Real Women, Real Voices

Vatican pre-rejects any Pro-Choice Ambassadors

2009-04-15T14:53:00.000-07:00

Reportedly President Obama had three potential candidates to the U.S. ambassador post to the Vatican, one of whom he was considering, Caroline Kennedy.

But its now reported in U.K. newspapers that the Vatican sources would block any appointment that is pro-choice.

Since when does a person personal stance on reproductive rights make them ineligible for an ambassador position? Especially since the ambassador is there to represent the president, not themselves. And when we do allow the Vatican, or any foreign nation, to dictate who our representative should be and what their own personal political stances are.

Last week the Raymond Flynn, a former US ambassador to the Vatican, announced his opposition to Kennedy based on her pro-choice stance.

"It's imperative, it's essential that the person who represents us to the Holy See be a person who has pro-life values. I hope the President doesn't make that mistake," he told the Boston Herald. "She said she was pro-choice. I don't assume she's going to change that, which is problematic."

And for our part we hope President Obama doesn’t kowtow to this sudden demand that our ambassador’s pass some new litmus test.

The U.S. is Leaving Iraq but Where Are We Leaving Iraqi Women?

2009-03-13T13:32:00.000-07:00

By Yifat Susskind

If you haven’t thought about the Iraq War as a story of U.S. allies systematically torturing and executing women, you’re not alone. Likewise, if you were under the impression that Iraqi women were somehow better off under their new, U.S.-sponsored government.

In the spring of 2003, Fatin was a student of architecture at Baghdad University. Her days were filled with classes and hanging out in her favorite of Baghdad’s many cafes, where she and her friends studied, shared music, and spun big plans for successful careers, happy marriages, and eventually, kids.

Today, Fatin says that those feel like someone else’s dreams.

Soon after the U.S. invasion, Fatin began seeing groups of bearded young Iraqi men patrolling the streets of Baghdad. They were looking for women like her, who wore modern clothes or were heading to professional jobs. The men screamed terrible insults at the women and sometimes beat them.

By the fall, ordinary aspects of Fatin’s life had become punishable by death. The “misery gangs,” as Fatin calls them, were routinely killing women for wearing pants, appearing in public without a headscarf, or shaking hands and socializing with men.

As the occupying power, the U.S. was legally obligated to stop these attacks. But the Pentagon, preoccupied with battling the Iraqi insurgency, simply ignored the militias’ reign of terror.

In fact, some of the most treacherous armed groups belonged to the very political parties that the US had brought to power. By 2005, the Pentagon was giving weapons, money and military training to these Shiite militias, in the hope that they would help combat the Sunni-led insurgency.

Fatin’s closest encounter with the militias occurred when armed men burst into her university classroom one morning, threatening to kill any female student without a head scarf. After that, young women dropped out in droves. The next semester, Fatin’s parents refused to allow her to re-enroll.

While the Pentagon was arming militias bent on brutally ousting Iraqi women from public life, the U.S. State Department was busy brokering the new Iraqi Constitution. Hailed as “progressive” and “democratic” in Washington, the new Constitution designates religious law, which discriminates against women, as the basis of all legislation. It also restricts women’s rights by upending one of the most progressive family status laws in the Middle East -- a law that Iraqi women fought for and won in 1959, before Saddam Hussein took power.

For Fatin, the bitter irony is that her new Constitution, courtesy of the USA, destroyed women’s rights that were once guaranteed in Iraq, even under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein.

Fatin has now been out of school and unemployed for more than three years. Her mother, a pharmacist, and her aunt, trained as a veterinarian, have also been unemployed for years now and are too afraid to try to find work.

Here in the U.S., we’ve rarely heard the story of the Iraq War told from the perspective of women. So what are Iraqi women saying on the sixth anniversary of the US invasion? The same thing they’ve been saying since 2003: end the occupation. Polls consistently show that a majority of Iraqis want US troops out.

We’ve been told that if the U.S. withdraws, violence would again soar in Iraq. That’s a compelling argument for those of us who care about the suffering that the U.S. has already visited on Iraqi women and their families. But Iraqis themselves, who have the best grasp of their security situation, say that U.S. troops are causing, not confronting, violence. In multiple polls, most Iraqis say they would feel much safer without U.S. troops.

Who can blame them? Since the invasion, over a million Iraqis have died violently and four million have been driven from their homes. The resources that women need to care for their families -- electricity, water, food, fuel, and medical care -- have become dangerously scarce, sometimes totally unavailable.

This week marks six years since the U.S. invaded Iraq. In that time, women have not only faced with mounting violence -- they have also organized a movement to confront US occupation and violence against women.

Looking for a way to speak out against the repression she witnessed, Fatin joined the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI). In partnership with MADRE, an international women’s human rights organization based in New York, OWFI has worked to promote women’s human rights, creating a network of women’s shelters to protect women fleeing violence.

The women of Iraq are creating the foundation on which a peaceful and just future will be built. It’s time we started listening to them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Susskind is the communications director of MADRE: Rights, Resources and Results for Women Worldwide.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2009 by the American Forum. 3/09

Children are Victims of Prostitution, Not Criminals

2009-03-09T13:29:00.000-07:00

By Anne Harper

Like most parents of girls, I have had the good fortune to have pretty well-behaved daughters who finished high school and entered promising career paths. But some families are not so lucky.

Their teens may be struggling with a host of problems from learning disabilities to drug dependency. Recently we have discovered some more extreme problems: as many as 300 girls are sexually exploited commercially in Georgia each month --at escort services, hotels, online and on the streets -- according to recent results of an independent tracking study. That is more than twice the number of girls who die in car accidents in a year in our state.

The Juvenile Justice Fund (JJF) has mounted a campaign called “A Future. Not a Past” to address this sexual exploitation -- seeking to demonstrate that adolescents who are sucked into prostitution are victims of adult criminal behavior, rather than criminals themselves. Georgia is considering two proposals to expand the definition of child abuse to include sexual exploitation of children by others than parents and care givers. This change will enable health professionals and other adults report to authorities any suspected prostitution of minors, thus providing a good start toward identifying girls who need protective services.

But funding those services in the current economy is a challenge. One of the proposals identifies an innovative source of revenue that will not add a penny to the state budget. The proposal includes a $5 fee on patrons of adult-entertainment venues, fees that would go to a Crime Victims Emergency Fund for restorative programs for sexually exploited minors. The rationale for this fee comes from a 2005 report published by the Atlanta Women’s Agenda which found a spatial correlation between adult strip clubs and the availability of children for hire for sex. Another study commissioned by the JJF verified these findings.

Naturally the proposal faces some opposition -- but from an odd quarter. Some Republicans have complained that this fee is a tax and, as loyal Republicans, they oppose all new taxes. Kaffie McCullough, the JJF campaign director, comments, “This will not cost the taxpayers a cent. There are 45 adult clubs in Georgia and we estimate that if each one has 100 patrons a day, this fee will raise about $8.2 million.”

While holding the adult entertainment industry responsible for the secondary effects of their services is somewhat controversial, “A Future. Not a Past” campaign advocates are determined to create a dialogue among a broad swath of business, civic and religious leaders about measures to end child prostitution, particularly focusing public attention on curbing the male demand for sex from younger victims.

The faith-based communities have stepped up their support by founding a religious coalition called StreetGRACE to link and maximize their resources across communities that are trying to meet the needs of these young teens. Parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and many other friends of children who want to end the sexual exploitation of adolescent children delivered 300 white roses to legislators last week, symbolizing the number of girls affected.

We must speak out now to help the many adolescent girls in our communities who have been forced into prostitution by adults seeking to take advantage of teenagers’ youthful confusion and financial vulnerability. Certainly the adult entertainment club fees are a smart first step to raise the funds to help address the prostitution of young women so that they are routed to treatment and re-started on the road to a future, not a past.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harper is a former school board member who leads a management consulting practice. For more information please visit www.afuturenotapast.org.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Georgia Editorial Forum. 3/09

High Cost Lenders Profit from Desperate Times

2009-03-06T13:21:00.000-08:00

By Rebecca Lightsey

As more businesses close and unemployment lines lengthen, a virtually unregulated sector of the Texas economy continues to rake in huge profits by providing high-cost payday and auto title loan services that often drag desperate families deeper into financial crisis.

A Texas-based provider of such loans recently reported record-breaking annual revenues topping $1 billion and a net income of $81 million.

So how do small-dollar loan companies make this kind of profit in the middle of the nation’s worst economic crisis since the Great Depression?

In Texas, the answer is clear: they exploit a loophole in state law that allows them to operate as unregulated “credit services organizations” (CSOs).

In 2005, there were fewer than 100 CSOs in Texas. Today, nearly 400 payday, auto title, and other lenders operate more than 2,000 CSO storefronts offering high cost small loans across the state. CSOs in Texas were originally established to control credit repair businesses; however, in the past few years, small dollar lenders are operating as CSOs under a statutory loophole that allows them to obtain “an extension of consumer credit” for borrowers.

Unlike other lenders in Texas, CSOs are not subject to any limitation on the fees they can charge. CSOs routinely offer loans with costs exceeding 500 percent Annual Percentage Rate (APR) -- making these loans among the most costly in the country.

At the same time, CSOs also are able to sidestep licensing and enforcement by the state’s Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner, which holds other Texas consumer lenders accountable.

Borrowers stung by these CSO loan deals, with high fees and onerous terms, find it almost impossible to escape a widening sinkhole of debt.

One Austin woman recently reported taking out two payday loans totaling $1,800 from registered CSOs. Because she is not allowed to pay down the principal without paying the loan in full, she must pay over $400 every two weeks to renew the loans. Despite taking a second job and already paying $600 to retire the first $1,000 loan, she still owes $1,200 on it, and the second loan, still unpaid is racking up its own renewal fees.

Texans take out an estimated $2.5 billion in loans through CSO payday lenders each year and pay an additional $500-$600 million in annual fees.

Low-income Texans, primarily working women and minorities, disproportionately use payday loans. According to a recent Texas Appleseed survey of low-income payday borrowers, 58 percent of those borrowers could not pay off their loan, plus fees and interest, by the next payday.

Financial regulators in Florida and Michigan recognized this CSO scheme as an evasion of existing laws against predatory lending, and some CSOs, still operating in Texas, closed up shop in those states.

Congress imposed a 36 percent APR rate cap in 2007 on all payday and other short-term loans to the military, and 15 states and the District of Columbia have a similar provision in place for all residents. Already, some Texas cities -- including San Antonio, Richardson and Mesquite -- have passed ordinances restricting the rapid growth of CSOs within their city limits.

Now, it is time for state lawmakers to protect Texas consumers and hold CSOs accountable to the same regulatory standards that apply to mainstream lenders. Texas has a long-held tradition of opposing usury --lending money with excessive interest rates and fees -- and CSOs should not operate as the exception to the rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lightsey is executive director of Texas Appleseed, a nonprofit public interest law center.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Texas Lone Star Forum. 3/09

Virginia Should Opt Out on ‘Choose Life’ License Plates

2009-03-04T13:13:00.000-08:00

By Jessica Bearden

During the recently concluded legislative session, the General Assembly passed a bill to authorize “Choose Life” license plates that now awaits consideration by Governor Kaine. Funds generated from the plates will be distributed to so-called “crisis pregnancy centers.”

There are over 70 crisis pregnancy centers in Virginia, and you’ve most likely seen their advertisements—billboards that read “Pregnant? Scared? We can help.” Many people mistakenly believe that these centers do nothing more than provide materials and support to women who have made the decision to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term.

In reality, they have an extreme anti-choice agenda and often misinform and mislead women about their options. Though they assume the impartial, authoritative trappings of modern healthcare, their function is primarily political—to berate and coerce those women they call “abortion-minded” into carrying the pregnancy to term. A review of the materials produced by crisis pregnancy centers and several investigative reports about them reveal several of the deceptive and coercive tactics most commonly employed by crisis pregnancy centers.

First, crisis pregnancy centers give women medically inaccurate information about abortion, claiming the procedure is dangerous and can cause breast cancer, infertility and extreme mental health problems, such as suicidal tendencies. There is no legitimate scientific evidence to support any of these claims. In fact, first-trimester abortions are among the safest surgical procedures performed in the United States. Less than 0.5 percent of women obtaining abortions experience a complication, and the risk of death associated with abortion is about one-tenth that associated with childbirth. In addition, the medical community has firmly established that no link exists between abortion and the development of breast cancer, and that having an abortion does not affect the psychological well-being of women over time.

