Womens Rights on The Huffington Post

Sarkozy Plans To Force Gender Equality On French Boardrooms

2009-12-03T09:24:00Z

Nicolas Sarkozy's centre-right party has put forward legislation that would see women make up half the figures in France's leading boardrooms by 2015, under a bold plan to impose gender equality on the male-dominated business world.

Janet Grillo: A Wall That Has Not Yet Fallen

2009-11-30T10:07:19Z

Days ago, millions celebrated the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. But this year also marks the 30th anniversary of the United States' refusal to break down another crucial wall; the barrier between women and their fundamental rights. Few know what the acronym CEDAW stands for. Which is in and of itself a crying shame. It means: the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. In 1979, the United Nations adopted CEDAW, a treaty to protect fundamental rights of women, beyond cultural mores and traditions. Such as: protection from slavery, rape, honor killings and genital mutilation, to name a few. As well as equal pay for equal work, access to health care and parental leave. The treaty was ratified by 186 UN Member States, including such bastions of feminism as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Countries we decry for their outright abuse and oppression of women. Yet the nation with the most political sway in the international fight to protect human rights failed to ratify the treaty. You guessed it; our own. As long as the United States stands idly by, protections against outrageous aggression against women, which CEDAW could provide, linger un-enforced. Sure, they're "on the books." But if the Leader of the Free World doesn't take them seriously, why should Ahmadinejad?

One might ask, what's the value of this treaty in the first place? We all know that UN protocols are as meaningful as the participants' desire to abide them. But treaties are tools with which other watchdog organizations, such as the renowned HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, can work. They provide ground rules so that international pressure can be brought to bear on offenders. They establish standards to which all nations will be held accountable.

We are experiencing a valuable moment of acute public attention to atrocities against women. Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn describe what is tantamount to gender genocide in their stirring book, Half the Sky. Hilary Clinton is boldly speaking out against rape as a mode of military conduct. The time has come to advance the cause of human justice for those who are born with two X chromosomes. Mr. Obama, take down this wall!

(Oh, and while we're at it...do you realize that our own Equal Rights Amendment was never passed? And that was originally brought to Congress in 1923.)

Nancy Northup: An Open Letter To Secretary Clinton About The Gross Neglect Of Women's Reproductive Rights In India

2009-11-24T21:01:05Z

Dear Secretary Clinton,

As advocates for women's health and human rights, we write to request your support on a matter of utmost importance for Indian women. We hope that this week when you meet with the Indian Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, you underscore the dire state of women's reproductive health in India. As the nation with the highest number of maternal deaths annually, India alone accounts for nearly a quarter of the world's maternal deaths. Every year, more than 100,000 Indian women are dying from childbirth related causes. In addition, another 3,000,000 women will suffer long-lasting illness or injury. As such, maternal mortality in India is long-standing public health crisis, as well as a global human rights concern. The Indian government must be held accountable for its inaction in the face of this gross neglect of women's reproductive rights.

Maternal mortality in India is a multifactorial problem, stemming from medical, socioeconomic and health system-related factors. Despite the complexity of the problem, maternal mortality is understood to be a preventable epidemic, as it generally occurs due to the unavailability of care or substandard quality of care. The fact that these deaths are largely preventable is the very reason that such high rates of maternal mortality and morbidity are unacceptable. The virtual eradication of maternal mortality in many developed nations indicates that we possess the wherewithal to make pregnancy and childbirth extremely safe. Even in developing nations such as India, at least 75% of maternal deaths can be averted. Yet, an Indian woman dies in child birth every five minutes.

India's rate of maternal mortality exceeds that of other developing nations, including Pakistan and China. Despite its booming economy and evolution as a major political power, India lags far behind developed nations in terms of maternal health. The rate of maternal mortality in any given country is said to reveal more about the condition of its health care system than any other indicator. By this measure, reforming the health care system in India ought to be a national priority. Yet, the priorities of the Indian government lie elsewhere. Economic development in India has not only failed to adequately include women, but it is seemingly occurring at their expense. Despite the fact that India has the world's 12th largest economy, India's expenditure on health care, at 3.6% of the GDP, is significantly lower than the global average of 9.8%.

The high rate of maternal mortality among Indian women reflects continuing violations of their rights to life, liberty and security, health, and freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Efforts to promote women's autonomy and empowerment, which are critical aspects of the human rights paradigm, have historically been absent from strategies to improve maternal health. There has also been inadequate attention paid to discriminatory practices against women based on gender and caste, both on a societal level and within the health care system, that frequently lead to maternal deaths.

The Indian government must be held accountable for its failure to provide the necessary conditions for safe motherhood. The government of India, like that of the U.S., has committed itself to upholding the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), which recognizes "the right of access to appropriate health-care services that will enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant."

The Indian government has failed to advance the agenda of the ICPD and meet other international policy commitments, such as the UN Millennium Development Goals. India is among the 189 nations that undertook an obligation to achieve a 75% reduction in levels of maternal mortality by 2015. Even if it were to achieve this goal, which recent data suggests it will not, India would continue to have a rate of maternal mortality that far surpasses that many developed and developing nations.

We were heartened by your recent statement that "maternal health is now part of the Obama administration's outreach." Given the magnitude of this largely preventable threat to women's lives, we hope that you will avail yourself of this opportunity to urge Prime Minister Singh to reevaluate the government's efforts to reduce maternal mortality and provide for safe motherhood in India.

For your reference, we are linking to a report by the Center for Reproductive Rights,
Maternal Mortality in India: Using International and Constitutional Law to Promote Accountability and Change.

Sincerely,
Nancy Northup
President, Center for Reproductive Rights

Linda Tarr-Whelan: Health Care And Healthy Moms

2009-11-24T19:35:00Z

Health care for women is in the news these days. But what does it all mean? Having just researched for my new book what different decisions emerge when 30% women are at the table, I can't help but wonder what would have happened if Congress were made up of 30% women, instead of 17%.

For today, I'm riveted by news stories that a "very prestigious independent medical panel" has recommended big changes in our health care routines. As a colon cancer survivor and former nurse, it leaves me with more questions than answers. They talked about preventing deaths from breast cancer, but then told us to cut out several key steps we have learned to take.

We have walked, done relays, worn pink ribbons and educated ourselves to take practical steps: do breast self-exams, have the mammograms we need after the age of 40 and regular doctors' visits. Could these common-sense precautions really be unnecessary? Really?

First I went to the American Cancer Society website, to see what they say. The chief medical officer is very clear. Even looking at the same studies as the independent group did, they came up with different conclusions. Their guidelines--the ones we know well and try to follow--stay in place.

Yes, there are risks that need careful discussions between a woman and her physician. Yes, we'd like better science so there won't be false positives on mammography that can cause anxiety. But the bottom-line is clear: we still need to check ourselves and get the tests we need for early discovery and treatment.

Then what about that flap over the House-passed health care reform package that traded a necessary part of health care away for a cynical political deal around abortion politics? Most women don't even want to think about ending pregnancies; we concentrate on having a safe pregnancy and a healthy baby. Private insurance policies have generally treated women's reproductive health as part of health care, not a separate political football. That's important because none of us can know what the future will bring.

Forty special interest members of Congress weren't thinking about women's needs. They pushed for and won a provision to effectively prevent women from getting private insurance coverage for the full range of reproductive health options. These Members of Congress knew tax dollars cannot be used for abortion services; for 30 years, by law, no federal money can pay for the procedure. Instead, like recalcitrant children, they held up agreement on the reforms millions of Americans including my family and maybe yours need for health care.

Think about it. Every family knows someone who's at risk with our fragmented health system. Our daughter's employer--like many across the country--dropped health insurance coverage in this economic downturn. Individual policies cost far too much for Montessori teachers like her. Our son, in the computer field, was 36 years old before he had a job where the employer offered group health insurance. My aunt is only able to take the medications covered by her Medicare prescription drug plan. Every family knows what is at stake.

Health care tops the list for moms to take care of their families. Our kids need both health care and healthy moms!

A version of this blog post originally appeared at MomsRising.org

Linda Tarr-Whelan is the author of Women Lead the Way: Your Guide to Stepping Up to Leadership and Changing the World.
Read more: Women, Women's Rights, Women's Leadership, Women in Business, Women's Health, Health Care, Living News

Sheryl Sandberg: Reaching Women Around the World

2009-11-24T17:15:33Z
It is tradition to celebrate Thanksgiving with family, food, and thanks. Like many families, mine starts the holiday meal by going around the table so everyone can say what they are most thankful for. For me, I am thankful that as a woman, I live in the peace and security of the United States.

Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times has said that "in the 19th century, the paramount moral challenge was slavery. In the 20th century, it was totalitarianism. In this century, it is the brutality inflicted on so many women and girls around the globe: sex trafficking, acid attacks, bride burnings and mass rape." There is a growing understanding that "focusing on women and girls is the most effective way to fight global poverty and extremism."

