students to use those facilities.

Every year, we review sex crimes files at the Philadelphia Police Department in order to improve policy accountability and address gender bias in policing sex crimes.  The annual advocate-led review is sometimes called “the Philadelphia Model” for where it originated or “the Timoney model” for John Timoney, the late police captain whose focus on reform helped initiate the project. This recent NBC10 report provides a great overview of our work’s origins and goals.

Thank You

Thank you to everyone who attended Rights to Realities, our annual spring gala in Pittsburgh! We had a record-breaking attendance, and look forward to making it even bigger next year. We appreciate your support. As a non-profit organization that does not charge for our services, we are not exaggerating when we say we couldn’t do this work without you.

Catch up on WLP in the News

• May 29: KYW Newsradio: City’s wage history ban is not quite dead yet
• May 24: NBC10: The Annual Ritual Shaping How the Philadelphia Police Department Handles Rape, Abuse Cases
• May 18: WESA-FM: The Politics And Ethics Of Pennsylvania’s Proposed Down Syndrome Abortion Ban
• May 10: Daily Item: Supreme Court to consider if drug use during pregnancy is abuse
• May 9: PennLive.com: Just in time for the primary, Pa. House Republicans launch another attack on abortion rights
• May 8: The Express: Arguments filed in abuse case
• May 7: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Employers can ask what you made at the last job, but there are limits
• May 2: KYW Newsradio: Employers (not) banned from inquiring about applicant’s salary history

Catch up on our Blog Posts

• May 31: City of Philadelphia Still Fighting The Chamber of Commerce’s Effort to Block Equal Pay Law
• May 30: WLP Analysis: U.S. Supreme Court Guts Workers’ Rights
• May 24: Victory: Third Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Rights of Transgender Students
• May 24: What You Need to Know about Trump’s Attack on Title X
• May 15: Calling All Moms (and Mom Supporters)! Join Us to Advocate for Workplace Equality in PA on May 22
• May 10: Litigation Update: Briefs Filed in Case Re: If Prenatal Drug Use is Child Abuse Under Civil Law
• May 2: Split Ruling on Lawsuit to Block Philadelphia’s Equal Pay Ordinance 

What’s Next

Look for an explainer on why the aforementioned case Commonwealth v. Dischman is so important, an action alert when #HB129, the bill that targets women, disabled people and the elderly recovering from addiction, when it heads to the Pennsylvania Senate, and lots more. Stay tuned.

The Women’s Law Project is a public interest law center in Pennsylvania devoted to advancing the rights of women and girls.

Sign up for WLP’s Action Alerts here. Follow us on twitter and like us on Facebook. 

We are a non-profit organization. Please consider supporting equal rights for women and girls by making a one-time donation or scheduling a monthly contribution.

 

Action Alert: Stop PA From Cutting the Safety Net for Women Recovering from Addiction

The Women’s Law Project strongly opposes House Bill 129, legislation that would impose a lifetime ban on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) assistance for any Pennsylvanian with an addiction that led to a drug-related felony conviction or guilty plea.

TANF is designed to help needy families achieve self-sufficiency. Approximately 90% of the adults who receive TANF are women.

The House Health Committee passed HB129 on May 22 by a vote of 17 – 6. (See votes here.)

We expect the House to vote on HB129 as early as Tuesday, June 5.

How do we know this is a terrible idea? Because Pennsylvania already installed a version of this ban, and it was such a disaster that they repealed it.

The vast majority of people banned for life were women with children. Before 2003, Pennsylvania enforced TANF bans for certain drug-related offenses. Criminal justice and drug policy experts, together with women’s drug treatment professionals and domestic violence programs, saw from firsthand experience that this lifetime ban on public assistance sabotaged women’s recovery prospects and made the drug problem worse, not better.

With failure evident, more than 100 organizations including the District Attorney’s Association, the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and women’s drug and alcohol service providers supported the bipartisan reform legislation that lifted the ban in 2003.