Second, in an effort to delay a woman’s decision to have an abortion until it is too late to do so under Virginia law, crisis pregnancy centers often tell women that they will probably miscarry anyway, so they should wait to make a decision about what to do. Not only does this effectively prevent women who want to terminate their pregnancy from exercising their constitutionally protected right to do so, it also encourages women who may decide to carry their pregnancy to term to delay seeking critical prenatal medical care.

Further, in their zealotry, crisis pregnancy centers frequently fail to maintain the professional neutrality that is a commonly accepted tenet of counseling. For example, in an investigative report compiled by NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland, crisis pregnancy center staff were documented offering congratulations for a positive pregnancy test, and one crisis pregnancy center staffer became very aggressive with an investigator and yelled at her for making a “terrible decision” when she refused to return to the center. In addition, because crisis pregnancy centers are often staffed by volunteers who are not medical professionals, they sometimes give inaccurate information about basic reproductive health issues, such as the effectiveness of contraception, the difference between emergency contraception (which prevents pregnancy) and RU-486 (which causes a medical abortion), and the prevention of sexually transmitted infections.

Women are entitled to accurate, comprehensive and unbiased medical information with which they can make their own decisions.

If the anti-choice movement really wanted to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country, then they would work with the pro-choice movement to increase access to contraception and comprehensive sexuality education—real solutions that will lower the rate of unintended pregnancies and reduce the need for abortion.

Funding anti-choice centers that manipulate and coerce women does nothing to accomplish this goal—and make no mistake, the license plates have the potential to generate thousands of dollars in revenue for these organizations (Florida’s DMV reports that in that state, the “Choose Life” license plate generates over $65,000 a month for crisis pregnancy centers).

We should support legitimate, comprehensive reproductive healthcare clinics instead of crisis pregnancy centers whose missions have nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with a political agenda. Hopefully, the governor will remember this when the license plate proposal reaches his desk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bearden is political and policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Virginia Forum. 3/09

All the Right Turns

2009-03-04T13:08:00.000-08:00

By Kathleen Rogers

In today’s confusing and disheartening economic landscape, it’s more important than ever to navigate carefully -- and make the right turns. At least, that’s what shipping giant UPS is doing. After implementing a “right turn” strategy (taking more right turns than left to avoid idling in left turn lanes) UPS has saved over 30 million miles of driving -- including three million gallons of fuel and $600 million dollars a year from the change -- not to mention countless tons of carbon emissions. The rest of us can learn from this strategy and start our own “right turn” campaign.

UPS, however, isn’t the only big green giant: Wal-Mart, the second largest procurer of energy only to the U.S. government, has made a pledge to be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy; to create zero waste; and to sell greener products. The retailer is also building skylight/dimming system into its new stores. As daylight increases, skylights allow Wal-Mart to dim the lights or even turn them off, thereby reducing the demand for electricity during peak hours. This system results in an annual savings of about 250 million kwh a year, enough to power approximately 23,000 homes. Corporations like Hewlett Packard, Toyota, and even British Petroleum have taken steps toward greening their production. And J.P. Morgan Chase is investing $2 billion of its own capital to fund renewable energy projects such as wind farms and solar in 17 states. Chase believes an investment in renewable energy will help revitalize rural communities and by creating jobs and increasing the local tax base. More and more, companies are finding that simple green solutions are attractive.

These forward-thinking companies are part of a movement we can dub “the Green Generation” -- a new way of thinking and doing business where sustainability takes precedent, as the most efficient strategy emerges as the most economical. Similar to the “greatest generation” that met the challenges of World War II, the Green Generation seeks to break with the past and includes companies, as well as ordinary people, who are engaged in individual and collective activities to improve their health, to better their schools, and to participate in building a solution to urgent national and global issues, such as climate change. The Green Generation wants to put people to work -- building a better, greener world.

What makes a better world? Smarter, more efficient, corporations -- the kind that see their success intertwined with the greater good, and realize that a move to energy efficiency saves resources, and with it money and jobs. Smarter, more efficient investments in growing sustainable markets -- from alternative energies like solar power, wind power, and geothermal energy to green farming, green schools, and public transportation. A nationwide move toward energy efficiency could create 5 million new jobs in the U.S. alone -- and many millions more worldwide.

Now that’s a turn for the better -- for our economy, our environment, our individuals and our industries. The Green Generation sees their commitment to fight climate change as the responsibility of both communities and corporations, as a movement both personal and unapologetically political. Good too, because now’s our chance: President-elect Obama has already committed to an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050; with the Green Generation’s support, both Congress and corporate America will be hard-pressed not to push for more sustainable practices in all industries. “Green-outs” will replace bailouts as we mandate that companies that want public assistance -- like the auto industry -- change to accommodate the public’s need for high-efficiency products that cost less to maintain.

Every time humanity comes to a crossroads, after all, we achieve our next greatest accomplishment to date. Between 10,000 and 5,000 BC we needed more food; hence the Neolithic Revolution and the foundations of modern agriculture. The end of the 20th century was marked by a need to disseminate information all over the world, leading to the Digital Revolution. And now, fluctuating fuel prices and a struggling economy mean that efficiency is, finally, everything. Our Green Generation Revolution, led by our Green Generation, is here. There’s a new bottom line in town, and it’s green. Companies and consumers, that make all the right turns toward sustainability will have no trouble getting there. As individuals, we can realize that less can give us far more -- more opportunities for creativity, more opportunities for invention, more chances for success, and more reasons to appreciate the interconnection between our economic and environmental health.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rogers is the president of Earth Day Network.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 2/09

Hope in Unlikely Places: Citizen Solutions

2009-02-27T13:00:00.000-08:00

By Eleanor LeCain

In his address to Congress, President Obama acknowledged that hope is found in unlikely places; now he can tap into people in those unlikely places to renew America.

People expect the president to solve an array of formidable challenges like creating good-paying jobs, providing health care, strengthening energy independence, and improving public schools.

Fortunately, the president can draw on the experience of the most accomplished Americans, not only the well-known wise men and women selected for the Cabinet, but regular people who solved these problems in their own communities.

Just about any problem anywhere has been solved by someone somewhere. The challenge is to identify these solutions, incorporate them into national policies, and help states and local communities put proven solutions into practice.

As a former state senator President Obama knows he can find solutions in surprising places -- for instance:

• IN EDUCATION -- Urban schools have drop-out rates of up to 50 percent and college-bound rates of only 10 percent. Yet, Deborah Meier founded Central Park East, a public high school in Harlem where 90 percent of students graduate, and 90 percent of graduates attend college.

• IN CRIME -- Two million people in prison costs about $50 billion a year, plus the cost of building prisons and wasted lives. Despite the expense, over 70 percent of released inmates commit crimes again and return to jail. But at Delancey Street rehabilitation center in San Francisco, criminals and drug addicts turn their lives around and become productive citizens. There’s no cost to taxpayers since the center is financed by businesses run as training programs by the residents.

• IN HEALTH AND SCIENCE -- About one million people have autism and severe problems with language and social interaction. Yet, The Son-Rise Program in Sheffield, Massachusetts has helped hundreds of families enable children and adults with autism to improve in all areas of learning and communication, sometimes experiencing dramatic improvement.

Solutions like these are all over the country. But currently there is no systematic way to identify and build on best practices in the social sector. Successful business innovations are often adopted by other companies, but that’s rarer for social innovations.

A White House Office for Solutions would be a clearinghouse for projects that are already working in fields such as education, prison reform, environment, and energy. It would provide a vital link between the creativity of the American people and the government.

The White House Office for Solutions would launch a nationwide treasure hunt inviting citizens to find the best of what’s working in their area. For example, educators can report on the best schools. People in community safety groups can report on the best ways to reduce crime.

Citizens become Solution Scouts, discovering breakthrough solutions and reporting them to the White House Office for Solutions. The Office would vet the recommended programs, sending the best to the appropriate federal agency.

Solutions would be made available to the public and elected officials nationwide through a website and regional conferences. For example, successful models of education would become available to governors, mayors, teachers and parents. In this way, a breakthrough anywhere can become a breakthrough everywhere.

By building on what works, we can dramatically improve the quality of life for millions of people and for billions of dollars less than we currently spend.

Just imagine: If even 10 percent of current prisoners were enrolled in a Delancey Street-styled rehabilitation center, we could help 200,000 people leave a life of crime and drugs and become productive members of society. And for $5 billion dollars less than we would have spent annually. Likewise, if just 10 percent of people with autism had access to programs like The Son-Rise Program, we could help about 170,000 people and their families nationwide experience dramatically better results for less than half of the current treatment cost.

The White House Office for Solutions would have broad appeal among Democrats, Republicans, Independents and others, moving us beyond partisanship to partnership. It would give substance to our yearning for change, and give all citizens an opportunity to help our country.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LeCain is a Washington, DC-based speaker and writer, the president of the World Innovation Network which identifies and builds on solutions to social problems, and a former Massachusetts Assistant Secretary of State.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 2/09

Is This the Plan to Save the Day?

2009-02-24T12:53:00.000-08:00

By Dana Beasley Brown

As a mother, I’m fed up with the questionable choices made by the leaders who are entrusted to serve and protect their citizens. As a resident of Kentucky, I need to know that our leadership is willing to invest in the life that my son will have here. I need to know that when he’s old enough to go to school, he’ll have every opportunity to learn and succeed as well as his friends in Maryland and his cousins in California.

And I need to know that the air he breathes and the water he drinks is just as safe here as it is anyplace else and that he will experience a community in which people are treated fairly and justly.

Three little pieces of news led me to believe that perhaps a change had come to the Commonwealth and that we were on our way to a Kentucky I could be proud of. First, our elected officials started echoing Rep. Jim Wayne’s call for a comprehensive tax overhaul. Second, some House Republicans proposed a plan to expand the sales tax to a few of our untaxed services. Third, after years of watching our children’s class sizes swell, our teachers' pay fail to keep up, our justice system and health services leave more and more people behind, and our colleges become unaffordable, even Senate President David Williams admitted that we need new revenue.

These three little pieces have allowed me to think that a positive change would come to our state. Like many Kentuckians, I was hopeful about the likelihood of real reforms.

Unfortunately, however, the closed doors that hid away the negotiations among House, Senate, and executive leadership also prevented them from hearing the call for change coming from across the state. So instead, we get a plan to raise the cigarette tax by 30 cents, a retail sales tax on alcohol, and deep budget cuts.

That’s the plan that’s supposed to save the day?

The legislature has a short memory. As easy as it is to blame the severity of Kentucky’s budget needs on the economic crisis, it isn’t accurate to do so. We had known about the revenue shortfall last year, but the legislature didn’t do anything about it except to make another round of budget cuts, some deeper than the three rounds of cuts before that.

And although Gov. Beshear acted surprised to learn of that shortfall, the legislators knew better. The legislature-commissioned Fox Report confirmed back in 2001 that Kentucky’s tax system was out of date and could not sustain a basic level of services. Years of bad choices have left us with chronically underfunded programs, unaffordable higher education, abandoned school programs, and unenforced environmental laws.

The legislature, once again, has made a big mistake. We now have a tax structure that asks the lowest income-earners to contribute about 10 percent of their income to state and local taxes, and asks the wealthiest to contribute not even 6 percent.

It's the low- and middle-income earners -- not our state's wealthiest, with incomes above $300,000--who are being hurt the most by our economic recession. Balancing our budget on their backs has never been fair, and now it seems especially unwise. Why aren't we moving toward solutions that make our tax structure more balanced and, therefore, more sound?

Instead of adding some patchwork taxes that, in their weakness, will do very little for the public good, our elected officials could have moved us closer to a tax structure that reflects our values of fairness and cooperation.

Where’s the real revenue reform that the Commonwealth so badly needs? Our taxes fit into the old trend. They are relics of a time when people bought into the falsity of small government connoting efficient government. Continuing to move in this direction will dig us deeper into the situation we are in right now, suffering from unemployment, extractive industries, and facilitating policies that don’t work.

We all want our state to be efficient. But we won’t make it efficient by continuing the practices that make it ineffective. Our state government can only be efficient if it is able to do the work that we have charged it to do—help us protect and educate ourselves so that we can all realize our potential to succeed. Efficiency takes some investment. Our leaders can choose to support these investments, or they can choose--as they have--to only do what makes our budget legal.