But how? How do we help women who live so far away and face atrocities we can't even imagine? How does an individual sitting at a Thanksgiving table in the United States provide any real assistance to a woman who will never have a meal like this in her entire life?

The best program I have found is Women for Women International, an international development and humanitarian organization that helps women survivors of war move from crisis to self-sufficiency. Through the organization's sponsorship program, you can be matched with a woman in need and help her receive financial assistance, job skill training, leadership and rights awareness training and microcredit loans. A monthly contribution of $27 provides your sponsored "sister" with the keys to rebuilding her life after war. By sponsoring a woman, you not only provide her with the financial assistance she needs to get back on her feet, but you can also be a critical source of support by writing letters, which Women for Women International will translate and exchange on your behalf.

Many of the women report that the letters they receive from their sponsors in the United States and around the world provided the kind of confidential emotional support they needed most to fully recover. This year-long experience is a journey that will bring women from victim to survivor to active citizen.

As a board member for Women for Women International, I have witnessed firsthand the direct and personal impact of connecting with a woman who has lost everything in war and yet is able to rebuild her life, her family and her community with my support. So far, Women for Women International has helped over 250,000 women globally and distributed more than $79 million in direct aid, micro credit loans, and other program services. Because women reinvest up to 90% of their resources back into the family, we know that these women are helping rebuild their families and communities in a proven model of economic development. Stronger women build stronger nations.

Women are uniquely vulnerable to violence -- they are the majority of the world's displaced and refugee populations and are subjected time and again to rape and sexualized violence as tools of war. Yet women also represent enormous opportunity to rebuild families and communities. We work with rape survivors in the Democratic Republic of Congo, site of the deadliest war since WWII where hundreds of thousands of women have been raped. These same women are now learning to manufacture ceramic tiles that will build, literally and figuratively, the foundation of peace and development after war. In Afghanistan, we help illiterate mothers put their girls and boys through school amidst a conflict that has produced over a million widows, many of whom are uneducated and poverty-stricken. In Sudan, we assist poor women farmers who are then able to double their income through new techniques for commercial markets.

In a time of global financial crisis that is estimated will plunge another 22 million women into poverty, these women are on a precipice. For these women, even $27 a month can change the world and open new opportunities for them and their families to thrive. As I await my turn to give my thanks at the family supper table this Thursday, I know just what I will say.

Sheryl Sandberg is Chief Operating Officer of Facebook and sits on the board of directors of Women for Women International. For more on Women for Women International, visit womenforwomen.org or contact Lyric Thompson at lthompson@womenforwomen.org.

Read more HuffPost Thanksgiving coverage and commentary

Read more: Women for Women International, Women's Rights, Women, Sex Trafficking, Thanksgiving Commentary, Human Trafficking, Thanksgiving, Impact News

Breadwinners In Burqas: Female Entrepreneurs In Afghanistan

2009-11-23T17:43:37Z
I first came to Kabul in the winter of 2005 to write about a topic considered unlikely by some and outlandish to everyone else: women's entrepreneurship. I was eager to hear the stories of women who had turned to small business to support their families and create jobs for their communities. And I was keen to see just what kinds of enterprises they were starting.
Read more: Afghanistan, Women's Rights, Women, Afghanistan Women, World News

Rahim Kanani: Breaking the Silence on America's Third War

2009-11-23T14:42:33Z
President Barack Obama was elected to the White House to put an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as they have endlessly maimed and killed countless Americans overseas. The dirty little secret, however, is that the United States has been engaged in a much longer and much bloodier conflict right here at home -- a war aimed at its women -- to which the outrage is abysmal. Running through the terms of many presidents, this is a war that has devastated lives and livelihoods for decades, tearing at the very moral fiber we seek to strengthen as a nation. It is yet another conflict we have failed to devise a true "exit strategy." While such a phrase is foolishly devoid of the human cost of inaction, it may be our only hope to ending America's Third War.

According to the most recent report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), women experience about 4.8 million intimate partner related physical assaults and rapes each year. That's more than 13,000 attacks per day, and nearly 550 attacks per hour. As a result of such egregious violence, roughly 1200 women are murdered every year by their current spouse, former spouse, or dating partner -- that's three women, murdered, every single day. Adding to the horror, every couple of minutes, a woman is forcibly raped in this country. If you find yourself outraged, you ought to be. This is a national emergency. Each and every day, America's women are being sexually violated, attacked, and killed. It is time to end America's War on Women.

On September 11th 2001, nearly 3,000 people were murdered in an act of terrorism, upon which America went to war. Since that time, nearly 10,000 women were murdered by their intimate partners -- more than three times the number of lives lost on 9/11. Where is the outrage? With the U.S. still spending a combined $3B per week in Iraq and Afghanistan, in terms of allocating proportionate resources to address the killing of innocent Americans, we should be spending more than $9B per week on ending violence against women right here at home. Of course, that is simply not the case. But again, where is the outrage? The moral sponge of this country has been soaking in misogyny for far too long, and thus, while scathing statistics elicit temporary anger, tackling violence against women has turned into a mere talking point -- so much so that arguments of liberating women were even used to generate support for 'staying the course' in Iraq and 'changing the mission' in Afghanistan. It's time for America to liberate its own women from misogynistic structures that are, at best, indifferent to the plight of women, and at worst, complicit in their suffering. We cannot afford either of those extremes, for even the best case is no cause for celebration.

On November 25th, we mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. It is a time for both reflection, and for action. If the United States is truly interested in protecting innocent Americans from being killed, a national discussion about the nation's treatment toward its women should be a top priority for the country moving forward. The Third War has steadily bled the healthy moral organs underpinning America's being. It is time to call the surgeons, rather than reach for a band-aid. How many more women must be abused, violated, and murdered before the American public becomes relentless in their pursuit for justice?
Read more: Women's Rights, Women, Cdc, Violence Against Women, Afghanistan, Terrorism, United Nations, 9/11, Unite States, Iraq, Domestic Violence, World News

Rep. Lois Capps: Stupak-Pitts Goes Beyond Status Quo

2009-11-20T11:06:42Z
There is no question that reproductive health care has become a hot button issue in health care reform. This is very unfortunate. But despite the emotions and sensitivity surrounding the topic of abortion, lawmakers must not lose sight of the facts. Here are a few:

The Stupak-Pitts amendment goes well beyond the status quo and is in no way the simple extension of the Hyde amendment its proponents claim. It will result in a major step backwards for women's access to abortion, a legal medical procedure.

Proponents of Stupak-Pitts say that individuals purchasing health insurance plans in the Exchange without affordability credits can buy plans with abortion coverage. In reality, no insurance plan is going to go through the painstaking process of setting up two separate plans--one with abortion services offered and one without--to cater to less than 20% of the Exchange participants who are allowed to buy plans that include abortion services. As noted by Robert Laszewski, consultant to the insurance industry, in a recent interview with NPR, it wouldn't make any business sense to offer a plan that would only be available to such a small number of potential customers. The argument that this amendment won't restrict access for women who are paying for insurance entirely out of their own pockets is false.

The Hyde amendment prohibits federal funding for abortion in Medicaid programs except in cases of rape, incest and to protect the life of the women, but it allows states to use their own funds to pay for abortions in other cases. Applying this same principle, the Capps Amendment, would have prohibited federal funding to pay directly for abortions in insurance plans in the Exchange, but would allow plans to pay for these services using private funding from patient premiums. Just as churches and military contractors are able to segregate federal funds from other sources of funding, insurance companies can do the same.

My amendment is also consistent with federal tax policy which provides subsidies in the form of tax breaks to businesses to provide health insurance for their employees. It should be noted most Americans receive their health insurance from the traditional employer based system and most of those health insurance plans include coverage for abortions. It is my amendment, not the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which preserves the status quo of preventing federal funds from directly paying for abortion services without restricting access to this legal medical procedure.

There were Members of Congress and representatives of organizations opposed to abortion who were given a chance to review my amendment and offer their input before it was introduced. And because my amendment represented a true compromise on this challenging issue, both pro-choice and pro-life Members of the Energy & Commerce Committee joined me in support, rejecting the more extreme Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

I should also note that most of the Members of Congress and the groups who endorsed the Stupak-Pitts language continue to oppose health care reform. As Mr. Stupak has correctly pointed out, most anti-abortion groups opposed the Capps amendment, but what he left out was the fact that they also opposed passage of our health care reform legislation, even after the Stupak-Pitts amendment was added. In fact, the vast majority of Members who voted for the Stupak amendment opposed passage of H.R. 3962 even after this amendment was added.

