Elements of the left will no doubt criticize the speech as empty promises.  And maybe they are.  He didn’t say how he planned to repeal Dont Ask Don’t Tell.  But is he supposed to?  He sets the agenda.  Congress figures out the details.  The constitutional distribution of power is at heart a delegation. For anyone who has ever worked as the #2 on a project or in a department you know this dynamic precisely.

And a word on the rebuke of the Supreme Court.  It was necessary and long overdue.  Federal judges may not run for election but they are political appointments and maintaining this illusion that they are not political actors has run its course.  They are, particularly under the neocon model.  Furthermore, on the state level judges run for office, so the ramifications of the Citizens United decision has potentially even more devastating effects, and ones that no one seems to really have their arms around.

But I’m tired.  I’ve been working hard and tonight I heard promises but I’m still waiting to see the action.  And I’m willing to acknowledge that had President Obama provided all the details to all the programs I’d still be listening to the speech.  So I’ll take the pep talk.  Tomorrow it is back to work.

As if that were not bad enough, states like Minnesota that have made a commitment to women can anticipate a full-throttled attack on that commitment.  I provided a policy overview of what health care reform would look like in Minnesota here but want to draw attention to one point–Medicaid.  Now I know nothing puts people to sleep quite like talking about state funding vehicles, so I’ll be brief.  Minnesota is one of a handful of states that currently uses Medicaid funds to provide abortion-related services to recipients beyond the circumstances of rape and/or incest.  The funding mechanisms and the insurance exchanges put forth in federal health care reform, combined with razor-thin support for continued funding and billion-dollar state deficits makes this an easy target for “reform.”  Whatever happens with health care reform on the national level we can expect to see another assault on choice and access at the state level.  And if reform passes, expect a broader coalition of groups and legislators going after this Medicaid funding.

Many choice activists felt blindsided by the Stupak/Nelson/Hatch abortion shennanigans in the crafting of health care reform legislation.  There’s no reason why we should be as blindsided at the state level.  Consider yourself warned and let’s get prepared.

People often mention that the post-Roe generation of women don’t appreciate the importance of the right to chose, simply because we haven’t had it any other way. Older feminists worry that when it comes to women’s reproductive health, we post Roe-ers aren’t invested in the same way, are disinterest in the cause.

Last night, I was able to attend a pre Roe celebration with many of the leaders of the Minnesota Pro Choice community. But even better, I got to see a room full of many, many post Roe women, celebrating and recognizing the victories that the pre Roe generation won for us.

If I’ve learned nothing else from my new job, it’s that reproductive health is not just one victory, however, and that while we may celebrate the greater wins, our right to maintain and treat our own bodies are still being chipped away one by one. From choosing when to have a child, to choosing how to treat a loss, to deciding how to deal with the results of a physical attack or a genetic abnormality, our options are being limited daily. While we are losing the right to make our own personal decisions, “conscientious” doctors and hospitals are gaining the right to decide with they want to respect our choices. That cannot continue to happen.

We MUST trust women. We do not make our decisions lightly.

Today, I’ll be over at RH Reality Check, covering Roe Anniversary events, writing a little about my personal story, and watching the first day of the trial of Scott Roeder, the man who murdered Dr, George Tiller in cold blood while he was ushering at his church.

In the meantime, a statement from Planned Parenthood:

On the 37th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS) reaffirms it’s commitment to reproductive justice and it’s efforts to ensure that all women and families have access to the health care they need. We recognize that in order for women to participate fully in our society, they must have the ability to make personal decisions about their reproductive health.

“Today, we ask again, that all those truly interested in the health and well-being of women and families move past divisive debates and join us in our every day work to strengthen public health, access and preventive care. We have a commitment to the health and well being of those in the communities we serve that is more powerful and positive than one day of protest,” said Sarah Stoesz, President and CEO of PPMNS.