I want our leaders to make better choices. I want them to invest in a better Kentucky.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beasley Brown lives in Bowling Green with her husband and 1-year old son. She is member of the Economic Justice Committee of Kentuckians For The Commonwealth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Kentucky Forum. 2/09

Our Social Safety Needs Mending

2009-02-20T12:32:00.000-08:00

By Irasema Garza

The current government social safety net that was built for a growing economy has stretched to its breaking point.

While Congress has acknowledged the dire circumstances working and middle-class families now face, little attention has been paid to those on the brink of the economic precipice: poor families facing the expiration of government assistance, with no jobs on the horizon and all avenues for help closing off.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will prevent many from falling off the cliff; however, many decisions that will affect the neediest families will be left to the states. To effectively buoy working families and children coping their way through this crisis, we must rethink how we provide assistance to those who need it most.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) has been the government assistance of last resort for our nation’s poorest families for over a decade. Current rules for TANF set a 60-month lifetime limit for assistance, and allow states to set shorter limits, as nearly a quarter of them do. While some exemptions to the time limit are permitted and some states continue to provide aid with state funds, thousands of families lose their benefits solely because they reach that limit. The vast majority, 90 percent by some studies, of adult TANF recipients are women, many of whom are taking care of children or disabled relatives. With the unemployment rate at its highest in years, these families are finding their benefits expiring just when jobs are incredibly scarce for experienced workers, much less those lacking a high school diploma or a consistent work history, as many TANF recipients do.

TANF benefits enable families to get by and subsist, not save; the women, children and men currently falling off the rolls are slipping into a very vulnerable situation wherein homelessness, hunger and abuse become par for the course. And families are indeed slipping off, by the thousands. Despite a 12-month recession and record unemployment, 18 states cut their welfare rolls last year.

Amid the largest U.S. economic downturn in decades, the number of individuals and families receiving cash assistance is at or near a 40-year low. The very structure of the welfare system -- in which states receive federal funds in fixed block grants and must shoulder any increase (or savings) -- has created a perverse incentive for states to discourage people from accessing the program and move recipients off the rolls as quickly as possible. Even in good economic times, this proves damaging for struggling families. In the current economic environment, it is downright debilitating and it further burdens communities and local resources by emptying food pantries and filling homeless shelters.

Fortunately, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act includes federal funds to supplement state TANF costs. Congress should go further, however, and suspend time limits during the crisis, thereby protecting poor women, children and men from falling into the abyss of joblessness, homelessness and hunger. Extending time limits will not eliminate rules which require recipients to be involved in a work-related activity 30 hours a week; it merely guarantees that people following the rules are not thrown off the rolls. Moreover, states must step up and focus on expanding their welfare programs during the crisis, as opposed to maintaining a status quo in which participation is discouraged. Similarly, states should utilize that increased funding for training, education and child care so that TANF recipients have the best possible chance to get and keep jobs during this precarious time.

Modifying the TANF program during this time is critical to the basic stability of millions of low-income women and families. Now is not the time for ideological grandstanding. At a time when more people than ever are falling through the cracks, our social safety net needs serious mending. For the millions of families moving closer to the edge with each passing week, time is running out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garza is the president of Legal Momentum, the nation’s oldest legal advocacy organization dedicated to advancing the rights of women and girls.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 2/09

Volunteer DTV Extension Wreaks Havoc

2009-02-13T07:59:00.000-08:00

By Karen Toering

Do we love TV too much? Maybe.

But for nearly all American households, television provides more than mindless entertainment. It's also our most important lifeline for news and information.

According to Nielsen Media Research, 98.6 percent of American households have at least one TV set. And a Project for Excellence in Journalism study shows that more of us get our picture of the world from local TV news than from any other single source.

That is why Congress voted earlier this month to delay the biggest change in over-the-air television in nearly 50 years -- the federally-mandated switch to digital television. Congress pushed back the date from Feb. 17 to June 12 because there are still far too many people who are unprepared for the transition.

Congress left a loophole, however: local broadcasters across the country were given the option to transition earlier. In many large cities, stations have opted to delay their digital shift until June 12, giving viewers another few months to prepare. Stations in rural areas and mid-sized cities have opted to switch on Feb. 17. In Washington State, those cities include Bellingham, Yakima, Spokane and the Tri-Cities.

Whenever stations switch to digital, the effect will be the same: TVs that use set-top or rooftop antennas will no longer work without a new digital converter box (cable and satellite subscribers will not be affected).

Millions of people are aware of the changeover, but just as many are confused by just what the transition means for them. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights estimates that some 21 million households will automatically be cut off from television, our primary news and information source.

Many of these households are people of color, senior citizens, people with disabilities and those who depend on programs in languages other than English.

Community-based DTV assistance centers set up in various cities have responded to questions from people confused about whether they need to buy a new television (they don’t), or about problems with hooking up the boxes, or with antenna problems.

In these troubled economic times, many TV viewers have been slow to switch because of the perceived expense. Cable companies have been running confusing ads touting their pay-tv service as the simplest way for households to manage the DTV switch.

The most affordable solution is to get a converter box which will allow old TVs to receive the new digital signals. A federal government program is providing two $40 coupons toward the purchase of a converter box to every American household. Those interested in receiving the coupons can apply at dtv2009.gov or by calling 1-888-DTV-2009.

Converter boxes are available online for as low as $40 -- but in Washington state, most retailers are generally charging $60 or more for the boxes.

Adding to the stress for some consumers is the fact that there is now a substantial waiting list for those government coupons -- nearly 26,000 people in Washington state are on that list. But the stimulus package recently passed by Congress included additional funding to get those coupons moving again.

In order to help make this switch go smoothly for everyone, electronics retailers need to provide low-cost boxes; it's also up to the federal government and community partners to work together to provide more thorough education and outreach to keep seniors, people with disabilities and low-income consumers from being left behind.

But it’s not just up to the government. We all have a role to play. The extension will give some of us more time to figure out what we need to do to successfully make the transition. If you haven’t already applied for a coupon -- you should do it. If you have an extra coupon that your family won’t use -- donate it. And if you have a family member or friend who isn’t ready -- help them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toering is coordinator of the Seattle DTV Assistance Center, a project of Reclaim the Media, at www.seattledtv.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Washington Forum. 2/09

Health Care Reform Would Boost Economy

2009-02-05T07:56:00.000-08:00

By Heidi Topp Brooks and Lydia Pendley

This year's multi-billion dollar bailouts of the banking and auto industry were meant to give the impression that these huge infusions of cash would buoy the economy and result in better circumstances for all. But many of us were left wondering where exactly those hundreds of billions of dollars would go and how exactly that would translate into improved conditions for regular Americans and New Mexicans.

The state of the economy and the repercussions from these drastic measures will no doubt be President Obama’s top priority. Rather than focus on more massive bailouts to huge industries, the administration must focus on a long-neglected issue that, once addressed, would not only give a boost to businesses large and small, but have real results for struggling Americans. That issue is health care reform.

The emotional and moral arguments for reforming our broken health care system are well known, but expanding the public role in health care to make sure that every American has coverage makes good economic sense too. Businesses have seen their private insurance costs almost double in recent years. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, employer-sponsored premiums for family coverage have soared from $6,438 in 2000 to $12,680 in 2008. In New Mexico average annual health insurance premiums rose 92.3 percent from $6,222 to $11,967 between 2000 and 2007. As a result, many businesses, especially small businesses, are being forced to cut insurance for their employees. The employees, when forced to choose between a job with no insurance or no job at all, will often choose the paycheck.

When these employees join the ranks of the 45 million other Americans, including 440,000 New Mexicans, who are uninsured, they subject themselves to the very real risk of falling into debt due to medical care. A recent report from the Commonwealth Fund found that 72 million people have problems paying their medical bills or are in medical debt, the most vulnerable of whom are the uninsured. Another report by an Emory University economist finds that unpaid hospital bills cost $45 billion a year, with much of the burden being shouldered by those with insurance. A recent Harvard Law School study found that half of all home foreclosures have medical causes, with nearly one-quarter of all home foreclosures due to unmanageable medical bills.

President Obama himself has acknowledged the need to reform health care and invest in publicly funded programs to help alleviate the financial crisis. While announcing Tom Daschle as the new secretary of health and human services, Obama stated, "the time has come — this year, in this new administration — to modernize our health care system for the 21st century; to reduce costs for families and businesses; and to finally provide affordable, accessible health care for every American." He added that health reform, "has to be interwoven into our economic recovery program…This can't be put off because we're in an emergency. This is part of the emergency!"

It is heartening to hear that Obama recognizes that health care reform and economic recovery cannot be disassociated. He can affirm his commitment to these two issues by working with Congress early on in his administration to pass legislation that supports and expands public programs like Medicaid, Medicare and the State Children's Health Insurance Program to make sure that every American has access to quality health care, and that American families do not have to add unavoidable medical costs to their list of economic woes.

New Mexico can take its own immediate action toward real health care reform by establishing a truly independent Health Care Authority that will take on the job of developing a comprehensive health care reform action plan by September 2010 for accessible and affordable health care for all people living in New Mexico. The Health Care Authority should be independent from legislative, executive or vested financial interests and accountable to the people of New Mexico and charged to develop sustainable methods to finance a health care system that incorporates the best strategies from the public and private sectors, including community rating, measures that assure portability of health coverage, and implementation of guaranteed coverage regardless of previous health conditions.

New Mexico and the nation's dismal economic conditions make it more urgent than ever to take bold action to bring about health care reform. New Mexico cannot afford to wait. We must start to by creating the Health Care Authority.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brooks is an attorney, student in UNM's Masters in Public Health program, and longtime citizen activist on hunger and poverty with RESULTS. Pendley is a member of the Health Care for All Campaign and the co-group leader of RESULTS-Santa Fe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2009 by the New Mexico Editorial Forum. 2/09

State of Mississippi's Children

2009-02-02T07:50:00.000-08:00

By Rhea Bishop

Mississippi is once again failing its children.

The Children’s Defense Fund’s recently released State of America’s Children 2008 report highlights how far we have to go in Mississippi to protect our children. Even in the midst of the current economic downturn, Mississippi must continue to invest in our children if we are ever to move up from the bottom of the nation’s economic ladder.

Here’s what we learned in the report:

Once again, Mississippi has the highest percentage of children living in poverty at almost 3 in 10 (the national rate is 1 in 6). The vast majority of Mississippi families living in poverty are working families. The federal poverty line for a family of four in 2008 was $21,200.

Race still affects poverty. Although children of all races live in poverty, a black child in Mississippi is more than twice as likely to be poor as a black child in New Jersey.

About 1 in 9 or nearly 9 million children are uninsured nationwide; 121,000 or almost 15 percent of Mississippi children are uninsured. Among uninsured children nationwide, 9 out of 10 have at least one parent working. Six out of 10 live in two parent families.

Nationwide, about 28.3 million children are enrolled in Medicaid and 7.1 million are enrolled in CHIP. In Mississippi, 422,183 children are enrolled in Medicaid. Although 54 percent of the Medicaid recipients in Mississippi are children, less than one-fourth of Medicaid payments are for health care for children. While it costs Mississippi Medicaid $5,506 per average recipient, it costs Medicaid only $1,496 to provide medical coverage for a child.

Mississippi has the highest rate of infant mortality in the country. Of all babies born in Mississippi in 2007, 477 or 10.3 per thousand newborns died. Mississippi also has one of highest rates of low-birth weight babies in the nation. More than 10 percent of Mississippi babies are born with a low birth weight – putting them at risk for neonatal health problems and death.

Maternal deaths resulting from complications of pregnancy and childbirth are also among the highest in the nation. Mississippi’s has an overall maternal death rate of 21.5 per 100,000 live births. The maternal death rate for black mothers is almost three times the rate for white mothers.

Mississippi is one of the top three states for births to teenage mothers. The teenage pregnancy rate has increased in 2006 and 2007 to 41 births per thousand teens age 10-19 in 2006 and 43 births per thousand in 2007. From 2001 to 2005, the teen pregnancy rate in Mississippi was under 40 per thousand. Nonwhite teens in 2007 were more likely to get pregnant at a rate of 53.8, compared to 32.9 per thousand white teens.

Only about 3 percent of eligible babies and young children are enrolled in Early Head Start programs; 26,657 children are enrolled in Head Start in Mississippi. Over two-thirds of mothers of young children in Mississippi work. The Urban Institute has calculated that 2.7 million people nationwide would be lifted out of poverty if child care assistance were provided to all families with young children whose incomes are below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Line.