At the end of the day, our goal is to pass meaningful health care reform legislation. We must not allow abortion opponents to use our health care reform process to drastically restrict a woman's access to a legal medical procedure and that's exactly what the Stupak-Pitts amendment does.

Congresswoman Lois Capps (CA-23) serves as a Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Prior to serving in Congress she worked for 20 years as a public school nurse and health advocate.

Read more: Abortion, Capps Amendment, Women's Rights, Lois Capps, Women's Health, Abortion Rights, Stupak Amendment, Health Care Reform, Women and Politics, Stupak Abortion Amendment, Politics News

Amy B. Dean: Women to Be Majority in Labor Union Movement, So Here's the Job Ahead

2009-11-19T16:39:59Z
A study released last week put the spotlight on a workplace demographic shift that is occurring: women are expected to become a majority of labor union workers within the next decade. This is an important fact that is also a reminder of the important job ahead of us.

The new report by John Schmitt and Kris Warner of the Center for Economic and Policy Research received national media attention with the Associated Press focusing on the clout it could afford women. This topic has been on the minds of many for decades as women have played increasingly important roles in the labor movement in particular and the even broader American workforce in general. Women already comprise the majority of the workforce in management, professional and related fields according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.

Labor unions are central players, in fact leaders, in many of the more significant workplace victories for women over the years. But it does raise hopes that issues of family/work balance will finally come to the forefront of much needed and long-overdue workplace change.

Even for women employed by labor unions, there are big issues to resolve. Sadly, many of these could have -- and should have -- been resolved long ago. These include greater flexibility around job sharing, paid sick leave (suddenly a labor issue even top national media will tune into as the H1N1 virus has put so many people out of work for extended periods), maternity leave, the ability to come back into the job market after leave, childcare, fair and equal wages along with the ability for women to advance in the workplace.

All these issues and more must move from the margins to the mainstream of collective bargaining. Despite political rhetoric, work/family balance issues remain on the periphery of workplace issues to be addressed. We really cannot wait -- and shouldn't wait ten years -- for work-life balance issues to become a priority of collective bargaining.

In spite of growing female participation in the workplace, America's labor market policies need a major overhaul. In 1933, Frances Perkins was named Secretary of Labor in the Roosevelt administration, making her the first woman to hold this position and the first woman to hold a cabinet position. Since then we've received sagely advice for years from Netsy Firestein of the Labor Project for Working Families, Karen Nussbaum, President and Founder of 9 to 5, the National Association of Working Women and Professor Eileen Appelbaum of the Center For Women and Work at Rutgers University. These activists and researchers have been at the forefront of women's labor market issues and they have made important contributions within the labor movement and nationally at large. We should listen to what they have to say.

If there is one institution that has the values and the political clout to create family friendly workplace policies, it's the American labor movement. Yet, women continue to drop out of labor market participation because too often it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to work full-time while providing stewardship for our families and nurturing and sustenance for our children. I certainly am not the first female labor leader to call for immediate action on these important issues, but I am one of many women who drop out of significant leadership positions in the labor movement due to the difficulty in balancing movement work and family obligations.

Unless we are willing to eliminate 50% of the talent, skills and unique styles of leadership that woman bring to institutional life, then we need an overhaul of America's labor market policies so that they reflect the realities of today's working families, not the lifestyles of the 1930's when the majority of today's labor laws were adopted.

The American labor movement needs to put these issues on the front burner of its political and advocacy agenda. Let us hope with the growing number of woman in significant leadership roles like Liz Shuler, the Secretary-Treasurer, and Arlene Holt Baker, the Executive Vice President, of the AFL-CIO, and Anna Burger, the top ranking officer of SEIU and chair of Change to Win, that the issues of family friendly policies will move center stage in today's labor movement and as a consequence in today's workplaces.

Let us not wait 10 more years for these long over due issues to be addressed with common sense and courage.
Read more: Change to Win, Afl-Cio, Women in the Workplace, Women's Rights, H1n1, Labor Unions, Seiu, Books News

Read The Abortion Compromise In Harry Reid's Senate Health Care Bill

2009-11-18T20:10:20Z
The health care reform package unveiled by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Wednesday night bars the use of federal funds for abortion services, but does not go as far as the House bill -- which prevents women in many cases from buying insurance with their own money that covers abortion.

The Senate version would require at least one plan within the health insurance exchange that the bill sets up to offer a plan that covers abortion and one that doesn't. It would also authorize the Health and Human Services Secretary to audit plans to make certain that abortion isn't being paid for with federal dollars.

Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), who authored compromise abortion language in the House that both sides had agreed to before the more restrictive measure won out, is pleased with the Senate version.

"I am pleased that the Senate has adopted a reasonable, common ground approach on this difficult question," she said in a statement. "It appears that their approach closely mirrors my language which was originally included in the House bill. It ensures that federal funds do not pay for abortions but allows continued access to this legal medical procedure. This is a bill about health insurance reform not about expanding or contracting access to abortion services. I am glad that the Senate has rejected the more extreme Stupak language and look forward to continuing to work with my pro-life and pro-choice colleagues on a reasonable compromise on this issue."

Sen. Barbara Boxer is also pleased with the language of the Senate's abortion compromise:
"Senator Reid did an excellent job of crafting language that maintains the decades long compromise of no federal funds for abortion, while allowing a woman to use her own private funds for her reproductive health care. In this Senate bill, there is a complete separation of public and private funding when it comes to purchasing insurance that includes legal reproductive health care procedures."

HuffPost scored a copy of Reid's bill, which you can read here. The abortion compromise begins on page 116 with section 1303.

Write ryan@huffingtonpost.com if you notice any unexpected restrictions that could result from this language. Please refer to the page numbers and the line numbers to the left.

14 SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES.
(a) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.--
VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.--

19 (A) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any
20 other provision of this title (or any amendment
21 made by this title), and subject to subpara22
graphs (C) and (D)--
23 (i) nothing in this title (or any
24 amendment made by this title), shall be
25 construed to require a qualified health plan

Page 117

1 to provide coverage of services described in
2 subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of
3 its essential health benefits for any plan
4 year; and
5 (ii) the issuer of a qualified health
6 plan shall determine whether or not the
7 plan provides coverage of services described
8 in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part
9 of such benefits for the plan year.
10 (B) ABORTION SERVICES.--
11 (i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC
12 FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.--The services
13 described in this clause are abortions for
14 which the expenditure of Federal funds ap15
propriated for the Department of Health
16 and Human Services is not permitted,
17 based on the law as in effect as of the date
18 that is 6 months before the beginning of
19 the plan year involved.
20 (ii) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC
21 FUNDING IS ALLOWED.--The services de22
scribed in this clause are abortions for
23 which the expenditure of Federal funds ap24
propriated for the Department of Health
25 and Human Services is permitted, based

Page 118

1 on the law as in effect as of the date that
2 is 6 months before the beginning of the
3 plan year involved.
4 (C) PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDS
5 FOR ABORTION SERVICES IN COMMUNITY
6 HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.--
7 (i) DETERMINATION BY SEC8
RETARY.--The Secretary may not deter9
mine, in accordance with subparagraph
10 (A)(ii), that the community health insur11
ance option established under section 1323
12 shall provide coverage of services described
13 in subparagraph (B)(i) as part of benefits
14 for the plan year unless the Secretary--
15 (I) assures compliance with the
16 requirements of paragraph (2);
17 (II) assures, in accordance with
18 applicable provisions of generally ac19
cepted accounting requirements, circu20
lars on funds management of the Of21
fice of Management and Budget, and
22 guidance on accounting of the Govern23
ment Accountability Office, that no
24 Federal funds are used for such cov25
erage; and

Page 119

1 (III) notwithstanding section
2 1323(e)(1)(C) or any other provision
3 of this title, takes all necessary steps
4 to assure that the United States does
5 not bear the insurance risk for a com6
munity health insurance option's cov7
erage of services described in subpara8
graph (B)(i).
9 (ii) STATE REQUIREMENT.--If a State
10 requires, in addition to the essential health
11 benefits required under section 1323(b)(3)
12 (A), coverage of services described in sub13
paragraph (B)(i) for enrollees of a commu14
nity health insurance option offered in
15 such State, the State shall assure that no
16 funds flowing through or from the commu17
nity health insurance option, and no other
18 Federal funds, pay or defray the cost of
19 providing coverage of services described in
20 subparagraph (B)(i). The United States
21 shall not bear the insurance risk for a
22 State's required coverage of services de23
scribed in subparagraph (B)(i).
24 (iii) EXCEPTIONS.--Nothing in this
25 subparagraph shall apply to coverage of