PPMNS works every day toward real solutions. Ninety-five percent of the care Planned Parenthood provides is preventive and primary. Last year in Minnesota alone, PPMNS provided more than 300,000 units of contraception, nearly 58,000 STD tests, more than 20,000 breast cancer screenings and over 17,000 cervical cancer screenings to women and families in need of health care in 27 clinics throughout our region.

Last year in communities across our region, Planned Parenthood provided more than 65,000 women, men and teens with health care and education they need to build healthier, brighter futures.

Massachusetts senate record

Pending the question on passing the bill to be engrossed, Mr. Brown moved that the bill be amended, in section 4, by adding the following paragraph:—
Nothing in this section shall impose any requirements upon any employee, physician or nurse of any facility to the extent that administering the contraception conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. In determining whether an employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious belief administering the contraception, the conflict shall be known and disclosed to said facility and on record at said facility.
If it is deemed that said employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious conflict administering the contraception, then said treating facility shall have in place a validated referral procedure policy for referring patients for administration of the emergency contraception that will administer the emergency contraception, which may include a contract with another facility. The referrals shall be made at no additional cost to the patient.

There is the obvious issue of compounding an already tramatic situation, which is absolutely unthinkable. Maybe he didn’t think about that or about the logistics. Women in a larger city may not have been impacted greatly and possibly wouldn’t have even noticed because there are multiple doctors and nurses in one hospital. What happens in the county hospitals/clinics where you may only have one person that is licensed to dispense medication? If they have a ‘religious conflict’, this ammendment would have done unnecessary harm to women in a horrific situation. Again, maybe he didn’t think about women in rural areas, but isn’t that his job? If he did think about them, what was his plan? How was he going to explain this to his women constituents who would be harmed by his amendment. Thankfully the amendment did not pass.

This threat of legal action by the Brown campaign against the mailer sent by the MA-DFL, has also served to highlight President Bush’s midnight HHS regulation. President Obama has pledged to overturn it because it sets a dangerous president that could lead to the denial of birth control and family planning services. Family planning services are an essential part of a women’s life. It’s starting so feel like a constant battle to defend my rights. There are groups that so readily fund protesters at clinics, attempting to dissuade women from using the services and legislators attempting to chip away at my right to choice. What I don’t understand is why are they so willing to fund groups bent on intimidating women, but won’t fund programs to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies.

Abortionaccess.org

Women in places such as Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia and Arkansas share a troubling commonality – they all live in states with the least accessible abortion services in the United States.  Because of where they live, these women face daunting barriers to get safe abortion care if and when they need it.  These least access states have the most restrictive laws and the fewest number of abortion providers.  These states also share other traits: low levels of contraceptive care, high rates of poverty, and strong anti-abortion cultures.  With little help to prevent pregnancy, few financial resources to help pay for abortion care, and the threat of isolation or even harassment within her community, the health and autonomy of a woman living in one of these states is at risk.

Among the states labeled ‘least access states’ are both North and South Dakota, which is not surprising considering the Dakota’s record on women’s health. Even in Minnesota, the state currently funds ‘clinics’ that intentionally mislead women about reproductive health.   How are anti-choice activists continue to chip away at women’s right to a legal medical procedure? Funding. Restriction of funding began in 1976 when Congress passed the Hyde amendment.  During the “Gingrich Revolution” of the 90’s conservatives went even further by banning abortion coverage for all federal employees, preventing military hospitals from  performing abortion, banning prisons from funding abortions and eliminating 35% of funding to family planning centers. The issues today’s women face in obtaining a safe abortion:

Prochoice America

Making abortion access more difficult and dangerous is a key tactic in the anti-choice movement’s strategy. Today, 87 percent of U.S. counties have no abortion provider, yet anti-choice lawmakers continue to impose a broad range of restrictions on women’s access to abortion.