Now, fifteen years later, the impact would be even worse given Pennsylvania is in the throes of a full-fledged opioid addiction epidemic.

HB129 also directly contradicts the recommendations made by the same legislative body advancing it.

According to a 2016 report published by the House Majority Policy Committee of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives:

• In 2015, 3,383 Pennsylvanians of all kinds, from all backgrounds, died from drug overdose.
• Despite a great demand for treatment, there is a significant “bed” and provider shortage in Pennsylvania.
• Pennsylvania is also experiencing a shortage of qualified professionals to fill the in-demand jobs of the substance abuse treatment field.
• In regards to treatment, most experts agreed that there are multiple pathways to recovery, and addicts need affordable access to all options.
• Over time, money invested in prevention, intervention and treatment will result in significant savings to our criminal justice system and all levels of government.

We can’t let Pennsylvania go backward, especially when the opioid crisis is at its peak.

Take Action

Please contact your representative today and them to vote NO on HB129.

The Women’s Law Project is a public interest law center in Pennsylvania devoted to advancing the rights of women and girls.

Sign up for WLP’s Action Alerts here. Follow us on twitter and like us on Facebook. 

We are a non-profit organization. Please consider supporting equal rights for women and girls by making a one-time donation or scheduling a monthly contribution.

City of Philadelphia Still Fighting The Chamber of Commerce’s Effort to Block Equal Pay Law

Both the City of Philadelphia and the Chamber of Commerce are appealing a federal judge’s recent ruling on a prior-wage equal pay ordinance signed into law by Mayor Jim Kenney in January 2017.

As we told you back in early May, a U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an order granting in part and denying in part a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to block the City of Philadelphia’s wage equity ordinance. The lawsuit and motion were filed by the Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia on behalf of members such as Comcast Corporation, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and Drexel University and challenged the ordinance on First Amendment grounds.

The ordinance, introduced by Councilman Bill Greenlee, banned employers from inquiring about an applicant’s prior pay and from relying on that information to set wages.

The ruling was a split decision. The judge granted the Chamber’s request for a preliminary injunction with respect to the provision that would have prohibited employers from asking a prospective employee their salary history, finding that the Chamber would likely succeed in its First Amendment challenge to this provision.

But there was good news, too: The judge simultaneously denied the Chamber’s request for a preliminary injunction regarding the second provision, which prohibits employers from relying on such information while setting salary, finding that this provision does not target speech.

As reported in Vox:

Asking applicants how much money they earned at previous jobs has long been a routine part of the hiring process. But this seemingly harmless question is a key culprit in the persistent gender wage gap in the United States, according to a growing number of civil rights groups and legal experts.

Businesses decide what to pay new hires based partly (or entirely) on how much they earned at their last jobs. Because women are generally paid less than their male co-workers, for reasons that include discrimination, asking female job candidates about their past salaries nearly guarantees that the wage disparity will continue throughout their careers. The same dynamic disadvantages workers of color.

Last year, WLP Managing Attorney Terry L. Fromson and Staff Attorney Amal Bass authored and filed an amicus (“friend-of-the-court) brief supporting the prior-wage equal pay ordinance on behalf of 27 organizations devoted to addressing sex discrimination, including wage discrimination.

Read our brief here.

We disagree with the judge’s ruling on the provision that would ban asking applicants their salary history, and support the City of Philadelphia’s appeal.

“It is commercial speech,” Fromson explained to KYW NewsRadio, “that must be banned to prevent employers from engaging in unlawful activities: the reliance on a prior wage to establish discriminatory wages.”

“The fact is that Philadelphia’s prior wage ordinance is based on both evidence and legal precedent,” says Fromson. “The wage gap exists and discriminatory pay is perpetuated when employers request and rely on prior pay to set salary.”