Finally, the number of children receiving food stamps nationwide has been increasing yearly since 2000. In Mississippi, 207,351 families with children receive food stamps. About 75 percent of the children in public school in Mississippi receive free or reduced-price lunch.

We can and must do better for our children. State leaders have pledged to fully fund K-12 public schools and Medicaid; we must hold them to that promise. We all know that this will be a tight budget year at the Capitol. But, the budget should not be balanced on the backs of poor children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bishop is deputy director of the Children’s Defense Fund.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Mississippi Forum 2/09

Investing in Our Human Infrastructure

2009-01-30T07:46:00.000-08:00

By Riane Eisler

Over half a million people lost their jobs last month. There’s no question we need a job-creation plan. The real question is what kind of plan will most quickly stimulate the economy and at the same time provide the best long-term investment for our nation.

President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Job-Creation Plan should be used to massively invest in our human infrastructure. Study after study shows that when our nation invests in its people, starting in childhood, the economic benefits are enormous.

By creating, subsidizing, and providing training for jobs in childcare, early education, healthcare, eldercare, and other “caring industries,” as well as supporting caring work in homes, we quickly stimulate the economy, help families, radically reduce poverty and violence, reward women’s economic contributions, save billions in crime and prisons, and develop the “high quality human capital” needed for our post-industrial economy.

Our economic crisis is an opportunity to lay foundations for a sustainable and equitable economic system instead of just trying to patch up an economy based on unsustainable consumerism, consumer debt, and environmental practices. The current economic meltdown is not due simply to the globalization of unregulated capitalism. The problem goes much deeper -- and so must the solutions.

The financial return on investing in caring jobs and home activities is huge. We need a new economic system that really works -- both in the short and long term. To make the job creation plan more effective we must consider that:

• America and the world are in the midst of a sea change as we shift from the industrial to the knowledge/information era. Many of the jobs being lost in manufacturing and other fields will be gone for good as we move toward more automation and robotics. Our most effective investment is in human capital development, starting in childhood and continuing all through life.

• A job-creation program component that focuses on the work of caring and caregiving will stimulate economic recovery and develop high capacity human capital capable of pioneering new frontiers of innovation across the board in every sector of society: culturally, socially, technologically, and environmentally.

• Neuroscience shows that the quality of childcare directly affects the development of human capacities and potentials; caregiving produces what economists call “public goods” and should be economically valued as civic work.

• The hi-tech green jobs and infrastructure construction jobs proposed by the job-creation program as currently formulated are still largely “men’s work.” Yet the time has passed when male “heads of family” were the sole breadwinners. The majority of families are two wage-earner families or woman-headed families. An effective economic stimulus program also provides jobs, training, and subsidies where the female labor force is concentrated: childcare, education, healthcare, eldercare. Studies show that women buy 80 percent of household goods: the food, clothing, and other essentials that keep the core economy going.

• Support of “caring work” will radically reduce poverty and violence, and their enormous economic, social, and personal costs. In the U.S., as in most nations, the poor are disproportionately women and children.

• As the Baby Boomers age, demand for eldercare is rapidly exceeding services available. The job-creation program must address this urgent need by supporting good eldercare in both the market and household economies.

• Millions of Americans are going uncared and undercared for. We have a huge caring gap from cradle to grave. A more broadly defined job-creation program will help close this gap at the same time that it stimulates the economy and trains both women and men for the work that is most urgently needed for a healthy economy and society.

• Creating a new cabinet post or advisory council for high capacity human development will facilitate the reordering of social priorities and the implementation of a new economic agenda appropriate for the post-industrial era -- and a more equitable and sustainable future.

The economic stimulus plan should be a bridge to the kind of economy and society we want and need: one where caring for humans and the planet is the primary economic driver. Good care and education for children is an essential investment in our nation’s future work force, and hence our future quality of life.

Investing in human infrastructure will not only rapidly stimulate our economy; it will lay foundations for a new economic era where our most precious resources -- people and the natural environment -- are nurtured, sustained, and thrive for generations to come.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eisler is author of The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future, now in 23 languages, and most recently The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring Economics. She is president of the Center for Partnership Studies. For more information, see www.rianeeisler.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 1/09

Better Nutrition Equals Better Education

2009-01-29T07:42:00.000-08:00

By Kathleen Rogers

Cafeteria food has always been the brunt of kids' jokes. Many of us remember the grilled cheese sandwich that stuck to the plate when you turned it upside down, and the egg soufflé that jiggled when you poked it. But even that is a far cry from what's served now.

In the midst of a growing childhood obesity crisis, school food now means federally subsidized chicken nuggets, low-grade hamburgers, french fries, hot dogs and pizza. "Cooking" usually involves a centralized kitchen similar to a fast food assembly line.

According to Ron Haskins, senior fellow of Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, "behind the overcooked vegetables and steam-table pizza that American children confront each school day is an industry that rivals defense contractors and media giants in its ability to bring home the federal bacon." That industry is agribusiness -- and, via the National School Lunch Program, it has a chokehold on our kids.

The commodities-driven National School Lunch Program, meant to feed 60 million children healthy food, has instead turned into a major public health threat. The most vulnerable in our society are suffering the most severe consequences, including epidemic levels of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other illnesses. While we need to be able to include more children in the School Lunch Program, we also need to be able to feed them higher-quality, more nutritious food, or else we are defeating the purpose of the program.

Over the past three decades, rates of obesity in the U.S. have more than doubled among children ages 2 to 5 and more than tripled among those ages 6 to 11. Today, approximately 9 million U.S. children over the age of 6 are considered obese. America's overweight teens consume an average of 700 to 1,000 calories more than they are required each day.

The National School Lunch Program and its affiliated programs have unmatched size and scope, serving more than 35 million lunches every day in almost every school in the U.S., costing taxpayers more than $8.5 billion. Close to 20 million K-12 students receive up to two meals a day, five days a week. The program was recently expanded to include all children enrolled in Head Start and child nutrition programs. The summer food service program feeds 18 million low-income children.

Where does agribusiness come in? Schools participating in the National School Lunch Program receive cash subsidies and commodity foods for each meal served plus bonus commodities from agricultural surplus. The program’s authorizing language requires that participating schools serve the most abundant commodities -- mostly milk and meat, with few fruits and vegetables. In fact, the ties between the government and the commodities industry, aided and abetted by poor nutritional choices by state and local food service officials, trumps federal nutritional guidelines resulting in menu offerings that resemble fast food.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture purchases hundreds of millions of pounds of pork, beef, and other animal products as well as surplus corn and wheat primarily as an economic benefit to agricultural interests. This might have been a defensible idea a century ago, when a third of our population worked as farmers; now, only 2 percent of our workforce is in agriculture. However, to help 2 percent of our citizens, these commodities are donated to the School Lunch Program and other food assistance programs. Unfortunately for our children, many of these foods are unhealthy.

Next year, The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, which includes school lunches, will expire and the renewal battle will begin. We must dramatically improve the federal nutrition requirements that guide this program, weaken the ties between the School Lunch Program and the commodities markets, revolutionize the quality of food in our schools, label the salt, fat, and sugar content of each meal served, and educate school officials, regulators and the American public about the School Lunch Program and its potentially disastrous implications for our children's health.

We need a Congressional mandate for higher nutritional values for the School Lunch Program to improve the quality and types of food that are served in K-12 schools, with an emphasis on local foods and organics. However, that's useless unless we complement it with revamped nutrition curriculums for children and parents so that they can learn the value of good nutrition in preventing disease.

Significant progress can and must be made in overhauling school lunches. It will take millions of voices to bring about this change. The cost to the next generation is too high for this battle to be lost.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers is the president of Earth Day Network.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 1/09

Moving on to Common Ground

2009-01-23T07:36:00.000-08:00

By Cristina Page

On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Connecticut Catholic Conference announced its solution to the increasing rate of teenagers seeking abortion care in the state. They proposed abortion restrictions; specifically, limiting teenager's access to abortion by requiring parental notification. If the goal is lowering the abortion rate, this is the wrong approach.

Studies show that restricting access to abortion often has little-to-no impact on the rate of abortion but instead does something far worse: increase the number of late term abortions. In Mississippi, after passage of a favorite pro-life restriction, mandating a waiting period before a woman can receive an abortion, researchers discovered the second trimester abortion rate had increased by a whopping 53 percent. In 2000, Texas lawmakers required parental consent before a teenager could have an abortion. Researchers soon discovered a spike in second trimester procedures obtained by 18 year olds. Many 17 year olds simply opted to wait to have the abortion until they could do it privately.

Call it the pro-life paradox: the strategies of the anti-abortion movement -- wherever tried -- fail to produce "pro-life" outcomes. The trend is true globally. The countries with the highest abortion rates are those that that have outlawed abortion. Abortion is completely illegal throughout most of Latin America, but abortion rates in Peru, Chile and the Dominican Republic have been estimated to be more than twice the U.S. rate. Conversely, the countries with the lowest abortion rates are those with the strongest pro-choice policies, where abortion is legal and often even free of charge.

During the Clinton administration, pro-choice policies were implemented resulting in the most dramatic decline in abortion rates ever recorded. Through the eight years of the Bush administration, the anti-abortion movement set national policy, yet none of its strategies resulted in dramatic decreases in the abortion rate. Instead, teen birth rates are now spiking in 26 states and the rates of STDs are rising too. What the Catholic Conference is recommending for Connecticut is not new but rather a continuation of the old policies that have failed, even by "pro-life" standards.

That's why many pro-life people are now supporting pro-choice policies that have proven to prevent unwanted pregnancy and reduce the need for abortion.

Realabortionsolutions.org is an organization that is supported by many religious groups and pursues common ground approaches to reduce unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Their tag line is: "Finding real solutions to our high abortion rate based on results, not rhetoric." Reverend Rich Cizik, of the National Association of Evangelicals, explained the group's philosophy, "Let's all join together to be part of a positive strategy to reduce abortions in America that puts problem-solving above political posturing." Since one in five abortions is obtained by a teenager and 60 percent by women with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty line, their platform is to favor policies that prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women, and assist new parents.

The new Obama administration and Democrat-controlled Congress have committed to the common ground approach as well. To signal their seriousness, on the first day the Senate returned to session, Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced the Prevention First Act. This common ground legislation is designed to increase access to both contraception and comprehensive sex education, as well as reduce unwanted pregnancies in the United States. President Obama marked the anniversary of Roe v Wade by stating, "While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services."

Americans, both pro-choice and pro-life, are eager to see progress on this most intransigent of political issues. According to a Faith in Public Life poll, the vast majority (83 percent) of voters, including Catholics (81 percent), believe elected leaders should work together to find ways to reduce abortions by helping prevent unwanted pregnancies, expanding adoption, and increasing economic support for women who want to carry their pregnancies to term. None of these approaches are part of the Connecticut Catholic Conference's recently released plan. However, if both sides of the abortion conflict pooled their talents, these common ground approaches would not only be tremendously successful but would also begin to heal the wound our country has suffered over this issue for far too long. At the very least, it's worth an honest try.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Page is the author of How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex and spokesperson for BirthControlWatch.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 1/09

Ending Wage Discrimination

2009-01-22T07:32:00.000-08:00

By Lisa Grafstein

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision which changed the rules for determining how long an employee has to raise a claim of wage discrimination. The plaintiff in that case, Lilly Ledbetter, lost a claim for 18 years of discrimination, but has lent her name to a proposal which would correct the interpretation of federal law and allow victims of wage discrimination to recover a portion of what they have lost.

Before the Ledbetter case, courts -- including the Supreme Court -- had used a “paycheck rule,” which recognized that, when an employee is underpaid on a discriminatory basis, each paycheck that employee receives is affected by discrimination, and the statute of limitations for a claim therefore begins to run when a discriminatory paycheck is issued. In most cases, employees do not become aware of wage discrepancies until well into their employment. Moreover, we know that a pay decision continues to impact a worker over her earning years. The National Women’s Law Center has calculated that women 24 and younger start out earning 6 percent less than their male counterparts, but that gap increases over time, resulting in women 45-64 earn 71 percent of what their male counterparts earn.