Page 120

1 services described in subparagraph (B)(ii)
2 by the community health insurance option.
3 Services described in subparagraph (B)(ii)
4 shall be covered to the same extent as such
5 services are covered under title XIX of the
6 Social Security Act.
7 (D) ASSURED AVAILABILITY OF VARIED
8 COVERAGE THROUGH EXCHANGES.--
9 (i) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary shall
10 assure that with respect to qualified health
11 plans offered in any Exchange established
12 pursuant to this title--
13 (I) there is at least one such plan
14 that provides coverage of services de15
scribed in clauses (i) and (ii) of sub16
paragraph (B); and
17 (II) there is at least one such
18 plan that does not provide coverage of
19 services described in subparagraph
20 (B)(i).
21 (ii) SPECIAL RULES.--For purposes of
22 clause (i)--
23 (I) a plan shall be treated as de24
scribed in clause (i)(II) if the plan
25 does not provide coverage of services

Page 121

1 described in either subparagraph
2 (B)(i) or (B)(ii); and
3 (II) if a State has one Exchange
4 covering more than 1 insurance mar5
ket, the Secretary shall meet the re6
quirements of clause (i) separately
7 with respect to each such market.
8 (2) PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL
9 FUNDS.--
10 (A) IN GENERAL.--If a qualified health
11 plan provides coverage of services described in
12 paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall
13 not use any amount attributable to any of the
14 following for purposes of paying for such serv15
ices:
16 (i) The credit under section 36B of
17 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and
18 the amount (if any) of the advance pay19
ment of the credit under section 1412 of
20 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
21 Act).
22 (ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under
23 section 1402 of thePatient Protection and
24 Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if
25 any) of the advance payment of the reduc122
O:\BAI\BAI09M01.xml [file 1 of 9] S.L.C.
1 tion under section 1412 of the Patient
2 Protection and Affordable Care Act).
3 (B) SEGREGATION OF FUNDS.--In the case
4 of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies,
5 the issuer of the plan shall, out of amounts not
6 described in subparagraph (A), segregate an
7 amount equal to the actuarial amounts deter8
mined under subparagraph (C) for all enrollees
9 from the amounts described in subparagraph
10 (A).
11 (C) ACTUARIAL VALUE OF OPTIONAL
12 SERVICE COVERAGE.--
13 (i) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary shall
14 estimate the basic per enrollee, per month
15 cost, determined on an average actuarial
16 basis, for including coverage under a quali17
fied health plan of the services described in
18 paragraph (1)(B)(i).
19 (ii) CONSIDERATIONS.--In making
20 such estimate, the Secretary--
21 (I) may take into account the im22
pact on overall costs of the inclusion
23 of such coverage, but may not take
24 into account any cost reduction esti25
mated to result from such services, in123
O:\BAI\BAI09M01.xml [file 1 of 9] S.L.C.
1 cluding prenatal care, delivery, or
2 postnatal care;
3 (II) shall estimate such costs as
4 if such coverage were included for the
5 entire population covered; and
6 (III) may not estimate such a
7 cost at less than $1 per enrollee, per
8 month.
9 (3) PROVIDER CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS.--No
10 individual health care provider or health care facility
11 may be discriminated against because of a willing12
ness or an unwillingness, if doing so is contrary to
13 the religious or moral beliefs of the provider or facil14
ity, to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer
15 for abortions.
16 (b) APPLICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS
17 REGARDING ABORTION.--
18 (1) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARD19
ING ABORTION.--Nothing in this Act shall be con20
strued to preempt or otherwise have any effect on
21 State laws regarding the prohibition of (or require22
ment of) coverage, funding, or procedural require23
ments on abortions, including parental notification
24 or consent for the performance of an abortion on a
25 minor.

Page 124

1 (2) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING
2 ABORTION.--
3 (A) IN GENERAL.--Nothing in this Act
4 shall be construed to have any effect on Federal
5 laws regarding--
6 (i) conscience protection;
7 (ii) willingness or refusal to provide
8 abortion; and
9 (iii) discrimination on the basis of the
10 willingness or refusal to provide, pay for,
11 cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or
12 participate in training to provide abortion.
13 (3) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS
14 LAW.--Nothing in this subsection shall alter the
15 rights and obligations of employees and employers
16 under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
17 (c) APPLICATION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
18 LAWS.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to relieve
19 any health care provider from providing emergency serv20
ices as required by State or Federal law, including section
21 1867 of the Social Security Act (popularly known as
22 ''EMTALA'').
Read more: Health Care Bill, Women's Rights, Health Care Reform Bill, Public Option, Health Insurance, Stupak Amendment, Read Senate Abortion Health Bill, Read Health Care Reform, Senate Health Bill, Anti-Choice, Abortion Language, Senate Health Care Reform Bill, Pro-Choice, Politics News

Anushay Hossain: Climate Change Hits Women Harder, So Where Are the Feminist Voices?

2009-11-18T13:13:40Z
I grew up knowing my country was drowning. My childhood memories are full of flashing images of annual monsoon rains making rivers out of our roads, lakes out of our rice paddy fields, washing away farmers' harvests, pushing the rural population into our already overpopulated capital city. Of course the yearly floods alternated with even greater natural disasters -- cyclones, tornadoes -- you name it, growing up I saw it. The rumor in the playground was that in twenty years Bangladesh would be completely underwater.

Today that statement is no longer a rumor, but very much a reality. According to the UK's Guardian publication, Bangladesh makes up not even 10% of the land mass of South Asia , but over 90% of the region's water passes through it. Experts state that Bangladesh 's shifting and intensifying weather patterns are making a bad situation worse. The case of Bangladesh shows us that climate change is real, and is already impacting populations and ecosystems around the world.

But the case of Bangladesh shows us something more: That it's the world's poor who will feel the impact of this change the hardest. And who exactly are the poor? Women, who make up approximately 65% of the world's poorest populations.

Because of the traditional domestic responsibilities which fall on women and girls, experts state that climate change is having a disproportionate affect them. Women are the primary caretakers of families, primary managers of everything from food production to water management in their households. As UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) puts it, women are the ones who cook, clean, and farm for their families, in addition to providing health care and hygiene. Women are not only on the "front lines" of climate change, but their work and relationship with the environment is so intimate that their experience with it changing is often just as personal.

Let's look at the issue of water for example, a natural resource especially sensitive to climate change, and one that traditionally women are the managers of in their households. According to UNIFEM (United Nations Development Fund for Women), women and girls on average travel 10-15 kilometers, spending up to 8 hours a day gathering water for their families. Droughts caused by climate change are shrinking up and eliminating existing water supplies, making the distance to walk even longer. Because of the distances women and girls have to walk to fetch water for their families, millions of girls around the world are unable to go to school. Imagine that. The average person would never make the connection between accessing water and girls' education. Yet it exists.

As the gendered impact of climate change becomes increasingly palpable, my question is -- where are the feminist voices? Why are more women's rights advocates and activists not picking up and rallying around this issue vigorously? Everyday you see articles in the news, but where is the real action? More importantly, where is the outrage? Just yesterday I read an article in the LA Times talking about how the newest kind of refugee is not from war, but from of climate change. They are called "climate refugees" and the LA Times states that almost 10 million people around the world have been forced to leave their homes for "reasons ranging from rising (or falling) sea levels, lack of rain, and desertification."

Back home in Bangladesh , the list of innovative ideas to combat and more importantly, adapt to climate change is endless. International aid organizations are working with local NGOs to build "floating villages," clinics on boats, and help women educate their communities about securing flood and cyclone shelters.

But there has to be more. Women may be in the front lines of climate change, but they are not only its victims. Their personal and intimate experience of the harsh impacts of climate change means that within them lies very real solutions to combat it. If the voices from the women's rights movement don't pick up this issue, loudly, clearly and unanimously, climate change will not only drown out countries, but the agents of change, women, with it. And that is simply not an option.

It is the responsibility of the women's movement, both here in the US and abroad, to make the issue of our altering environment, our issue, otherwise everybody loses. Climate change is a human rights issue, but its very obvious gendered impacts make it a women's rights issue.

Cross posted from Anushay's Point.
Read more: Environment, Climate Change, Women, Women's Rights, Unfpa, Poverty, United Nations, South Asia, Global Poverty, Bangladesh, Un, Feminism, Green News

Richmond Gang Rape Prompts City's Reflection

2009-11-17T22:42:04Z
RICHMOND, Calif. — Not far from the pulsating music and dancing of the high school homecoming, young men were drinking in a dimly-lit courtyard out of sight of chaperones.