As Fromson stated, the current split decision leaves employers in a bizarre position. Legally, they can ask about prior wages, but they open themselves to claims of discrimination if they use the answer to set wages.

The Philadelphia businesses trying to block this equal pay effort initially refused to identify themselves in court documents. They revealed themselves only after a judge dismissed the original complaint in this case on the grounds that the Chamber hadn’t identified a single business the ordinance would harm.

The Chamber of Commerce refiled the case, indicating that the businesses fighting Philadelphia’s equal pay ordinance include:

• Comcast Corp.
• Bittenbender Construction
• Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
• Liberty Property Trust
• Delaware Valley LLC
• Drexel University
• Jacobson Strategic Communications
• FS Investments
• Sandmeyer Steel Company
• Diversified Search
• Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia
• ESM Productions
• Day & Zimmermann

Stay tuned for updates.

The Women’s Law Project is a public interest law center in Pennsylvania devoted to advancing the rights of women and girls.

Sign up for WLP’s Action Alerts here. Follow us on twitter and like us on Facebook. 

We are a non-profit organization. Please consider supporting equal rights for women and girls by making a one-time donation or scheduling a monthly contribution.

WLP Analysis: U.S. Supreme Court Guts Workers’ Rights

In Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis, a 5-4 decision issued on May 21, 2018 (PDF), the United States Supreme Court held that employer-imposed mandatory arbitration clauses that prevent employees from filing class actions in court are enforceable.

This decision, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, eviscerates the rights of countless employees whose employers have forced them to sign mandatory arbitration agreements. These “agreements,” which many employees have no choice but to sign because of their limited bargaining power, prohibit employees from banding together to enforce their rights in court through class or collective actions.

Instead, these provisions require employees to pursue arbitration, a private proceeding that often favors employers, on an individual basis.

In Epic Systems, the plaintiffs are employees who allege that their employers violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by underpaying them. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in her dissent, “Individually, their claims are small, scarcely of a size warranting the expense of seeking redress alone… But by joining together with others similarly circumstanced, employees can gain effective redress for wage underpayment commonly experienced.”

Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined Justice Ginsburg’s dissent. However, the majority sided with the businesses accused of underpaying their employees, concluding that the National Labor Relations Act, the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and the savings clause of the Federal Arbitration Act do not create an exception to the enforcement of arbitration clauses. They reached this faulty conclusion despite the text, history, and established interpretation of the NLRA, which clearly states:

“Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection…” 29 U. S. C. §157.

The dissent concluded that mandatory arbitration agreements are unlawful because “other concerted activities… [in pursuit of their] mutual aid or protection” includes the right to pursue work-related litigation on a joint basis.

But the majority disagreed, resulting in an opinion that essentially legalizes wage theft, the harm the plaintiffs were trying to redress through class action litigation. This Supreme Court decision makes it easier for employers to get away with exploiting workers in ways that are difficult for individual employees to address on their own.

Now it is up to Congress to fix the Supreme Court’s mistake. A legislative fix, such as by passing a law that prevents employers from stopping employees from pursuing class actions, can only happen if constituents contact their lawmakers to tell them how much workers’ rights matter to them.

Contact your representative and Senators today and let them know you disagree with this decision, and that you care about worker’s rights. Then remember their responses to this issue when it is time to vote.

Text: WLP Staff Attorney Amal Bass

The Women’s Law Project is a public interest law center in Pennsylvania devoted to advancing the rights of women and girls.

Sign up for WLP’s Action Alerts here. Follow us on twitter and like us on Facebook. 

We are a non-profit organization. Please consider supporting equal rights for women and girls by making a one-time donation or scheduling a monthly contribution.

Victory: Third Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Rights of Transgender Students

This afternoon, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a lower court’s ruling that upheld a Pennsylvania school district’s policy that permits transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity.

Court observers had the opportunity to witness a rare spectacle. Rather than take weeks or months to issue an opinion after arguments, the three-judge panel convened for a less than 30 minutes before ruling in favor of Boyertown Area School District’s policy and by extension, the rights of transgender students.