A study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research shows the cost in real dollars: a typical college-educated woman who was between 45 and 49 in 2004 had lost over $440,000 (in 2004 dollars) since 1984 due to the wage gap. As Justice Ginsburg noted in the dissent in the Ledbetter decision: “even minor disparities will increase exponentially over time.” The Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms that women earn 76 percent of what men earn -- a gap that cannot be explained away by women’s career choices or other non-discriminatory bases, and is the cumulative effect of long-term wage disparities.

The Ledbetter decision discarded the paycheck rule, and held that a worker could not complain about wage discrimination that started more than 180 days before the initial complaint was made. The practical impact was that there would be no real remedy for wage discrimination, since very few people discover the wage disparity until well after being hired for a position, and still fewer would opt to sue a new employer over what would initially be a very small amount of money. The Lilly Ledbetter Act would reinstate the paycheck rule, allowing an employee to sue for up to two years of the wage difference, even if the initial salary decision was made earlier.

The central argument against the bill appears to be that it would invite litigation over decades-old claims. The law, however, is clear that no claim for damages can reach back more than two years; in other words, regardless of how many years a woman received lesser pay she cannot claim losses that occurred prior to two years before instituting a charge of discrimination.

Both sides in this debate raise the issue of the struggling economy as support for their argument. Those who oppose the proposal, however, are in the position of arguing that discrimination should be left unremedied because of the current economic crisis -- ignoring the very real impact disparate wages have on women as workers and consumers. Without the Lilly Ledbetter Act, employers have no incentive to examine their wage practices -- past and present -- to determine whether some of their employees are not being fairly compensated.

The Lilly Ledbetter Act has already passed the House and will be voted on by the Senate soon. President Obama has pledged to sign it. It is well past time to end wage discrimination, and to send a firm signal condemning the practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grafstein is a private practice attorney in Raleigh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the North Carolina Editorial Forum. 1/09

English Only Amendment; How Not to Unite a Community

2009-01-14T07:20:00.000-08:00

By Nancy Stetten

I have been a teacher all of my life. For a number of years I taught English to immigrants. I experienced firsthand the frustration of trying to communicate without a common language. I was always impressed though with how difficult it was for the adults to learn English, and how hard they struggled to master it to become better, more informed members of their communities.

Proponents for the English-Only Metro Charter Amendment though, say that by promoting English-Only, communities will be more united under a common language. This makes absolutely no sense. Communities are only made stronger due to their differences and by a willingness to come together despite those differences to make it a better place for everyone. This amendment seeks to divide communities. It is bad policy for Nashville and can send a problematic precedent for the rest of the state.

While early voting for the English-Only Metro Charter Amendment has begun, it is very important to understand what the proposal means and what it is trying to accomplish and why it is bad for the state.

Let’s see what it says sentence by sentence.

“English is the official language of the metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County.”

This language is unnecessary. English is already the “official and legal language of Tennessee.”

“Official actions, which bind or commit the government shall be taken only in the English language.”

Again, unnecessary. All bills and resolutions are already written in English.

“…and all official government communications and publications shall be in English.”

What does this mean? Metro government has taken steps to provide information in languages other than English in cases where it believes that this makes our government function more efficiently. To overrule all of these decisions ties the hands of government workers trying to do their jobs and raises barriers to effective communication.

“No person shall have a right to government services in any other language.”

Our country has fought to get rid of categories of people who are denied rights. Why would we want to deny rights to a new class of people now?

“All meetings of the Metro Council, Boards, and Commissions of the metropolitan Government shall be conducted in English.”

Once again, unnecessary. This is already the case.

“The Metro Council may make specific exceptions to protect public health and safety.”

There are two problems with this. First, getting measures through Metro Council is cumbersome and time consuming. And second, it is impossible to list all of the specific cases which could endanger public health and safety. Misunderstandings over law or intention can rapidly escalate to a violent confrontation. In fact, failure to communicate itself is one of the greatest risks to public health and safety.

“Nothing in this measure shall be interpreted to conflict with federal or state law.”

Saying this does not make it so. In fact, the proposed charter amendment is in conflict with the constitution and federal law. Non-English speaking citizens have a right to government services under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and immigrants over 50 can become citizens even if they don’t know English. There is no doubt that if the English-Only Amendment is passed, it will surely be challenged in court.

A community achieves unity by treating all of its members as equal before the law, not by dividing members into two legal categories -- one receiving government services and the other denying them. At a time when we should be bringing communities together, the English-Only proposal only seeks to tear them apart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stetten is a former ESL teacher and a current researcher at the Tennessee Department of Education and a volunteer at Park Avenue Elementary School, where she teaches science and gardening.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Tennessee Editorial Forum. 1/09

To Achieve Change President-Elect Obama Needs to Bet on Women

2009-01-05T07:06:00.000-08:00

By Linda Tarr-Whelan

President-elect Obama has now moved swiftly to name talented and creative people to Cabinet-level offices and the key members of the White House team. But a nagging thought keeps coming back to me: Why isn't he naming more women to bring our experience, creativity and energy to address the problems that face us?

Until only recently it looked like Obama's Cabinet-level composition held only three women. But the announcement that Gov. Bill Richardson will not be taking the Commerce Secretary slot leaves an open position to fill, and one more chance for diversity.

Whereas the presidents of Chile and Spain, also elected as change candidates, appointed women to one-half of their Cabinet seats, Obama has named (including Richardson), 12 men of 15 Cabinet-level departments heads. Leaving his team very diverse in terms of race and ethnicity -- but not in gender. This is a diminished representation from both Bush presidencies and the Clinton administration.

More important than numbers is the talent that is missing and how out-of-step we are compared to the rest of the world in terms of who leads and why it matters. Since 1995 the global standard has been at least one-third women at power tables to revitalize economies and advance democratic participation.

Here we are stuck or moving backwards compared to the rest of the world.
The U.S. is ranked 27th on the World Economic Forum's Gender Gap Report and 71st in terms of women's representation in Congress. Outside of government representation at the current rate increase it will take women 73 years to reach parity on corporate boards.

Why does Obama -- and all of us -- need more women making decisions?
Women "get it" about the importance of education and have gone to school in droves. Women now earn 58 percent of college and master's degrees and are at least even in professional and Ph.D programs. Women-owned businesses, despite persistent obstacles, generate sales equal to the gross domestic product of China. Women make 80 percent of the consumer decisions. As almost one-half of the workforce and the bulk of nurses and teachers, women are the secret to achieving improvements in the economy, education and health care.

Failing to maximize the power and potential of women as leaders for change is neither smart politics nor good business. Women were the majority of all voters -- and with a 7 percent gender gap over men voters, the majority of Obama voters. In part that was because the campaign specifically addressed pressing problems in women's lives where there has been little action for decades -- family and work, health care, equal pay and violence.

I've had my time to serve in government. Based on my experience, I would recommend a plan recently presented to the Obama-Biden transition by the heads of 38 prominent women's organization who represent 14 million women. They proposed the creation of a Cabinet-level Office on Women reporting directly to the president, an Inter-Agency Council on Women and an Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach.

As the former head of the White House Office on Women's Concerns for President Carter, I know first-hand the importance of the coordination between the president, the administration and women across the country.

In the Clinton administration, as the CEO of a nonprofit, I worked closely with Betsy Myers, later head of Women for Obama, and others who headed the Office of Women's Outreach. All of us found it difficult to deliver the president's agenda for women without Cabinet status. In my role as ambassador I met women ministers from around the globe and saw how their work informed progress for women and their countries and participated in the work of the very effective Inter-Agency Council on Women.

All of these offices were cut out by the Bush administration -- our next President will face a clean slate and a pressing need. President-elect Obama -- and all of us -- will be well-served by taking on board the full recommendation of an integrated approach on women led by a Cabinet-level Office on Women.

An Obama administration will move the whole country forward when it effectively tackles existing inequities, eliminates possible disparate impacts of supposedly "gender-neutral" policies and taps the full potential of our women. Women are not a special-interest group. We are the current and future talent for the economy, the anchors for most families and the change agents for a better future.

Women have embraced the Obama call for change. Now we want to be sure it happens.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tarr-Whelan is a Demos Distinguished Senior Fellow on Women’s Leadership. Her book, “Women Lead the Way: Your Guide to Stepping Up to Leadership and Changing the World” will be published in 2009. She is the former Ambassador to the UN Commission on the Status of Women.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 1/09

Medicaid Reform: Yet Another Barrier To Care

2009-01-02T06:55:00.000-08:00

By Toni Waters Woods

On Thanksgiving Day 2006, my father, James "Buzz" Waters, was waiting to be disenrolled from the Medicaid reform pilot program in Duval County so that a high-risk cardiologist in Alachua County would see him. Jacksonville cardiologists referred my father to the Alachua doctor because apparently there was not a high-risk cardiologist in the Duval County Medicaid reform program. This wait proved to be fatal.

Before Medicaid reform my father would have been able to immediately make an appointment and be seen by the cardiologist in Alachua county. Two years ago the state introduced a pilot program to North Florida and Broward county that required more Medicaid recipients to join Medicaid HMOs. Proponents of the pilot claimed that Medicaid Reform would result in increased choices of health plans and providers. But by forcing more Medicaid patients into Medicaid HMOs it has instead created new barriers to care. In fact patients are now unable to access specialists who accept Medicaid but are outside reform plan networks without experiencing unnecessary and sometimes fatal delays. Because the specialist my father needed to see was not part of Duval county's Medicaid reform network, he had to waste precious time going through the disenrollment process before he could even make an appointment with the out of network high risk cardiologist. New Medicaid plan enrollments only start at the beginning of the month. As a result, the time frame for effectuating disenrollment from a plan is a frustrating and ludicrous obstacle for high-risk patients who have immediate needs that cannot wait. My father didn't make it to December 1. He died on that Thanksgiving Day, November 23.

Examples like my father's highlight the problems with forcing more high-risk Medicaid patients into Medicaid HMOs. Which is why I'm concerned when I hear the state is considering expanding the pilot program to the entire state. Medicaid reform in the state of Florida is not working for many patients. "Reform" has not only failed to solve the old problems, but it's created a slew of new ones. The reform program’s limited provider networks puts people with complex illnesses at risk. There are many documented stories like my father's about patients stuck in a spiral of red tape and rules that have led to further medical complications. Reading these stories is heartbreaking at times. A letter sent last year to the Florida Medicaid director from Florida CHAIN and Florida Legal Services highlighted many of the problems patients were having. A woman with diabetes was denied coverage for her insulin, goes into diabetic shock and almost dies; a man with severe mental illness ended up in the hospital because of coverage denied for his medications; a child with disabilities was unable to access critical therapies because of a lack of providers.

There are many policy arguments on all sides of the Medicaid reform issue. But we should listen closest to those who must navigate the complex maze of rules that Medicaid reform has put into place: the patients.

In a report from the Agency on Health Care Administration, it says Medicaid reform "seeks to improve the value of the Medicaid delivery system." I do not believe that happened in my father's case and I do not believe that the value has been improved for many of Florida's citizens, whether patients or taxpayers.

Managed care companies require profits and increasing amounts of reimbursement from the state. These needs are difficult to reconcile with the health care needs of high-risk and very sick Medicaid patients. Notably, in recent months managed care companies threatened to leave the program but changed their minds only when the state gave in to their demands to reduce proposed cuts from 5 percent to 3 percent. Decent health care should be not be judged by the balance sheet, but by the health of its patients.

One step in the right direction would be to permit emergency disenrollment procedures for Medicaid patients needing to access care not available through reform plans. Those protections were not in place for my father. Florida certainly should seek greater choices, access and flexibility for its Medicaid patients, but it should do so by reworking the fatally flawed reform program first, not by expanding it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Woods is a resident of Duval County.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Florida Forum

Green Stimulus

2008-12-31T09:56:00.001-08:00

By Kathleen Rogers

A massive stimulus package of nearly $600 billion holds promise for the economy, and could mean more federal spending on infrastructure and energy efficiency projects. An estimated $400 billion in that bill will repair lots of bridges and roads, but what will they all lead to? Nothing -- unless we first start building bridges and roads between our economic, climate, and education concerns, and start appreciating the way they’re all connected.

New policy and stimulus needs to take into account that we’re not just trying to save our economy with roads, bridges, and buildings: We’re trying to save ourselves.

Few other national topics are as timely as a discussion of how to build a new green economy nationwide. During his campaign Obama promised to create 5 million green jobs. It is this way of thinking that should shape our country’s future.