• Anti-choice members of Congress and their allies are trying to use health-care reform legislation to impose a new nationwide abortion ban in the private health-insurance market.
• Refusal clauses and counseling bans (“gag rules”) limit women’s access to honest information and medical care, making it virtually impossible for some women to access abortion services altogether.
• Congress has imposed restrictions on abortion care for women who live in Washington, D.C. and those depend on the government for their health care needs, including women serving in our military.
• Numerous federal and state laws aggressively limityoung women’s access to abortion care and information.
• Anti-choice activists have developed “crisis pregnancy centers” to confuse, coerce, and mislead women in order to prevent them from exercising their constitutional right to choose.
• Anti-choice lawmakers have used propaganda and distorted scientific information as part of a strategy to instill fear in women to prevent them from exercising their right to choose.
• Clinic violence, murder, threats, and intimidation endanger doctors and patients and further restrict women’s access to reproductive-health care. While there are state and federal laws in place to protect women and doctors, this campaign of violence is still a very real threat to the right to choose.

A large proportion of women in our society depend on Medicaid for health care and as health care costs soar the dependence on governmental aid will only increase.  Congress, in negotiations for passing HCR, has enabled some legislators to dictate coverage of specific medical procedures by insurance companies.  In an attempt to prevent any federal subsidies for abortion, something already accomplished by Hyde, congress has gone further by preventing money going to companies that provide abortion coverage.  This is the largest attempt to limit access to abortion in my lifetime and if the Stupak language becomes law, health insurance coverage for abortions will essentially be eradicated, even for those receiving no governmental aid.

Abortion opponents strategy for targeting public funding are two-fold, first to immediately reduce access and secondly as a broader strategy to recriminalize abortion. The limits on abortion coverage overwhelmingly affect the most vulnerable among us and while the government will cover sterilization, they won’t fully fund access to all other forms of reproductive care.

However, Pawlenty has chosen to not run for re-election, possibly hoping instead to position himself as the GOP nominee for President. In the wake of his announcement, 11 democratic candidates have filed to run for governor. Of those 11 candidates, ten came to speak with reporters, bloggers, and advocacy groups at an event called “Netroots Nation, Minnesota.” At a Q&A session, I submitted the following question:

Tim Pawlenty has used his 8 years as governor to roll back women’s access to reproductive health more than any governor in recent history. Despite heavy DFL majorities in in the legislature, there has been no effort made to change this via legislation. If you are elected governor, will you make it a priority to remove such roadblocks to abortion access such as the 24 hour waiting period, the state based gag rule, or the sometimes factually inaccurate information provided in the “women’s right to know” information act?

Although the question was edited slightly, it was asked of the panel. The following video shows their answers.

One of Paulsen’s supporters’ favorite arguments for his candidacy in 2008 was that Paulsen “fit the demographics of the district” better than his challenger, Ashwin Madia. Applying that to Bonoff, you can see that much like Paulsen, she is a Caucasian resident of the 3rd district between the ages of 18 and 65, a married homeowner with children, all facts which match with a large number of her potential constituents. Unlike Paulsen, however, she is female, as is 51.1% of the district. So, in Paulsen’s supporters’ own criteria, she would actually be a better fit than the Congressman.

But demographics aren’t what matters to voters, and people don’t and should not vote simply because a candidate is “most like me.” So here is a look at some of the issues that 3rd CD voters could face:

Homes: Nearly 75% of the district lives in single family units, either owned or rented. As housing values plummeted, Paulsen voted against the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 that would allow home owners to modify their mortgages when facing foreclosure possibilities.

Paid Parental Leave:26.6% of the district is under the age of 18. When children are hurt, sick, or their schools or care centers are closed for holidays, in services, illness, vacations or other reasons, someone will need to stay home and care for them. As employers cut back more on paid personal and vacation time, more families find themselves losing income they desperately need in order to care for their children. And, for the nearly 7% of the district that are single parents, there is no second income to rely on should leave need to be taken.

Erik Paulsen’s vote against the Federal Employee Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009 raises a significant question of whether he will be supportive of any efforts to enact paid family leave legislation. Leave for federal employees is an excellent first step in helping all businesses see that allowing employees to care for their families creates a more productive work environment that retains better employees, as well as helps to decrease the wage gap that hits women, who tend to stay home unpaid more than their male counterparts.