A friend invited a 16-year-old girl to join them, and she started drinking hard liquor, too. Soon another group of young men came over.
Read more: Sexual Violence, Women's Rights, Violence Against Women, Rape, California, Homecoming, Crime, Homecoming Dance, Margarita Vargas, Richmond, Richmond Gang Rape, Richmond High School, Gang Rape, Alcohol, San Francisco, Home News

The New Feminism: Questions For Jessica Valenti

2009-11-17T17:05:43Z
Editor of the blog Feministing.com rates the effectiveness of online activism compared to old-style models of political engagement like rallies and marches and displays of bra-burning.
Read more: Women's Rights, Internet, Women, Feministing.com, Activism, Online, Unplug and Recharge, World Wide Web, Feminism, Social Activism, Living News

Madeleine M. Kunin: Lessons on Birth Control from Afghanistan

2009-11-17T14:06:04Z

Some 536,000 women die in pregnancy, according to the World Health Organization. That figure has not changed in 30 years, even as child mortality rates have been reduced.
How do we save those women? I found one answer in a small story in The New York Times last week. The dateline was Afghanistan.
The reporter described a group of mullahs attending a class on birth control. Afghanistan has the second highest rate of maternal mortality, second only to Sierra Leone. The mullahs were "reluctant participants"; the writer acknowledged and had been paid to attend. Yet they listened, partly because the class was taught by one of their own, a fellow mullah.
Islam does not forbid birth control but having a child is considered a gift from God, the more births, the greater the blessings. On average, women bear six children in this country which has an average per capita income of $700 a year.
What were the lessons? Wait two years before having another baby to give your wife's body a chance to rest, breast feed babies for 21 months. Simple advice, but new to a country where old traditions are difficult to change.
Providing birth control information and giving out pills is still dangerous in some areas. Many fear that birth control is an American plot to weaken the country.
If the mullahs decide to approve spacing their children and keeping both mothers and babies healthy, the transformation could be dramatic. Islam has one advantage: the mullahs are obeyed. "If the clerics will support this, no one will oppose it, " one trainer said.
If spacing children takes hold, not only would the maternal mortality rate plunge, but the average family income would rise. It may seem strange to have to ask for the approval of the mullahs to enable women to survive childbirth. But as I think about it, we in the United States of America, who do not suffer like women in poor countries, still have to ask for the approval of the 83% male Congress for the right to have insurance plans cover abortions.

Madeleine M. Kunin is the former Governor of Vermont and was the state's first woman governor. She served as Ambassador to Switzerland for President Clinton, and was on the three-person panel that chose Al Gore to be Clinton's VP. She is the author of Pearls, Politics, and Power: How Women Can Win and Lead from Chelsea Green Publishing.
Cross-posted on ChelseaGreen.com.

Read more: Abortion, Women in Politics, Women's Rights, Birth Control, Afghanistan, Reproductive Rights, World News

Carol Orsborn: Boomer Women: Beliefs In Transition

2009-11-16T18:46:53Z
In case you thought the recession has dampened Boomer womens' spirits, guess again. If anything, results of a recent survey by VibrantNation.com (the largest online community for women 50+) reveals that our coping strategies and belief systems are reaching new levels of effectiveness in the face of heightened challenge and change. In fact, nearly 8 out of 10 of the 500 respondents report that "the older I get, the more resilient I become."

Not that we aren't being tested. Some of the issues that are testing our faith include the concern that we won't be able to get the same level of financial and healthcare benefits our parents did (62%) with an additional 5% (for a total of 67%) who either trust our financial advisors and institutions less than before the recession or "never trusted them in the first place."

It is no wonder that the majority of us report that we are less optimistic in regards to our expectations about the future than we used to be. But with maturation, we are taking even this sobering dose of reality in stride. Amongst the majority of us who reported that we are less optimistic in regards to our expectations about the future, over half reveal that this is not an issue of concern. In fact, the majority of us "accept this".

Drilling down more deeply, we begin to get a picture of the belief set that can allow resilience and eroded optimism to co-exist in what is emerging as the dominant psycho-spiritual ethos of respondents. In fact, many of this generation of women who have demonstrated repeatedly their ability to reinvent themselves in the face of challenge and change, are retooling their belief set at the deepest levels.

There appears, for starters, to be a move away from popular formulations of positive thinking. For instance, twice as many respondents believe that they "might influence the things that happen to and for them, the ultimate outcome is in God's hands" than believe that they "create their reality and that if they think positively, they will get what they're asking for."

This is notable, given the pre-Recession popularity of the book The Secret, which after two appearances on Oprah shot up to the top of the bestseller lists in 2006. As described in Wikipedia, The Secret's primary tenant is "that an individual's focused positive thinking can result in life-changing results such as increased wealth, happiness and more."

While many Boomer women have been (and continue to be) influenced by positive thinking, it is a sign of the times that the book that has been recently getting a lot of buzz on Vibrant Nation, and elsewhere, is Barbara Ehrenreich's recently published Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America. Ehrenreich traces the roots of new age spirituality to the motivational popularism of such American classics as Think and Grow Rich!, the book that urged previous generations to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and apply themselves self single-mindedly to the achievement of the American dream.

In our survey, only 13% identified with the motivationally-inspired statement: "I am strong and focused on achieving my goals regardless of the obstacles in my way." At the same time, five out of six (79%) reported: "I am flexible and adaptable and make the most out of life regardless of the obstacles that come my way."

The recognition of human limitation and the placing of ultimate outcomes in God's hands would tend to indicate a turn back towards traditional mainstream religion. But even here, change is in the air. In the Vibrant Nation survey, only 8% credited "the religious community I grew up in" as the biggest source of inspiration during challenging times. Less than a quarter credit their current religious community as the biggest source of inspiration. A whopping 44% credit "beliefs and philosophies I learned from books, speakers, coaches, workshops or other sources outside of organized religion."

The shift from The Secret to Ehrenreich is an indication that at least for a growing group of educated Boomer women, the American dream is in transition mode. But in keeping with our generation of womens' tradition of scrappy adaptation and resourcefulness, there is cause to celebrate that whether our optimism is eroded or our positive thinking continues intact, our resilience continues to expand.
Read more: Positive Thinking, Barbara Ehrenreich, Baby-Boomers, Baby Boomer Women, The Secret, Women's Rights, Happiness, Living News

Vanessa Carmichael: And Once Again, It's Abortion

2009-11-16T13:13:25Z
13% versus 96% -- that is what is at stake over the Stupak Amendment. The current health care legislation that was passed in the House, H.R. 3962, extends affordable health care to 96% of Americans and yet once again in this country it comes down to abortion. A fire destroyed Rome. A wedge issue will destroy the United States. Only 13% of last year's abortions were covered by private insurance, and only a fraction of those women would be affected by the Stupak Amendment. Yet somehow the amendment has become a health care controversy.

The Stupak Amendment requires women to purchase a separate rider to their federally subsidized insurance to cover an abortion that is not due to rape, incest or medical risk. Like the Hyde Amendment that has been in effect since 1976, the Stupak Amendment would prohibit federal dollars, tax payer money, from paying for abortions. Under the current Hyde Amendment, poor women on Medicare are prohibited from using the federal health insurance to pay for an abortion. So for 33 years poor women have had to go out of pocket, choose between paying the rent or getting an abortion. Now, essentially, the Stupak Amendment would require all women who would receive federally subsidized health insurance to be treated like poor women, which seems to really offend some of us.

There is no doubt in my mind personally that women should have the right to do with our bodies as we see fit, including, deciding whether we want to grow a baby in it. I have said for years if men could have babies, abortion would not be an issue. I think most women would have a hard time imagining some guy they had a brief relationship with conceding to their demand to carry a child for ten months and then go through labor? I mean, let's be real, it's hard enough to get some guys to return a phone call. With statistics as high as 22% of American children are raised by single moms, it seems abortion is more an issue of a woman having the power to terminate a pregnancy without the approval or consent of the man who impregnated her, rather than any heartfelt commitment of a father to a would-be child. It is for these reasons I feel very strongly that men need to keep their mouths shut on the issue of abortion, including Rep. Stupak.

Yet and still, the debate over abortion has not only transformed legislation, it has over time changed women's attitudes on both sides. While each individual has dominion over their reproductive organs according to the law, there is a moral question we feel the need to keep asking. At this point the debate has become a national compulsion with every order of business in this country coming down to abortion (and sometimes gay rights).

My guess is abortion is on no woman's list of life's happiest moments. I have never heard a woman speak of their abortion proudly or with fond memory. Instead, I have heard regret to have been in the circumstance and relief. Most women I know who have had an abortion became diligent after the fact about birth control and many have gone on to become incredible mothers. For those of us who have conviction of a woman's right to choose, we understand the compassion for children our pro-life sisters express. We just think that compassion should go to the countless number of children that exist in the world today not those that could possibly be. One need only open your eyes and ears to understand children all over the world suffer in brutality and desperation for no other reason than they are born into poverty. And you don't have to look to the developing world to find these children. Just look in the juvenile corrections system or Childrens' Services right here in the United States and you will find an endless supply of children who are in need of compassion. Yet and still, it is only fair to consider a few points of pro-life American women.