The plaintiffs, four cisgender students who claimed they were harassed by the mere presence of a transgender person in the locker room or restroom, were represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom. The School District defended the suit, and the Pennsylvania Youth Congress Foundation, a coalition of LGBTQ youth leaders and youth organizations, intervened in the lawsuit. They were represented by the ACLU and ACLU of Pennsylvania.

Attorneys at the Women’s Law Project and co-counsel at Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in support of the Boyertown policy that argues that the presence of transgender students in facilities corresponding to their gender identity does not violate Title IX. Rather, Title IX protects the rights of transgender students to use those facilities.

Twelve organizations signed on to the brief, including the American Association of University Women, California Women’s Law Center, Champion Women, Equal Rights Advocates, Gender Justice, Legal Aid at Work, Legal Voice, National Women’s Law Center, New Voices for Reproductive Justice, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape, Southwest Women’s Law Center, and Women’s Law Center of Maryland.

“This ruling is a huge victory for the rights of transgender students,” says WLP staff attorney Amal Bass, who co-authored the amicus brief with staff attorney Christine Castro and managing attorney Terry L. Fromson. “The momentum is undeniable, and the Third Circuit panel sent an important message today by issuing its decision unanimously and immediately.”

You can read or download our brief here.

For all of the documents, see here.

Background

Boyertown School District instituted a policy to allow students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that reflect their gender identity, rather than the sex identified on their birth certificates.

Four anonymous students represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal advocacy group often focused on restricting the rights of LGBTQ people, challenged the policy, arguing that the presence of transgender student constituted sexual harassment under Title IX and violated the Constitution.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a federal civil rights law designed to eliminate sex discrimination in schools and education programs.

Our Argument

Our brief highlights the fact that the courts have previously ruled that a person’s reproductive anatomy is not, in all instances, an accurate signifier of a person’s sex. For transgender people, a person’s gender identity is the most accurate determinant of their sex. Thus, Title IX does not provide a legal basis for Appellant-students to deny transgender students equal access to an education.

To the contrary, Title IX requires the school district continue the current policy of enabling transgender students to use facilities matching their gender identity because the alternative—a policy that segregates students only by biology-based, assigned sex—would discriminate against transgender students by denying them use of facilities in accordance with their gender identity.

Indeed, when plaintiff’s counsel advised the judges that he was merely asking for a “return to the status quo,” meaning, a reversal of the recently enacted policy, Circuit Judge Theodore McKee responded by bringing up landmark segregation case Brown v. Board of Education, pointing out that changes are made when there is a problem with the status quo.

“The Momentum is Undeniable”

This victory comes on the heels of another big win for transgender rights in the United States. On Tuesday May 22, a federal court ruled against a Virginia school district, holding that federal law protects a transgender student who sought to use the boys’ bathroom at his school. A federal appeals court based in Chicago issued a similar ruling in a different challenge in May 2017.

The Women’s Law Project is a public interest law center in Pennsylvania devoted to advancing the rights of women and girls.

Sign up for WLP’s Action Alerts here. Follow us on twitter and like us on Facebook. 

We are a non-profit organization. Please consider supporting equal rights for women and girls by making a one-time donation or scheduling a monthly contribution.

What You Need to Know about Trump’s Attack on Title X

The Title X Family Planning Program was established by President Richard Nixon in 1970 in order to help alleviate poverty and improve the health of women and children. It fulfilled Nixon’s promise that “no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition.” This promise was made in response to research that showed low-income women were more likely to experience unplanned pregnancies, that closely spaced pregnancies had a negative impact on the health of both mothers and children, and that unintended pregnancies increased poverty, reliance on public assistance, and poor health outcomes.