One way we can stimulate the economy while going green is to create new, personal carbon savings accounts. These would be tax-free, interest-bearing green energy savings accounts that could be leveraged to help weatherize or green-up one’s home or sold to companies that need carbon credits. It would encourage energy efficiency while allowing a personal stake in emissions reductions.

At a time when we are poised to make our greatest infrastructure investment since the Great Depression, we need to make sure we do it right. Congress seems focused on shovel-ready jobs to its own detriment. We need to ensure this bailout is green, that the bridges and roads lead us to the future -- instead of another dead-end.

Putting together a new green energy program for the U.S. and other countries will require thousands of green jobs in solar, wind, and other renewable sources of energy.

One plan is based on the fact that investing in energy efficient buildings would go a long way to create jobs and help the economy. The so-called Architecture 2030 plan recommends an investment of $171.72 billion over two years combining a housing mortgage buy-down and an accelerated-depreciation program for commercial buildings with energy efficiency. This plan could create over 3 million jobs in the building sector and over 4 million indirect jobs plus an additional 350,000 jobs from consumer spending.

The retrofitting and construction of green schools -- the largest construction sector in the United States -- will do the same. Between 2006 and 2008, we spent $80 billion on school construction. If we build those buildings green, they cost less than 2 percent more to construct; however, they pay for themselves in a few years. Consequently, municipalities with major school systems are increasingly looking at “green building” and renovation as they work to update school facilities and save the district money in utility bills. A green school can save a school enough money to hire two additional teachers -- all while preventing 585,000 lbs of CO2 from hitting the atmosphere.

Which, at the end of the day, helps solve a bigger problem: The economy is in a crisis, but the impacts of climate change are far greater in the long run. Fortunately though, there’s no need to sacrifice one for the other.

Green jobs are in danger of disappearing from the stimulus package, to be replaced with shovel-ready jobs, such as President-elect Obama’s recently announced plans to create thousands of jobs by “weatherizing” houses. While weatherizing houses is important, it is a short-term project for employment. It is not the same as creating lasting high-tech work or building infrastructure. Green jobs, however, are solid, necessary jobs which have a long-term future. What we need now is a firm commitment to include in the stimulus package funds for “green” infrastructure and jobs -- the real way to revitalize the economy and look toward the future.

House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi has touted other projects like investments in new energy technologies and energy-efficient buildings. We need to hold her and the rest of the Congressional leadership to those promises, demanding that they take bold measures to resolve the economic crisis holistically -- by taking into account the challenges of the climate crisis, the health of our children, and the needs of our workforce, which is waiting for green American jobs that can’t be exported.

Our government must begin the shift towards a global economy driven by massive job creation from the growth of green technology, construction, transportation, and renewable energy. While the road to a green economy might be long, we need to use this opportunity to build it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers is the president of Earth Day Network.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 12/08

Can Common Ground Prevail?

2008-12-23T09:41:00.000-08:00

By Cristina Page

When it comes to the abortion conflict in the U.S. a fascinating new consensus is emerging: the need for common ground. Americans, it seems, are weary of the acrimonious and seemingly endless fight. People want pro-choice and pro-life advocates to work together to reduce the need for abortion.

According to Faith in Public Life Poll, the vast majority (83 percent) of voters, including white evangelicals (86 percent) and Catholics (81 percent), believe elected leaders should work together to find ways to reduce the need for abortion.

For years, pro-choice groups have pushed measures designed to prevent unwanted pregnancy. They have promoted social programs that support poor pregnant women who are forced to make decisions based on economic need. They have pushed prevention over punishment. And now, after decades of resistance, some in the pro-life movement are stepping forward in support of at least some of these pro-choice goals, even if that means jeopardizing their standing in the established pro-life community.

Interestingly, the time may be ripe for a spirit of cooperation. Barrack Obama, with his promise of a new era of post-partisan politics, may be just the leader to promote this cause. When asked about abortion in one debate, Obama predicted, "We can find some common ground." Indeed, the abortion conflict may emerge as an early test case of Obama's belief that cooperation can prevail.

The key development, the one that may make common ground possible, is the emergence on the pro-life side of willing partners in this venture. Recently, several daring pro-life leaders have publicly announced a shift in their focus. Instead of seeking bans and restrictions on abortion, which have proven to have little effect on abortion rates, a new breed of pro-life activist appears motivated more by results than timeworn arguments.

Take Douglas Kmiec who has an impeccable pro-life, Catholic, and republican credentials. Kmiec served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel for Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush and was the former dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America. He also started "Pro-Life, Pro-Obama." Kmiec, like the entire new breed, still opposes abortion on moral grounds. He still does not embrace an increase in availability of birth control as area worth common exploration. Still it is impossible to overlook his remarkable, and seemingly decisive, break from his pro-life comrades. Perhaps most striking is this admission from their website: "Legal status of abortion does not necessarily impact abortion rates." Instead, Kmiec's group has turned to prevention and, in particular, social programs that can affect decisions. "Studies show that economic support for women and families reduces abortion," announces one section of the website.

Catholics United is another new pro-life group calling for a common ground approach to the abortion conflict. The group's website lists as one of its top priorities "common ground abortion reduction initiatives," including moving, "beyond the angry rhetoric of the abortion ‘culture war’ and enact policies that achieve actual results by addressing the root causes of abortion: lack of jobs, health care, and other economic supports for women and families."

While what might be called a "common ground movement" has yet to formalize, there is at least one signal of its potency. These new common ground pro-life leaders have won the ire of the traditional anti-abortion hierarchy. Indeed the old-guard pro-life leader views this new approach as a form of treason. In fact, several openly seethe over the calls for cooperation. Doug Johnson, of National Right to Life, called Obama's common ground approach an "abortion reduction scam." Last month, Joseph Schiedler, president of the Pro-Life Action League, told the Washington Post, "It's a sellout, as far as we are concerned. You don't have to have a lot of social programs to cut down on abortions."

It is apparent that many people who are genuinely pro-life want real results, and equally as clear to them is that the current pro-life establishment and the Republican Party have failed to provide those. The facts show that the countries with the lowest abortion rates are those which promote prevention, and support for poor women who want and need help to continue their pregnancies -- traditional pro-choice policies.

We on the pro-choice side are eager to have a willing partner, people who like us, seek progress on what has been until now been an intractable and divisive issue. Let us hope that the "pro-life" establishment doesn't stand in the way of this nascent common ground movement.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Page is the author of "How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex" and spokesperson for BirthControlWatch.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 12/08

The Solution for Our Health Care Disaster

2008-12-22T09:34:00.000-08:00

By Mary Ellen Bradshaw and George Pauk

It’s time for the big insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment and supply companies, for-profit hospitals and for-profit providers’ groups to stop obstructing real health reform.

There are 140 Arizona members of Physicians for a National Health Plan and many thousands more nationwide. We submit there is only one way to effectively address our country’s crisis in health care: the enactment of single-payer national health insurance, an expanded and improved Medicare for all.

The electorate of Arizona has spoken by defeating Proposition 101: people want real change. They want comprehensive, high-quality, and affordable care. They want to go to the doctor or hospital of their choice.

Single payer is the “cure” that will achieve these goals. Anything short of single payer will not.

Private insurance companies make their profits by enrolling the healthy, screening out the sick, and denying claims. These policies are literally bankrupting and killing us.

We simply can’t afford to pay 31 cents of every health care dollar for wasteful insurance company administrative costs – their paperwork, utilization reviews, executive salaries and payouts to shareholders. We simply can’t afford the inefficiencies of a system that blocks our ability to negotiate drug prices.

Replacing the private insurers with a not-for-profit, publicly financed system patterned after Medicare would save about $350 billion in administrative costs, more than enough to cover all the uninsured and to eliminate all co-pays and deductibles for everyone else.

It’s the only morally, medically and fiscally responsible thing to do.

Recently the people of Arizona were right in their wisdom to reject an amendment to our State Constitution that would have stopped major reform of our health care system, particularly the single-payer approach. They defeated Proposition 101 in spite of the huge amount of money behind it (much of it from out-of-state) and the deceptive language about “choice” that its backers used.

Where do we go from here? The solution exists in the form of a federal proposal that would guarantee everyone all of the medically necessary care they need, including dental care, drugs and long-term care, and would require no co-pays or deductibles.

It would be financed by a system of progressive taxation, much like everyone currently pays into Medicare, and the overwhelming majority of people would end up spending much less than they currently do for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.

Dr. Quentin Young, national coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program, noted on the day after President-elect Barack Obama’s election win: "In large measure Sen. Obama's victory and the victories of his allies in the House and Senate were propelled by mounting public worries about health care. Yet the prescription offered during the campaign by the president-elect and most Democratic policy makers -- a hybrid of private health insurance plans and government subsidies -- will not resolve the problems of our dangerously dysfunctional system.”

Young pointed out that such hybrids have repeatedly failed in state-based experiments over the past 20 years in Oregon, Minnesota, Washington and several other states, including Massachusetts, whose second go-round at incremental reform is already faltering.

Like Dr. Young, we believe the only effective cure for our health care woes is to establish a single, publicly financed system, one that removes the inefficient, wasteful, for-profit private health insurance industry from the picture.

An April 2008 study in the Annals of Internal Medicine that showed 59 percent of U.S. physicians support national health insurance. Opinion polls show two-thirds of the public also supports such a remedy.

President-elect Obama and the new Congress have a mandate and the opportunity to improve the lives of tens of millions of Americans. Their first order of business should be to enact a single-payer national health insurance plan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Bradshaw and Dr. Pauk are both members of Physicians for a National Health Program (http://www.pnhp.org/) and co-chairs of the Arizona Coalition for State and National Health Plans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2008 by the Arizona Editorial Forum. 12/08

The Wisdom of Pardons

2008-12-19T09:29:00.000-08:00

By Kemba Smith

The nomination of Eric Holder as the next U.S. attorney general has renewed concerns about the end-of-term clemencies granted by President Clinton.

High-profile names such as Marc Rich grabbed headlines at the time, but many other people with no political influence benefited from the president's mercy.

I am one of those people. If I had not received a commutation, my first-time conviction for a non-violent offense would have kept me in prison until 2016 (with good behavior) because of the harsh mandatory sentencing laws for crack cocaine. My 1994 prison sentence grew out of my boyfriend's trafficking in crack. After he was murdered, the government charged me with conspiracy to distribute the crack that his drug ring distributed. During my court hearings, prosecutors acknowledged that I never sold, handled or used any of the drugs involved in the conspiracy.

Today, I could be in federal prison still serving my 24-year sentence. Instead, I've been raising my now 13-year-old son, graduated from college in 2002 and completed a year of law school. I own a home and speak to youth about the importance of their choices and the consequences that can affect their lives forever. My own experience led me to create a non-profit foundation that focuses on providing children of incarcerated parents with a mentor, and collaborates with other organizations on justice-reform initiatives.

My story of redemption does not need to be an anomaly. Thousands of petitions for executive clemency are pending before President Bush with a month left in his term. The majority of those are unknown to him or the public. Many are people of color caught up in the war on drugs and serving long mandatory minimum sentences, often for low-level offenses. The president should expedite such applications and grant them clemency.

The guidelines for the Office of the Pardon Attorney state that the excessive nature of a sentence and associated sentencing disparity are appropriate considerations when granting a petition for commutation. The federal sentencing policy for crack cocaine offenses is a case in point.

The mandatory five-year sentence for a defendant convicted with 5 grams of crack cocaine -- the weight of two sugar packets -- is the same as that for a defendant convicted with 100 times that amount of powder cocaine, even though these are two forms of the same drug. Defendants convicted with 50 grams of crack cocaine, about the weight of a candy bar, receive a minimum sentence of 10 years. A powder cocaine seller must have at least 5 kilograms to receive the same sentence.

For decades criminal justice experts, civil rights leaders and lawmakers have called these sentences unjust. More than 80 percent of people convicted of crack cocaine offenses are black, even though two-thirds of crack cocaine users are white or Hispanic.

Indeed, President Bush raised concerns about the issue before taking office, saying the crack-powder disparity "ought to be addressed by making sure the powder-cocaine and the crack-cocaine penalties are the same."

I agree, but despite significant changes made to the federal sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine in the past year, the harsh mandatory sentences remain. The president still has time to make good on his promise. His clemency power should be used with thoughtful deliberation. Even so, it should be utilized because clemency is sometimes the only possible response to unfair and excessive penalties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith is founder of the Kemba Smith Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 12/08

Helping Foster Children During the Holiday Season

2008-12-04T12:26:00.000-08:00

By Harriet O’Neill

The holiday season is here. It’s a time for giving and also a good time to pause and reflect on the many blessings for which we are thankful.