And speaking of fair pay… Paulsen also voted against the Lily Ledbetter Fairpay Act of 2009, an act that allows workers to claim discriminatory compensation practices occurred every time compensation is issued, rather than just with 180 days from the first payment. The passage of the bill sends a strong message to businesses that women need to be compensated with the same benefits for the same work as their male counterparts, and Rep. Paulsen voted against it.

I wonder how that will fly with the 51.1% of women in his district?

Emily’s List, the women’s fundraising group, has just launched a new blog — Read My Lipstick. Less than two weeks old, it’s already full of the latest in women’s political news. Plus, it’s got really nice colors. Now, if only we can weasel our way into their blogroll…

St. Paul is making an effort to recruit more female firefighters, according to Minnpost. The pilot program will offer payment for women and minorities to attend the emergency medical technician certification program, a helpful first step to eventually applying to be a firefighter.

“We have a fire department in St. Paul that is second to none, and we want to make sure that the professionals who make up our department reflect our diverse community. People often express a desire to join their ranks, but in this economy, few people can afford to quit their jobs and pay for training,” Mayor Chris Coleman said. “This pilot project is a stepping stone that gives participants a leg up by offering a paid training that will provide valuable skills and lead to EMT certification.”

Want your company to survive the recession? The answer is clear: hire more women.

The numbers make a compelling case. The studies Ernst & Young rounded up show that women can make the difference between economic success and failure in the developing world, between good and bad decision-making in the industrialized world, and between profit and loss in the corporate world. Their conclusion: American companies would do well with more senior women.

And it’s not only one study, but at least half a dozen, from a broad spectrum of organizations such as Columbia University, McKinsey & Co., Goldman Sachs and Pepperdine University, that document a clear relationship between women in senior management and corporate financial success. By all measures, more women in your company means better performance.

While men are more likely than women to be uninsured, women’s health coverage is more volatile. Why? Because only 38 percent of women have health coverage through their own job, compared to 50 percent of men. That means women are about twice as likely as men to depend on a spouse or partner’s employer-provided health plan. The negative outcomes here are pretty obvious: For an American woman, the end of a romantic relationship is often not just emotionally tumultuous but medically tumultuous as well, for both herself and her children.

A study in the journal Health Services Research concluded that a husband’s transition from employer-based coverage to Medicare at age 65 can be especially problematic for his younger wife or partner. She must give up her dependent coverage before she herself is eligible for Medicare. Women who experience such disruptions in health care “had a greater probability of experiencing a change in usual clinic/provider (71 percent), delaying filling or taking fewer medications than prescribed because of cost (75 percent), going to the emergency room (52 percent), and had lower average mental health scores than women who did not experience an insurance disruption,” the authors write.

With illness being the leading cause for bankruptcy in this country, health insurance often means not just your physical, but your economic health as well.

Just one of the many reasons health care reform is truly an issue of utmost importance to women.

Only five countries in the world offer no form of legally protected paid maternity leave to women workers: Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Lesotho, Liberia, and the United States.

………

[June 1st, 2009] the U.S. House finally passed a bill, sponsored by New York Congresswoman, and friend of this blog Carolyn Maloney, that would grant four weeks of paid parental leave to all Federal government employees after the birth or adoption of a child. Though the bill only applies to government workers, and would not affect private sector employees, for the United States, considering our record thus far on parental leave, it would be a big step forward.

The Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act will now move to the Senate, where it is expected to pass. But strong opposition from Senate Republicans could delay or weaken the bill. If you care about improving working parents’ access to reasonable parental leave, please contact your Senators and let them know that you would prefer the United States have just this one less thing in common with Liberia and Swaziland.

]]> http://www.womnfocus.com/2009/06/24/paid-parental-leave-are-we-getting-closer/feed/ 0