Today, Title X remains the only federally-funded program solely devoted to providing affordable contraception and preventive reproductive health services. Title X services include pregnancy testing; contraceptive counseling and services; pelvic exams; screening for cervical and breast cancer, high blood pressure, anemia, diabetes, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV/AIDS; infertility services; health education; and referrals for health and social services.

On Tuesday May 22, the Trump Administration published a long-anticipated new rule that withholds the the distribution of Title X funds to any healthcare provider who provides abortion care, or even refers patients considering abortion to abortion care. Critics are calling it “domestic gag rule.”

In many parts of the country including many parts of Pennsylvania, Planned Parenthood healthcare centers and independent clinics that provide both abortion and the full range of reproductive healthcare including birth control and cancer screenings are the only place for low-income people to go for healthcare—reproductive and otherwise. In 2015, six in ten women who obtain their healthcare from a Title X-funded provider consider it their usual source of healthcare.

The new rule:

Will have significant negative affect on health of Pennsylvanians: Pennsylvania has the third largest patient population that qualifies for Title X funding in the country, after California and New York. In 2017, 191 healthcare providers used Title X funds to provide low-income Pennsylvanians with reproductive healthcare such as STI screenings and contraception. Thirty-six percent of all Pennsylvania patients relying on Title X services obtain those services at a Planned Parenthood.

Source: National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association: Pennsylvania Report

Will likely increase the unintended pregnancy rate in Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania’s unintended pregnancy rate is already higher than the national average. It is estimated that 53% of all pregnancies in Pennsylvania are unintended, (compared to a national average of 45%).

Disproportionately affects women of color: Title X patients are disproportionately black and Hispanic or Latino, with 21% of Title X patients self-identifying as Black or African American and 32% as Hispanic or Latino (as compared to 13.3% and 17.6% of the nation, respectively)

Will likely increase the abortion rate: Contraception reduces unintended pregnancy. Increasing the number of unintended pregnancies, of course, lead to increase in abortion rates.

Mandates substandard healthcare for low-income patients: Physicians will be forced to provide substandard healthcare to patients by withholding full information about the complete range of options in the wake of an unintended or complicated pregnancy

Interferes into the doctor-patient relationship: Physicians will be forced to withhold information for no reason other than political interference of the Trump Administration

Negatively affects men, too: More men rely on Title X for healthcare in Pennsylvania than the national average. In Pennsylvania, 12% of patients using Title X services are male, compared to a national average of 10%.

Will likely increase government spending: The Guttmacher Institute estimates that for every dollar invested in family planning, the taxpayer saves $7.09. Services provided in Title X-supported centers alone yielded $7 billion of the $13.6 billion in net government savings that resulted from publicly funded family planning services in 2010.

Is just one part of Trump’s mission to undermine the goals of Title X program: The latest funding opportunity announcement, the paperwork that invites grantees to submit for funding, was published months behind schedule and introduced significant changes and alarming rhetoric. It failed to mention “contraception” at all, requires providers to prioritize abstinence despite being ineffective strategy and regardless of patient needs. These changes among others prompted a legal challenge from the ACLU and the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association on the grounds the document is counter to the Title X statute and regulations.

“This proposed rule undermines the goals of the Title X program and public health goals at large,” says WLP Senior Staff Attorney Susan Frietsche. “It is mind-boggling that this proposed rule is being celebrated as pro-life, or somehow conservative, when it is designed to decrease access to healthcare like contraception and cancer and STI screenings, and increase the unintended pregnancy rate, the abortion rate, and overall government spending. This is a truly authoritarian attack on women, which will negatively affect just about everybody whether they realize it now or not.”

Next, the public is invited to comment on the proposed rule. More to come, and we will keep you posted.

The Women’s Law Project is a public interest law center in Pennsylvania devoted to advancing the rights of women and girls.

Sign up for WLP’s Action Alerts here. Follow us on twitter and like us on Facebook. 

We are a non-profit organization. Please consider supporting equal rights for women and girls by making a one-time donation or scheduling a monthly contribution.