As a parent, my children top the list. Every day I am grateful for the joy, and the challenges, they bring. Their safety and well-being are my first and last thoughts of the day. I am counting the hours until they return home for the holidays, eager to hear their voices, listen to their stories, and share their dreams. All across the nation, families are making preparations to connect with loved ones.

Think for a moment of what it would be like to have no one expecting you home; No one looking out the window awaiting your arrival; No one to lament if distance or circumstance prevent you from being there; No one to give thanks that you are part of their life.

Thousands of Texas children know that feeling all too well.

On any given day in Texas, there are more than 17,000 children in foster care. Many of these children have been abused or neglected and removed from their homes, perhaps forever, through no fault of their own. These children have either lost, or never experienced, the sense of permanence and belonging that comes with being part of a family.

Children like Benjamin (not his real name), who at 5 years old was placed in foster care because his mother was a drug addict who supported her habit with prostitution. For 12 years Ben moved from foster home to foster home, from treatment center to treatment center, clinging to the belief that any day his mother would reappear and make everything right. She never did, and Ben never experienced the love or security of a real family. Two days before his 18th birthday, Ben was arrested for stealing. He turned 18 in jail. When Ben walked out as an adult, he had aged out of the foster care system and disappeared into the homeless population. No one noticed. No one was waiting for him to come home.

More than 6,000 children in Texas are waiting for a family to adopt them, to love them, and to cherish them forever. These kids long every day for a family, for a place to belong, and the holidays are particularly painful.

You can make a difference. During this holiday season, consider whether you could be that person who waits at the window for a child without a home. If you can, you will give the gift of a lifetime. If you can’t, there are so many other ways to help. It is said that you don’t have to raise a child to raise them up -- you just have to raise your hand. Every minute you devote to helping a child in foster care has an impact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
O’Neill is a Supreme Court of Texas Justice and chair of the Commission on Children, Youth, and Families. Visit http://www.raisemeup.org/ to explore adoption opportunities and the many ways that you can volunteer your time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Texas Lone Star Forum. 12/08

The Power of the Latina Vote

2008-11-30T09:59:00.000-08:00

By Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas

It is undeniable that the Latino vote had a tremendous impact on the election. Approximately 17.9 million Latinos are currently eligible to vote, 9.1 million of whom are women, and since 2004, the number of Latinos registered to vote has doubled.

Early exit polling suggests that Latinos overwhelmingly supported Obama, with 67 percent voting for Obama and 30 percent voting for McCain. According to the University of Massachusetts's Center for Women in Politics and Public Policy, Latinas have become increasingly engaged in politics, making up 5 percent of total voter turnout (Latino men made up 4 percent). Latino overall support for Obama became especially significant in the battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico and Virginia; all of which have large and growing Latino populations, and all of which were carried by Obama. These statistics are just proof of the fact that the Latino vote matters more than ever before.

The Latino vote has led to the great strides for women and Latino candidates and increased their representation in the federal government. In 2008, Latinos ran in over 37 states across the country for both federal and state legislative seats. The 25 Latino members of Congress added another colleague to the list who will serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. The 111th Congress will include seven Latina Congresswomen from Florida, New York, and California. They’ll be joining the 64 re-elected incumbents in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The gains weren’t limited to the U.S. Congress either. State legislatures across the country had Latinos elected to seats in numbers never previously seen, particularly in Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma.

Now that we have new leadership in place, we advocates, activists and organizers must rise to the occasion. We must take the momentum of this election to our everyday organizing and activism, placing women's ability to care and provide for their families at the center of our platform.

While the economy proved to be the top issue among the general electorate, Latinos also voted with immigration policy in mind. The Republicans’ divisive and xenophobic rhetoric about immigrants proved harmful for garnering support in the Latino community, which in the past has supported some Republican candidates. Senator McCain, who co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform legislation in 2006, turned his back on the immigrant community during the campaign. He publicly stated that he would not vote for the same immigration bill that he once sponsored if it came to the floor for a vote in 2008. These harmful statements fuel the flames of hatred and blame towards immigrants and may have cost him the election.

Latinas can finally say ADELANTE, our time has come. Now the real questions face us. What does this new era mean? What do we want for our families and communities? What does a Latina agenda for reproductive justice and immigrant rights look like? To begin, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health has three top requests of the new administration:

1. Repeal the Hyde Amendment, which denies low-income women access to abortion services;
2. End the discriminatory, militaristic and inhumane immigration enforcement practices that are destroying our communities; and
3. Support an equitable and affordable plan for comprehensive health care for all.

As a community, we remember the spring of 2006 when Latino immigrants marched in droves with other immigrants and allies fighting harmful immigration policies put forth by the Republican Party. We held signs and chanted “Hoy Marchamos! Manana Votamos!” (“Today we March! Tomorrow We Vote!”). Well, “tomorrow” has arrived and Latinas and immigrant voters cast their ballot for hope, dignity and justice instead of fear.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gonzalez-Rojas is director of Policy and Advocacy for National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 11/08

What the Unmarried Women’s Vote Means

2008-11-21T13:45:00.000-08:00

By Page S. Gardner

More than a week after an historic election, political analysts still are sifting through the results, trying to figure out how different segments of society voted, why they cast their ballots as they did, and what their political preferences and patterns of participation mean for the future.

But three lessons are inescapably clear: The electorate that changed America reflects a changing America -- younger, more racially and ethnically diverse, and less likely to be married. The largest demographic group within this new American electorate -- unmarried women -- played a pivotal role in electing Barack Obama as president, building a bigger margin for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and delivering the largest Democratic margins in national politics since 1964. And, for progressives from the White House to both houses of Congress, there is no more urgent challenge than addressing the needs of unmarried women -- especially for economic security -- and ensuring that they continue to participate in the political process.

While they usually tend to register and vote less than married people, unmarried women increased their participation this year. Indeed, 20 percent of unmarried women voters cast ballots in their first presidential election this year, compared to 11 percent of all voters. Similarly, unmarried women were more likely than other voters to have recently registered to vote, with 41 percent of these women having registered during the last four years.

In addition to voting in numbers reflecting their presence in the population -- 53 million in all and 26 percent of voting-age adults -- unmarried women delivered decisive margins for Obama for president and Democratic candidates for the U.S. House, Senate, and public offices at almost every level of government. These women favored Obama over John McCain by a stunning 70-to-29 percent margin, while preferring Democratic candidates for the U.S. House by 63-to-31 percent and for the Senate. In a dramatic indication of how heavily unmarried women supported progressive candidates, Obama’s overwhelming 70 percent share of unmarried women’s votes was even greater than his 66 percent showing among young voters and his 67 percent of Latino voters.

Unmarried women’s crucial role in electing Obama is underscored by the “marriage gap” between their political preferences and those of married women. While unmarried women supported Obama by 41 percentage points, married women favored McCain by 50-to-47 percent for a marriage gap of 44 points. By way of comparison, the gender gap between the preferences of women and men was surprisingly static at 12 percent.

Even more remarkably, in spite of the fact that they overwhelmingly believe that the nation has been “on the wrong track,” unmarried women cast their votes in a spirit of hope and purpose, not anger and despair. Seventy-five percent of unmarried women agreed that “this election made me believe average people can help change the country.” For these women, change means addressing the most important challenge in their lives -- pervasive economic insecurity.

In many ways, these single, separated, divorced and widowed women really are “women on their own.” In an unstable economy, more than 40 percent have household incomes of $30,000 or less. In a discriminatory workplace, these women earn 56 cents for every dollar that a married man makes. In the midst of the healthcare crisis, these women are less likely than married people to have health coverage. In a society where it’s difficult to balance work and family, more than 10 million are single moms with children at home. And, when they are too old to work, about 25 percent rely on Social Security as their only source of income.

Now, these women are on their own in a housing crisis, a financial crisis, and a deepening recession. They are more vulnerable than married people to foreclosures, layoffs and bankruptcies.

For President-elect Obama and the newly strengthened majorities in the House and Senate, the message of their mandate from unmarried women is clear: Address the issues of creating good-paying jobs, providing equal pay, expanding healthcare coverage, and securing retirement income that motivated these “women on their own” to register and vote in record numbers. For progressives generally, the lesson is even more emphatic: Our top priority must be to keep these women involved in the political process so that a changing electorate can continue to change America.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner is president of Women’s Voices, Women Vote, a national nonpartisan organization that seeks to increase unmarried women’s participation in the political process.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 11/08

Women fill Boston Globe’s Op-ed page

2008-11-20T15:03:00.001-08:00

Today, the Boston Globe’s opinion-editorial page is comprised entirely of essays written by women. Since the Women’s Monitor began tracking its opinion pages, this is the first time the Boston Globe has run an op-ed page featuring only women. Back in March, we observed a similar occurrence in the New York Times, but only because the women were writing about Elliot Spitzer’s scandal. While an all-male op-ed page isn't an uncommon occurance, the all-woman day is so rare we always take notice. We applaud the newspapers for increasing the volume of women voices in the mainstream media and hope to see continued exposure.

The opinions by women in the Boston Globe take positions on a variety of pressing issues facing society. In response to a recent opinion in the New York Times, Jean Vennochi, a Globe staff writer, challenges Gov. Mitt Romney’s opposition to governmental aid for U.S. automakers. Vennochi notes his “calculated” political history and accuses him of taking the popular stance regardless of the issue.

Margot Stern Strom, the president and executive director of Facing History and Ourselves, addresses the issue of education reform and asks the new administration to consider a new idea. Strom argues that schools need to provide compelling subjects appealing to students’ interests. Additionally, teachers should be prepared to lead students in conversations about social discourse.

Also appealing to the new administration, Anneke Van Woundernberg, a Congo researcher at Human Right Watch, calls for world leaders to convene efforts to give aid and to relieve the crisis in Congo. And finally, Therese Murray, president of the Massachusetts Senate, and Steven Baddour, Senate Chairman of the Joint committee on Transportation, urges for transportation reform to take place in the form of addressing administration inefficiency and lift financial constraints on the MBTA and regional transit authorities.

Romney takes auto industry for a ride by Jean Vennochi

Education, Democracy and Rights by Margot Stern Storm

Taking on the crisis in Congo by Anneke Van Woundernberg

Transportation: reform before Revenue by Therese Murray and Steven Baddour

It’s Time to Look at the Way We Vote

2008-11-20T12:12:00.000-08:00

By Linda Brown

More than 112,000 voters in Maricopa County were forced to cast provisional ballots on Election Day. That is 16 percent of those that went to the polls, well more than the margin of victory for several races and ballot measures. We still don’t know how many of those were counted.

Was the turnout 72 percent, or was it higher? We have no way of knowing for sure. A good number of registered voters went to the polls and left without voting at all.

Arizona has been labeled by Mother Jones magazine as one of the worst places to vote in America. Polling places frequently move. It is estimated that nearly 40 percent of polling places in Maricopa County have shifted locations during each of the last two major election cycles.

We have also instituted an ID requirement that confuses poll workers and voters alike. We place tremendous demands on the temporary workers that run our polling places, asking them to be the linchpins in our democracy, but barely giving them what they need to succeed. They receive two hours of training on every aspect of running a polling place, including setting up complicated equipment and making sure it runs properly; understanding and complying with federal, state and local laws; understanding what ID is needed for a regular ballot, when voters must cast a regular provisional ballot, when voters should be given a conditional provisional ballot, and how to properly process each ballot type.

Arizona needs to take steps to make the voting process easier for everyone. It’s time to consider appropriating the best practices from other jurisdictions around the country to avert problems that continue to disenfranchise voters here in Arizona.

Take the ever-shifting polling places. Every two years Arizona’s elections officials scramble to find schools, churches, or other private facilities that are willing to serve as polling places. Many Arizonans moved here from states where polling places never change—they are always located at neighborhood schools. Arizona voters are expected to check elections department mailings before every election to confirm where they should vote. But it’s easy to miss the small type ink-jetted onto the one sample ballot that all voters in a household must share. It’s also easy to miss the polling place notification card, which doesn’t look all that different from junk mail. Even voter registration cards do not include the names and addresses of voters' polling places.

In Arizona, votes cast at the wrong polling places do not count. Other jurisdictions count ballots cast at the wrong precincts, taking care not to count votes for offices outside of the voters’ precincts.