In Britain where abortion is covered by the National Health Service, repeat abortions continue to rise. I think most of us can agree abortion is not a desirable form of birth control. At this point in medical science you can take a pill, get a shot, get a sponge, a disc, a suppository. It would not be surprising if soon, contraception will come in the form of a fruity drink-- I recommend cosmo flavor. And with the advent of HIV/AIDS safe sex has become common practice, compared to that of previous generations. So it's easy for American women to avoid getting pregnant if you don't want to get pregnant, which is why the rate of abortion in the United States has been in long-term decline since 1974 and reached its lowest rate in 2008, with even lower numbers expected ahead.

Late term abortions are another point of contention exploited by politicians and evangelicals to distract the American public. Meanwhile, 9 out of 10 abortions are performed in the first eight weeks or less. Meaning, only one out of ten abortions are late term. And one can only assume many of those abortions are due to medical risk, rape or incest. Sadly, some women don't discover they are pregnant or are in denial or simply can't get the $600 or so together to pay for their abortion until they are well into their pregnancy. A remedy to this might be more of us pro-choice supporters regularly donating money to clinics like Planned Parenthood to provide free contraception, pregnancy tests, and affordable early term abortions.

For the sake of our country, we can hope that some day abortion will become a non-issue, stripped of the potency to divide us from our own best interest as a nation. We can dream that someday people will stop choosing candidates with no ideas for our future but one strong opinion on abortion. Perhaps with H.R. 3962 we have an opportunity to heal ourselves of this abulia by not allowing a fraction of the 13% of abortions that are covered by private insurance to keep us from coming out of the Dark Ages and passing H.R. 3962 for a national health care system. And until it passes in the Senate, we should not allow the small number of women who would not be covered under Stupak to blind us to the fact that for the first time in our history the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a comprehensive health care plan for the United States -- a plan that will cover 96% of Americans. That is a victory. That is a victory for women in the form of pap smears, mammograms, early screenings for breast and ovarian cancer, early detection of cysts and tumors, more gynecological exams for young women so we can prevent Chlamydia and other sexually transmitted diseases from causing infertility amongst young women. It means more women can get contraception and prenatal care. It means more women can go to the doctor and get checkups and treatment for whatever ails them. The passing of H.R. 3962 in the House is a victory for women and all women need to recognize that. Abortion is a woman's issue not easily resolved but for today let's celebrate -- for we are united in a victory for women, and for 96% of Americans.

Read more: Women's Rights, H.R. 3962, Women's Health, Abortion Rights, Health Care Reform, Stupak Amendment, Hyde Amendment, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Health Care, Politics News

Deepak Chopra Picks World's Most Powerful Teachers

2009-11-16T10:15:40Z
Deepak Chopra picks the world's most powerful teachers.
Read more: Women's Rights, Equality, Deepak Chopra, Environment, Environmentalism, Teachers, Al Gore, Student, Teaching, The Inner Life, Feminism, Spirituality, Gender, Gloria Steinem, Living News

Abortion Rights Groups Scramble In Stupak Amendment's Wake

2009-11-15T02:15:00Z
WASHINGTON — Abortion rights groups, outflanked and outnumbered in the health debate, are scrambling to regain lost ground after the House passed a health bill with strict abortion limits.

They're blanketing Capitol Hill with lobbyists, petitions, letters and phone calls in efforts to defeat the restrictions in the Senate, where debate could begin in a few days. They also have a larger goal: to prove that with their Democratic allies in control of the White House and both congressional chambers – but increasingly appealing to conservative voters who back abortion limits – they still have clout.
Read more: Health Care Bill, Abortion, Women's Rights, Congress, Naral, Public Option, Roe v Wade, Nancy Pelosi, Hyde Amendment, Pelosi, Obama, Roe Wade, Choice, Planned Parenthood, House, Senate, Rahm Emanuel, Center for Reproductive Rights, Health Insurance, Stupak Amendment, Health Care Reform, Bart Stupak, Anti-Choice, Medicine, Pro-Choice, House Health Care Bill, Politics News

Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner: Women's Happiness Isn't A Dead Deer on the Dining Room Table

2009-11-13T18:54:31Z
"He comes back with dinner, and he has shot it! They are happy. American women don't have anyone hunting for them -- that's the real problem," wrote author Michael Silverstein in the October 26th issue of the New Yorker.

That's what he's got: Men hunting for dinner?

Well then.

Over the last month, men like Silverstein and author Marcus Buckingham have been grabbing headlines on highly trafficked blog sites and appearing on the pages of well regarded magazines talking about women's unhappiness in response to recent studies, including one published in the National Bureau of Economic Research, which show that women's happiness over the past couple of decades is declining. And however subtly done, the message is the same: Women, you, and your fight for equality, are responsible for your own unhappiness.

During this same time period, the women of the United States quietly became half of the entire paid labor force in our nation for the first time.

It's a Half-Lash: The backlash from women becoming half of the paid labor force.

In reality it's not such a mystery why so many women are reporting that they are unhappy.

Despite recent reporting trends, just because women are now half of the labor force doesn't mean that it's time to stop fighting for equal pay for equal work, and instead pop Prozac while waxing philosophical about possible roots of unhappiness as we await hunting hubbies to bring in venison.

It's time for the national media to interview some women. We know why we're unhappy. Let's break it down:

Economic inequality: Overall, women make 77 cents to every man's dollar. One study found that women without children make 90 cents to a man's dollar, mothers make 73 cents, and single mothers make the least, at about 60 cents to a man's dollar -- stats that should keep you up at night given that 80% of American women become mothers by the time they are forty-four years old. Studies show that passing family-friendly policies -- like paid family leave and assessable childcare -- lower the wage gaps.

Political inequality: Women comprise only 17% of our national legislature, despite being 51% of the population. We now rank a low 70th of all nations in terms of women's representation in national legislatures.

Why are women unhappy? The fact that the feminist revolution is mid-course and some are calling it over just because women now number half of the labor force is a reason for unhappiness. The fact that we don't have family-friendly policies which most other nations take as a given is another reason for unhappiness.

We're not moving forward, we're falling behind. According to international gender equality ratings just released by the World Economic Forum, the United States fell four spots from last year. We now stand at 31st place, just behind Lithuania. Further, falling behind hurts us all: Right now there are only 15 women CEOs at Fortune 500 companies, despite that more than 50% of college graduates are now women and despite, importantly, that recent studies show that Fortune 500 companies with women in leadership are actually doing better fiscally in this tough economic environment.

It's a Half-Lash all right. But this blowback from becoming half of the labor force shouldn't hinder women's fight for equal pay for equal work, and for, yes, happiness.

With 50% of the labor force, women have come a long way. But we haven't arrived yet. Overall, women are increasingly educated and employed, but still must fight to pass family-friendly policies like paid family leave, affordable childcare, fair pay laws, health care for all, flexible work options, and paid sick days, which also protect those recovering from domestic abuse and assault. Studies show such policies help everyone with both the fiscal and family bottom lines -- businesses, non-mothers, mothers, women, and men alike -- and passing family-friendly policies go a long ways toward taking the next step toward women's happiness: Breaking down the Maternal Wall that stands in the way of most women ever getting close to the glass ceiling.

The paychecks women bring in are increasingly needed to keep families financially afloat. It's time now to bring our workplace policies up to date to the realities of a changed labor force so women, and men, can be happier and, yes, more productive overall.

A long line of women in this nation have fought for equality. Just 89 years ago women got the right to vote. Yet we still need equal pay for equal work, proportional representation, fair treatment, and our own voices in the media.

A dead deer on the dining table isn't going to solve this rampant unhappiness, but fair pay and family-friendly policies will make a significant dent. Let's get moving.
Read more: Equality, Politics, Women's Rights, Women, momsrising.org, Economic Crisis, Sexism, Being Happy, Momsrising, Living News

Ellen Snortland: You CAN make a difference!

2009-11-13T16:55:13Z
The European Summit for Global Transformation in Rotterdam calls!

My friend, Rebecca Self, personifies that which she promotes: leadership as a way of being, and "If not me, who?" It wouldn't be too far off to say she's Rebecca Self-less. A self-described "catalyst" for leadership, Dr. Self has been behind a lot of leaders finding each other, in of all places, Rotterdam, at the European Summit for Global Transformation. Self is one of those people who can be out in front, or in the back, or in the middle... but always leading. Not many leaders are facile in that way. Although it always takes more than a village to do anything, I want to focus on Rebecca because she was the connector for me to attend my first ESGT last year. Something very special has to be happening to get me to travel anywhere in the winter, but especially to Rotterdam, The Netherlands... in December. BRRR. Yes, cold and dark. But warmth and light drew me and I will never be the same.