Calling All Moms (and Mom Supporters)! Join Us to Advocate for Workplace Equality in PA on May 22

In honor of Mother’s Day month, we are joining MomsRising and fellow advocates from across the state and heading to the Capitol to call on lawmakers to pass policies that will help lift Pennsylvania families by fighting discrimination in the workplace and promoting economic security.

Never been to the Pennsylvania Capitol? No problem. We will be there to help you. Have the kids that day? Please bring them! We love to show kids that it’s everyone’s right to speak up for what you believe in. You are welcome to bring parents, friends, and kids. We will discuss the issues, host a rally, and have policy fact sheets on hand and show you how to drop them off at legislator’s offices. We’ll even provide free lunch (as long as you register beforehand).

Here is the schedule:

11AM, Capitol Steps: We’re reading messages from parents across the Commonwealth
12PM, Main Rotunda: Rally and Press Conference
1PM: Dropping off materials and messages (on kites!) to Legislator offices

Specifically, we’re calling on Pennsylvania lawmakers to:

Raise Pennsylvania’s Minimum Wage 

At $7.25 per hour, Pennsylvania’s minimum wage is the lowest allowed by federal law, and not a living wage. Currently, the tipped wage in Pennsylvania is $2.83 per hour. Nearly three-quarters of Pennsylvania’s tipped workers are women and of those workers close to one in five live in poverty. That’s higher than the poverty rate for Pennsylvania men working for tips, and more than double the rate of working women overall. In addition, working for tips correlates with increased exposure to sexual harassment.

Pass Workplace Accommodations for Pregnant Workers

Did you know that in some parts of Pennsylvania, a pregnant worker can be fired simply for asking for an extra glass of water while at work? Despite repeatedly introducing the Pennsylvania Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, the Pennsylvania Legislature has refused to advance it—even though Pennsylvania is one of the 10 worst states in the country for pregnancy discrimination, and even though the majority of states have passed similar measures into law.

Pass Paid Leave

It’s 2018, and the United States remains the only developed nation to provide zero weeks of paid leave. Enough.

Pass Workplace Accommodations for Nursing Workers

Without guaranteed access to paid leave, pregnant Pennsylvanians may have to work until the last possible day of their pregnancy and then return to work within weeks of giving birth. Public health experts have called for laws to protect and promote breastfeeding in the workplace to reduce infant mortality, yet the Pennsylvania Legislature has repeatedly refused to advance this basic workplace protection that would give more babies access to mother’s milk and all the health benefits that go with it.

Promote Equal Pay

Pennsylvania’s equal pay law is one of the weakest in the country. As a result, Pennsylvania women face a wider pay gap than most women in the country. We know how to fix the law and close the loopholes, but the Legislature has so far failed to advance this legislation.

Implement Sexual Harassment Protections

Seven months into the #MeToo movement, Pennsylvania still hasn’t closed the loophole in the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act so that all working women in Pennsylvania have the same basic protections against sexual harassment in the workplace.

Will you join us in Harrisburg on May 22?

Even if you have never done something like this before, this is the perfect opportunity to learn how to advocate for equality—and show the kids how to do it, too.

If you plan to attend, please RSVP with MomsRising here, and let us know that you are going too by emailing Tara Murtha at tmurtha@womenslawproject.org. Then invite friends on Facebook.

If you can’t attend but would like to send a supportive message, you can send us a message to be read on the steps of the Capitol, too.

This event is also co-sponsored by the Pennsylvania Campaign for Women’s Health.

The Women’s Law Project is a public interest law center in Pennsylvania devoted to advancing the rights of women and girls.

Sign up for WLP’s Action Alerts here. Follow us on twitter and like us on Facebook. 

We are a non-profit organization. Please consider supporting equal rights for women and girls by making a one-time donation or scheduling a monthly contribution.

Litigation Update: Briefs Filed in Case Re: If Prenatal Drug Use is Child Abuse Under Civil Law

We just filed our main brief in an important case that may have a profound influence on public health and the rights of pregnant people in Pennsylvania and beyond.

Can a woman’s behavior while pregnant be considered child abuse under civil law?

That’s the fundamental question in In re: L.J.B., a case co-counseled by attorney David S. Cohen, Professor of Law at the Thomas R. Kline School of Law at Drexel University and member of the WLP Board of Directors and WLP Executive Director Carol E. Tracy, along with Robert Lugg of Lugg & Lugg in Lock Haven.

You can read and download all case documents here.

Background

Last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared opioid addiction a public health emergency. Millions of Americans are struggling with opioid addiction, and many of these people are women of childbearing age.

Like many people suffering from addiction, a pregnant Pennsylvania woman did not completely refrain from using opioids while in treatment for her addiction.

She gave birth to L.J.B. When L.J.B. was born, initial testing indicated that she was healthy. However, according to hospital records, she began to show signs of what the physician labeled “opioid withdrawal,” and L.J.B. was admitted to the hospital. She remained there for 19 days. There is no indication in the record of any further health problems for L.J.B.

Based solely on the mother’s positive drug test and L.J.B.’s hospitalization for alleged withdrawal symptoms, Appellee Clinton County Children and Youth Services (CYS) claimed that L.J.B. is a victim of child abuse.

Nothing about the mother’s behavior subsequent to L.J.B.’s birth is part of the alleged basis for a child abuse finding. However, the court concluded that it was her drug use during pregnancy that caused or created a reasonable likelihood of causing bodily injury after birth and could be the basis of a finding of child abuse under the statute.

Case Update

In January, the Women’s Law Project, along with Lugg, asked the state Supreme Court to review a decision from the Superior Court that held that a woman can be charged with civil child abuse for using drugs when pregnant.

On April 3, the Supreme Court granted allocatur to review the Superior Court’s determination, overruling the trial court.

On May 3, WLP submitted its main brief to the Supreme Court. Four different amicus briefs supporting WLP’s position have also been filed. Amici are child welfare advocate-experts including the Support Center for Child Advocates and Juvenile Law Center; public health and maternal welfare experts including National Advocates for Pregnant Women and Community Legal Services; drug policy experts including the Drug Policy Alliance and Families for Sensible Drug Policies; and constitutional law experts including the Feminist Majority Foundation and the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

What’s at Stake?

In re: L.J.B. may have profound implications for public health. Every major private and public health organization recognizes that punishing pregnant women for prenatal drug use is counterproductive to public health goals.

“This misguided ruling could not have come at a more dangerous time,” says attorney David S. Cohen. “Our country is in the middle of an opioid epidemic. Public health experts are calling for more paths to recovery, not punishing pregnant women who seek treatment. Beyond exacerbating the public health crisis of opioid addiction, this attempt to label this woman a child abuser based on her actions while pregnant is wholly inconsistent with the purposes of the law in question.”

It also represents a slippery slope.

“Punishing pregnant women for drug use during pregnancy could open the door to punishing pregnant women for all sorts of other behaviors, including things like eating cold cuts, soft cheese, and sushi,” says WLP Executive Director Carol E. Tracy. “Drinking wine and coffee, taking prescription medicine, traveling to countries that potentially have Zika, being treated for cancer, traveling by plane late in the pregnancy, and being assaulted by an abusive partner, too.”

Indeed, the door could open to punishing all women of childbearing age for actions taken before getting pregnant.

Stay tuned for updates.

The Women’s Law Project is a public interest law center in Pennsylvania devoted to advancing the rights of women and girls.

Sign up for WLP’s Action Alerts here. Follow us on twitter and like us on Facebook. 

We are a non-profit organization. Please consider supporting equal rights for women and girls by making a one-time donation or scheduling a monthly contribution.