Because of Rebecca, I met and have made friends with a man who exemplifies a noble and new masculinity: Bill Liao. When I first embarked on my life as a women's rights activist, I was bereft over the scarcity of men who stood shoulder to shoulder with me in the mission to bring women and girls into full participation in life. I firmly believe that men stand to gain as much from women's liberation as women do. Mr. Liao is a true partner to me and other women in the world. He presented at last year's ESGT and will be there again. His accomplishments are too many to do justice to in a short blog post, but check out and order his new book, "Stone Soup: Making Something from Nothing" due to launch in January. (Disclosure: I wrote the foreword.)

Liao will be speaking about his new role as special envoy to St. Kitts and Nevis, as well as his passion for re-foresting the planet through WeForest.com.

The ESGT started when a small group of friends asked, "What would happen if we got together everyone we knew who's up to big things on the planet?" The results have exceeded everyone's expectations: TED Fellows, Huffington Post authors, entrepreneurs, educators, authors and activists meet in Rotterdam for an action-packed weekend. "There's a movement on the planet for sustainability and social justice," Self says on the ESGT web site.

Several trends are apparent at the summit: global transformation is up to like-minded individuals who "step up to the plate" if you're into baseball metaphors, or "step up to the stove" if you're into cooking analogies. Whatever your frame of reference is, there are people who you'll relate to at the European summit. There's an array of people who range from young to old, western and eastern, northern and southern, female and male, almost every juxtaposition that you can think of. The fields of the arts, internet, computers, social work, socially responsible capitalism, and yes, even the military has a place at this particularly inclusive "round table" of commitment to social justice and sustainability.

Particularly exciting this year: participants from Nepal, including Maggie Doyne, a 23-year-old from New Jersey who is currently taking care of 27 Nepalese children. There's Subhash Ghimire, a student at St. Olaf in Minnesota, who tracked down the organizers of the ESGT. He'll be in Rotterdam to network with others who have taken the initiative as private people to address social needs in a real way. Ghimire has already built a kids' camp, library and foundation for kids in Nepal.

I was particularly inspired by the gender equality last year. I am often disheartened at the conferences that I have attended that address worldwide issues. Men have been missing IN DROVES as attendees, but ironically the keynote speakers are often predominantly male. Last year, the ESGT keynote speaker was Ms. Lakshmi V. Venkatesan, cofounder and head of the Bharatiya Yuva Shakti Trust (BYST), an award-winning organization providing mentoring and financing to promising, underprivileged, young entrepreneurs across India. She wants her mentees to create jobs, not just hold them.

And then my vision of young female leadership came true in the person of Esra'a Al Shafei, 22-year-old Bahraini creator of Mideast Youth and winner of Harvard Law School's Berkman Award for Internet Innovation. Imagine: Esra'a is a young woman in the Mideast leading thousands via the web; she created Mideast Youth in a dormitory room in Switzerland. Thanks to Rebecca, who was her professor, thousands more of us know about Esra'a Al Shafei and her work to bring free speech and freedom to her part of the world.

If you are called to make a difference in the world -- and you know who you are -- the ESGT is a good place for you to find other people like you. I answered the clarion call and participated last year with my husband and Tech Daddy, Ken Gruberman, by performing my show "Now That She's Gone," a feminist love letter and ode to my mother and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If you have a drive to make a difference and want to network in an intimate yet profound way, get outrageous and book a flight to Amsterdam, then take the train to Rotterdam in time for this year's summit. It begins on Saturday, November 21st. You'll be grateful you did.

And tell them Ellen Snortland and her husband sent you. Then give Bill Liao, Rebecca and her hearty team hugs from us.
Read more: Now That She's Gone, Women's Rights, Leadership, Social Justice, Nepal, Bill Liao, Esra'a Al Shafei, Maggie Doyne, Re-Foresting, Lakshmi Venkatesan, Gender Equality, Global Transformation, Stone Soup, Udhr, Sustainability, Rebecca Self, Subhash Ghimire, Esgt, Impact News

Anushay Hossain: What Obama Wants in Afghanistan -- and What Women Need

2009-11-13T12:03:20Z
President Obama has finally made a decision on Afghanistan which can pretty much be summed up as: "I make no decision and reject all the options you have given me." He just wants to know which way the exit is. So basically the administration's decision on Afghanistan for now is more indecision.

While it has become the common desire to bring the troops home and call it a day with the seemingly never-ending Afghan War, support for the war within the American public is also at an all time low.

As the Obama administration ponders the very real possibility of becoming the newest addition to the "graveyard of empires", there is one aspect of Afghan society everyone seems to have forgotten: the women.

Yes, Afghan women. Anyone remember them? It was only in their name that the war was fought in the first place, right? That and to find Bin Laden in some cave of course.

It was the plight of Afghan women that really served as an emotional tool to garner support for the US invasion back in 2001. But with the allied forces never really investing accurately in humanitarian efforts on the ground (read: building schools, hospitals, roads), it did not take long for the security situation in the country, which really never extended beyond Kabul anyway, to deteriorate.

When there is no security, there are no women, mainly because they are locked up at home. In the absence of security, nothing much can flourish, especially not democracy. I recently read that one of the best indicators of how safe your society is can be measured by how safe women are.

In the case of Afghanistan, the situation for women has actually worsened under the watch of American soldiers. Violence against women has increased to the point that statistics now show over 70% of Afghan women and girls are victims of violence; girls' schools are regularly bombed, teachers shot in front of their students, one if four Afghan women die in childbirth, and widespread campaigns exist to make vocal women's rights voices vanish. Oh and the Taliban, who never really went away, are back. The situation is so bleak that major women's rights groups, even in the US, have called for a full troop pullout.

But it can't be that easy for us to wash our hands of Afghan blood. As civilian causalities mount, "smart bombs" continue to miss their target, the US policy in Afghanistan is misguided at best. In order for the US to make its strategy in Afghanistan work, it must take into account the rights of Afghan women and girls whose lives have really borne the brunt of over 30 years of war.

Yes, right now the US is supporting a President who pretty much stole the recent Afghan elections, and only months ago implemented a new law which basically allows men to deny their wives food if they refuse to have sex.

The point I am trying to make though is that while the current US policy in Afghanistan is a disaster, it can never be made right unless women's needs -- health care, education, increased political presence -- are all seriously improved upon and invested in. And I am talking real basic level investments to start with.

You just cannot really rebuild a society that has seen as much war as the Afghan society by excluding 50% of the population- women. In the case of Afghanistan it is even more important to include women not only because that's what we said we would do, but because it is the winning strategy.

There is still time to make a war gone/going horribly wrong go right, and that is by working with and investing in Afghan women. As President Obama takes his time and ponders his options, someone needs to bring women back into the equation. Then we can start talking about leaving Afghanistan.

Cross-posted from Anushay's Point.
Read more: Women's Rights, Obama Afghanistan, War in Afghanistan, Afghanistan, Afghan Women, Afghanistan War, World News

Matt Finkelstein: GOP Women Shamelessly Accuse Dems of Being Anti-Woman

2009-11-13T11:59:34Z

Last weekend on
the House floor, unruly Republicans literally shouted
down members of the Democratic Women's Caucus who were attempting to speak
in support of health care reform. It was
a shameful display, which Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH) condemned as "rude,"
"disrespectful," and "sexist." Watch
a mash-up video of the incident here.

Yet, writing in
the Washington Times today, Reps.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) had the audacity to
complain that pro-reform Democrats don't
care about women:

As congresswomen, we think
we should be listening to and speaking out for women.

If Democrats
in Congress and the administration had been listening to women, they would not
have drafted and passed a reform bill that takes power away from women and
gives it to federal bureaucrats. Today, we, women - working with a trusted
medical professional - guide which treatments are best for our family, from flu
shots and hormones to heart stents and long-term care facilities. If H.R. 3962
ultimately becomes law, these decisions will increasingly be made by
bureaucrats, statisticians and actuaries.

The Pelosi
health care plan aims to have an impartial, all-knowing federal government make
decisions that cannot be trusted to mere housewives (and their greedy,
small town doctors).

For McMorris Rodgers and Jenkins to gripe about anyone disrespecting women is laughable. In addition to last weekend's theatrics, every single Republican
member of the House voted for the so-called Stupak
amendment, which will impose extreme restrictions
on a woman's right make reproductive choices.
The vote came a day after one of their conservative colleagues actually compared
women to smokers in order to justify gender-based discrimination on the
part of insurance companies.

As for the
merits of their complaint, it has been made before and it's just not true. Under reform, there will not be an
"all-knowing federal government making decisions" that would normally be made
by patients. (The claim comes from a
distortion of comparative effectiveness research, an existing
practice that will not take choices away but rather will lead to better options.)

Later in the
column, McMorris Rodgers and Jenkins cite problems with the H1N1 vaccine as
evidence that the government can't "make good medical decisions." However, both
women -- and all but 5 of their Republican colleagues -- voted against funding
the vaccine.

Despite all
evidence to the contrary, McMorris Rodgers and Jenkins want us to believe that
Republicans are sticking up for women. But
the fact is, the congresswomen and their party have consistently opposed
providing families with better health care options. Why would anybody trust them now?

Crossposted at Media Matters Action Network
Read more: House of Representatives, Women, Lynn Jenkins, Cathy Mcmorris Rodgers, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Women's Rights, House Health Care Bill, Politics News

Catie Lazarus: Top 10 Reasons This Woman Can't Write for Late Night Comedy Shows

2009-11-12T20:07:00Z

In the New York Times, Bill Carter writes ,"very few women make it inside the writing rooms for late-night television hosts, despite that women make up a larger proportion of their audience than men. There are no female writers on the new “The Jay Leno Show,” none on “Late Show with David Letterman,” none on “The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien.”"

Based on his article and Nell Scovell's personal account in Vanity Fair, I have come to understand why the odds are stacked against my wedging my paw in the door. I still have hope (also known as delusion).

The Top 10 Reasons This Woman Can't Write for Late Night Comedy Variety Shows

10) I will be overcome by desire for my male comedy writing peers
and superiors, who are known for their off-white, pasty skin and muscle tonus
minimus, akin to albino, soft shell turtles.

9) My lady sensibility is limited to menstruation
(hilarious), babies (adorable), and unicorns mating
(adorably hilarious).

8) Due to my genetic make-up, I am physically incapable to
handle the job, considering the heavy manual labor required in touch typing.

7) The number one rule of comedy is fitting in and I sometimes buck the uniform of orthopedic New Balance sneakers,
hoodies, jeans, and t-shirts, with ironic catchphrases like, "Pro-Cashmere. Pro-Cotton.
Pro-Choice."

6) The only requests I get as
a female comedy writer are to discuss sexism in comedy, instead of political satire about how Sarah Palin is so sick she
gives swine flu or scripts like Crones:
The Musical! or commercials, maybe, Femedy: A bubble gum
birth control for tweens who don't want to ovulate. Period.

5) Late-night comedy requires a male point-of-view, and girls,
even ones closer to menopause than teething, can only express themselves in
glittery pink (which, fyi, typing in does
not fund cancer research).

4) As a lady, I automatically cost less, and in a business where money talks, how will I be taken seriously? I mean funnily.

3) I didn't graduate from Harvard so I lack the cultural capital to craft the erudite, intellectual fodder
typical of late-night comedies, like the masturbating bear or gift
wrapped genitalia.

2) Hollywood would have to make major changes to catch up with
medicine, law, even engineering, in its hiring practices, and we all know how open television is to change. It only took 30 years (and millions of dollars) before CNN let Native
American Lou Dobbs quit. (I mean, leave to spend time with his family.)

1) I'd have to be funny and learn
how to play Dungeons and Dragons.

Read more: Abortion, Sexual Violence, Rape, Naral, Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair, Pay Parity, Feminism, Seth MacFarlane, Gilda Radner, Late Night With Jimmy Fallon, Late Night Shows, Sarah Silverman, Wanda Sykes, The Late Show, Sarah Palin, Sexism, The Late Show With David Letterman, Craig Ferguson, Chelsea Handler, Saturday Night Live, Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Lizz Winstead, Nell-Scovell, Women's Rights, Catie Lazarus, Immigration, Women, Xenophobia, Lou Dobbs, Cnn, Comedienne, Bill Carter, Female, Comedians, Wage Disparity, Comedy News

Anna Burger: We Object: Republicans and Women's Health

2009-11-12T13:50:14Z

For years, Republicans have attacked
women's health care policy every chance they have gotten. They’ve voted against
protecting domestic violence victims from being denied health insurance.
They’ve voted to allow insurance companies to deny us coverage for life-saving
mammograms. They’ve voted to deny our children basic health coverage. They’ve
voted against giving women needed time off after having a child. If you've been
in Washington, D.C. long enough, you start to expect this kind of behavior from
a party whose caucus is 90% male.

In my years in the labor movement, I’ve
seen firsthand how women get silenced or sidelined in the workplace. And
I’m certainly not unfamiliar with the way male egos can occasionally get in the
way of good policy. I’ve watched women fight twice as hard as men to make their voices heard in negotiations
and I’ve stood by my sisters as they held out for contract provisions that
truly support a family.

Despite years of witnessing what women
put up with in the workplace, who knew a few Republican Congressmen could
still surprise me.

As the House
of Representatives began debate on their historic health insurance reform bill, Democratic women elected to represent
districts all over this nation came to the floor of the Chamber to speak out
against insurance companies’ continued discrimination against women. And as
these elected representatives such as Rep. Lois Capps, RN (D-CA) used their
voices to raise an issue that affects more than 50% of the US population, six
Republicans — led by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) — repeatedly talked over them,
screamed, and shouted screeds like “I object, I object, I object, I object, I
object.”

Based on their record, maybe there was no
reason to be surprised. But as the Chamber weighed
the passage of real health insurance reform that would stop insurance
companies from charging women more and denying us coverage
because of “pre-existing conditions” such as rape, C-Sections, or domestic
violence, it’s hard to forget the image of Republican men screaming, “I
OBJECT!”

It was a defining moment, followed by 11
hours of more of the same, including the Stupak-Pitts amendment forcing Members
to either kill reform or strip women of our reproductive rights. And
while much of the focus has been on the Democrats who voted for the amendment -
and for good reason - it must be remembered that every single Republican
member of the U.S. House voted to curtail women’s freedom, except for the one
guy who voted “present.”

No one here is suggesting that all Republicans
are on a single-minded campaign to destroy women’s health. However,

when one Party’s only
objective with health insurance reform is to use it to score political points
at the expense of the millions of people across this country who are going
bankrupt, being denied care, and being crushed by out of control premiums,

when one Party’s
Boehner-drafted healthcare bill includes no mention of women (outside of
language restricting reproductive health services),

when one Party’s caucus
can’t stop screaming at women long enough to hear what we have to say,

one has to wonder if that’s a Party with
room for us.

Join SEIU's campaign to raise awareness on women's health care
issues. Take your ticket for gender equality, here: http://www.seiu.org/ticket

Read more: Women's Rights, Anna Burger, Women's Health, Health Care, House Republicans, Seiu, Politics News

Francine Hardaway: A Shocking Blow to Women's Health: HR 3962

2009-11-12T13:19:19Z

My source on HR 3962, Timothy
Jost of Health Affairs Blog, says this about Saturday night’s big
change in the House health care reform bill, the Stupak amendment:

The Stupak amendment ... prohibits the use of any funds authorized or
appropriated under the Act “to cover any part of the costs of any health
plan that includes coverage for abortion,” except in cases of rape, incest, or physical life endangerment, even if the abortion coverage is paid for
with a separate premium. Private plans can only offer abortion coverage
to persons receiving federal affordability subsidies if the coverage is
offered as separate supplemental coverage, paid for with premiums that
are not subsidized under the Act and that fully cover the administrative
costs of the abortion coverage. The public plan may not offer abortion
coverage at all. Private plans that participate in the exchange and
include abortion coverage (i.e. plans that are sold without
affordability credits) must also offer plans through the exchange that
are identical in every respect except for not covering abortion.
Exchanges are not required to offer plans that cover abortion.

The amendment covers all funds authorized and appropriated under the
Act. It is not, therefore, limited to the affordability credits, but
also to credits paid to small employers to encourage them to insure
their employees and presumably to other programs like school-based
health clinics, nurse managed health centers, or health services for
Native Americans that are also funded under the Act. (The Act already
contained separate abortion coverage prohibitions for school-based and
Native American Health Services.

In other words, any plan, public or private, that wants any Federal
money, cannot offer abortion services.

As a foster parent who has taken the impoverished,
unwanted and neglected children of drug abusers into my home, I can
honestly say that in some cases, abortion would have been preferable to
the abuse they suffered as babies and children, often homeless, beaten,
and unfed. It’s not easy to raise a child: it takes love, training, and a
fair amount of money. Children having children helps no one. And the
dream of adopting all these kids is far-fetched: most foster children
NEVER get adopted.

I’m not talking here about abstract issues of women’s rights, although of course I (a
woman) believe in them. I’m talking about grim reality. I took my foster
daughter to get an abortion at Planned Parenthood when she got pregnant
at 16 by a ne’er-do-well, and now she is a happy mother of 25. She
thanks me every day. And by the way, I paid for that out of my own
pocket.

Read more: Abortion, Women's Rights, HR 3962, Women's Health, Politics News