If Arizona voters reach their correct polling places, poll workers sometimes have difficulty finding their names in the voter rolls. Or poll workers may mistakenly send voters to get more ID when they have sufficient ID to vote a regular ballot or a regular provisional ballot. One county in Washington doubled the length of poll worker training, increased poll worker pay, and required them to pass a certification test. They saw poll worker mistakes plummet.

Political parties, candidates and grassroots groups spend a considerable amount of time and money to get voters to the polls. They know well that every vote is precious. Together we should take a look at how we run elections in Arizona. With sensible changes and adequate funding we can ensure that every citizen that makes the effort to vote is successful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brown is executive director of the Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation, a group that leads efforts for electoral justice and increased civic participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2008 by the Arizona Editorial Forum. The Forum is an educational organization that provides the media with the views of state experts on major public issues.

Churches Won’t Lose Tax Exemptions for Performing Same Sex Marriages

2008-10-27T09:51:00.000-07:00

By Patricia Cain

The proponents of Proposition 8 have unleashed an ad in which a law professor proclaims that unless marriage rights are denied to same-sex couples, churches risk losing their tax exemptions. The claim is pure nonsense and any lawyer who makes such a claim should apologize for misleading the many religious leaders and congregations in this state who, because they are not legal experts, rely on those of us who are.

Our country was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. The U.S. Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. It also guarantees that an individual’s right of religious liberty is protected in every state in this country.

The California constitution provides similar guarantees. The California Supreme Court, the institution charged with construing the California constitution to ensure that it applies to all Californians equally, recognized the importance of these guarantees in its decision in the marriage cases. As the Court explained: “[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

There is absolutely no legal basis for the claim in the proponent’s ad that churches may lose their tax exemption. The claim is nothing more than an attempt by the opponents of equal marriage to instill fear among the religious faithful in the hopes that they will flock to the ballot box and cast a vote to protect their churches.

Citizens of California need to check their fears against what we all know about religious freedom in this country. Churches and other religious institutions are free to follow their religious tenets and to conduct whatever sacraments and services are consistent with those tenets.

Churches in Massachusetts, where marriages between same-sex partners have been performed for over four years, can and do refuse to marry same-sex couples. Not a single church has been threatened with the loss of tax-exempt status. There is no risk that they will be threatened because the IRS and state tax authorities are bound by the guarantees of religious freedom in the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

When New Jersey adopted civil unions for same-sex couples in 2006, fears arose in that state that religious organizations would be forced to perform same-sex unions. On January 10, 2007, the New Jersey Attorney General issued a formal opinion concluding that religious institutions are not required to endorse or perform same-sex commitment ceremonies since they are protected by both the state and federal constitutions. The opinion cited relevant United States Supreme Court precedent. That same precedent applies in California.

Our country is strongest when the rights of all are protected. The separation of church and state is a necessary precondition for the protection of individual liberty and equality. We live in a public world full of differences of opinion and that is good. We get our strength from our private worlds where individual conscience and matters of faith reside. California’s constitution is a document that governs our public world. It should not be amended to deny the rights of some because of an unfounded fear that some voters’ religious freedoms are in jeopardy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cain is the Inez Mabie Distinguished Professor of Law at Santa Clara University and past president of the Society of American Law Teachers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 10/08

A Rescue Package for Working Women

2008-10-23T09:59:00.000-07:00

By Ellen Bravo

Wall Street tycoons behave irresponsibly, bring the country to financial brink, hold out their hands for an eleven-figure bailout -- and lobbyists applaud that as a rescue.

Women achieve daily miracles fulfilling responsibilities to their employers and their families, ask for modest protections so they won’t be fired for having a sick kid -- and lobbyists denounce that as mandates.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Not so long ago, we were surrounded by ashtrays and smokers wherever we worked, ate or traveled. Babies sat on our laps in the car. Most paints were lead-based.

In each case, public health experts alerted us to the dangers. Values shifted; what once seemed normal no longer met the test of public acceptability. Groups of concerned citizens petitioned government representatives to do their job and set new standards.

Action on these items was nothing unusual. From child labor to Jim Crow to excluding those with a disability, our government has stepped in to end long-time practices. Each time they did so because popular sentiment said, “Enough.”

Once again, there is a need for the government to protect its citizens. This time it’s to make sure that workers are not penalized for being good parents.

We have a giant disconnect between what family members need and what the workplace provides.

It flies in the face of our values, and hurts our families and businesses, when workers can’t afford to take time to care for a new baby or a seriously ill family member. And it jeopardizes us all when people are compelled to go to work and cook our food or care for our children when they themselves are sick.

Each time we try to advance, opponents rise up to tell us the sky will fall, business will flee. Consider this statement:

“[This bill] would create chaos in business never yet known to us… Let me make clear that I am not opposed to the [goals of reform]… What I do take exception to is any approach … which is utterly impractical and in operation would be much more destructive than constructive to the very purposes it is designed to serve.”

That’s Ohio Congressman Arthur Lamneck, arguing in 1937 against proposed rules outlawing child labor and establishing a minimum wage. More than 70 years later, these standards clearly aren’t what threaten the American economy. But lack of minimum standards really is harming American families.

I’ve been thinking a lot about parents I know of three lovely children. Let’s call them Scott and Kate. After Scott’s job was outsourced to Taiwan, the couple lost their home. Since then, Scott got another job. Recently, they learned their daughter has cancer. Both parents have family leave and understanding employers. The problem is the leave is unpaid. They don’t know how they can make ends meet with the double whammy of losing income while on leave and having to cough up the 20 percent health insurance co-pay.

There are many heartbreaking parts of this story. But what hit me the hardest was when Kate said, “I feel like I failed my family.”

Kate and Scott have done nothing but work hard and take good care of their children. That should be enough. The failure here is a government refusing to bring the workplace into sync with 21st century realities.

Providing incentives to employers who move jobs overseas rather than those who grow them here -- that’s the failure. Allowing health care providers and insurers to jack up prices without regard for the impact on workers and their families, or on employers struggling to keep their heads above water -- that’s the failure. Opposing legislation that would bar employers from firing a worker who needs to take a day off to care for a sick child or parent -- that’s the failure. So is blocking progress on bills that would provide income for workers during family leave. And even worse, telling workers these are personal problems they have to work out on their own -- that’s an outrage.

The current bailout of irresponsible financial actors makes one thing crystal clear: those who demand smaller government are quite happy to have government intervention in their own behalf.

It’s high time we demand government do its job: set and enforce rules that benefit not just the rich and powerful, but the vast majority of American workers and their families.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bravo is an author and activist who teaches women’s studies at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by American Forum

Amendment 48 Goes Too Far

2008-10-23T09:53:00.001-07:00

--Video--

--Commentary--

By Patricia Schroeder

My very first job after graduating from Harvard Law School was as a part-time lawyer for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains in Denver. I was working on cases related to expanding access to birth control to all couples regardless of their marital status. At the time the birth control pill was recently approved as safe, but it was not yet legal in all states for all women. The Supreme Court in 1965 established basic privacy rights to birth control, but only for women who could produce a marriage license.

Fast forward to 2008, 40 years later. In my worst nightmare, it never crossed my mind that voters in Colorado would be considering a constitutional amendment that could outlaw birth control pills. Emergency contraceptives could also be illegal under Proposition 48, a form of birth control that if taken up to 72 hours after intercourse can prevent an unwanted pregnancy, especially used by rape and incest victims.

If you need more reasons to Vote No on 48, chances are you or your own family will be affected if this crazy proposal passes. Like thousands of living women in Colorado in the 1970’s, I struggled with difficult pregnancies. I lost twins during my second pregnancy and almost died during childbirth. It was a painful time for my family, as it is for all families. I can only imagine how devastating it would have been if government officials had shown up on my doorstep, asking questions about what had happened, was it really a miscarriage? Yet, couples could face that kind of unthinkable government investigation if Colorado voters allow Amendment 48 to pass.

If you don’t believe it could happen, just take a look at the plain language of the Amendment. It would amend the Colorado constitution to grant, for the first time, inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law to fertilized eggs. Even the proponents of the Amendment admit they don’t know all the possible ramifications.

Would couples struggling to get pregnant be allowed to use in vitro fertilization, which depends on fertilizing more eggs than a woman can carry to term? Would common birth control methods, such as the Pill, IUDs, the Patch, and the Ring, be outlawed because they operate by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus?

Could child welfare agencies be called to investigate abuse of a fertilized egg? Would a fertilized egg have standing to sue a woman for getting chemotherapy for cancer because it might be harmed? Amendment 48 would open more than 20,000 statutes and regulations to re-interpretation by the courts and lawyers. Almost every area of the law would be affected, including criminal law, family law, trusts and estates, elder law, tort law, juvenile law, health law, and business law.

In this presidential election year, Coloradans will decide one of the most competitive senate races in the country, several strongly contested congressional races, and as many as a dozen statewide ballot initiatives. There are a large number of questions on the ballot this fall, and many of the issues are complicated. But it doesn’t take a constitutional scholar, a medical ethicist or a genius to see that Amendment 48 is ridiculous. Coloradans have rejected these extreme positions before and must do so again.

Amendment 48 is not a homegrown initiative. National groups such as The American Life League, Lifeguard, and the Thomas More Law Center are carrying out a multi-state strategy with the ultimate goal of overturning Roe v. Wade. In addition to Colorado, they tried to get similar amendments on the ballot in Georgia, Montana, and Oregon, but failed. These outside groups are hoping, in Colorado, that the Amendment will sneak through the clutter of a crowed ballot. They are counting on you to be distracted and not to focus on the full implications of Amendment 48.

Well, they are forgetting that Coloradans are independent thinkers. Coloradans believe that they and their neighbors should have the ability to plan when they want to start a family, decide when they are ready to become parents, and make other important life decisions. By establishing constitutional rights from the moment of fertilization, Amendment 48 would eliminate a woman’s right to make personal, private decisions about her own health care, in consultation with her doctor and her family.

Years ago, when I was asked how I could be both a mother and a Congresswoman, I replied, “I have a brain and a uterus and I use both.” On November 4, I urge Coloradans to use their brains and protect women’s uteruses. Vote no on Amendment 48.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schroeder represented Colorado’s First Congressional District from 1973 to 1996.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 10/08

Clean Energy Initiative Works for Missouri

2008-10-21T10:03:00.000-07:00

By Erin Noble

This election Missouri voters will have the opportunity to secure clean, renewable energy and more energy independence for our state. Backed by the names of 163,000 Missourians, a statewide Clean Energy Initiative has been certified by the Secretary of State and will appear on the November ballot as Proposition C.

The initiative requires the investor-owned utilities Ameren, Kansas City Power & Light, Aquila, and Empire to obtain 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2021. The initiative defines renewable energy as wind, solar, biomass (not to be confused with corn ethanol) and small hydropower.

A vast majority of Missourians support the Clean Energy Initiative because Proposition C works for our economy, for Missouri schools, for public health and for the environment, while protecting consumers from high-energy costs. Kansas City Power & Light also announced its support earlier this year, joining a diverse coalition of labor, public health, environmental and faith-based organizations that endorse Proposition C, including the United Steelworkers, Restoring Eden - Christians for Environmental Stewardship, and Republicans for Environmental Protection.

Twenty-six states have already adopted similar clean energy policies and are currently benefiting from cleaner, cheaper electricity created through renewable energy projects. Their success has paved the way for Missouri’s own Clean Energy Initiative.

With Missouri’s abundant renewable resources and strength in the technology sector, our state is poised to become a national leader in clean energy. That means developing the technology behind clean energy, building the infrastructure to support it, manufacturing the components to drive it, and providing the workforce to run it -- all jobs that will revitalize Missouri’s economy.

This opportunity comes as good news as total employment in the manufacturing industry in Missouri declines. Investment in clean energy connects our industrial base to a sustainable future and creates Missouri manufacturing jobs. Proposition C will further stimulate our state’s economy by adding tax revenue locally as well as statewide. As already evidenced by the wind farms built in Missouri in the past few years, clean energy developments have a direct, positive impact on local school districts. Last September, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote about the success of a local wind farm on in Gentry County. According to the article, “The 9,000-acre Bluegrass Ridge Farm is slated to pay more than $500,000 in property taxes next year to Gentry County, the largest share of which will go to the King City School District.”

Eighty-two percent of Missouri’s electricity currently comes from polluting coal-fired power plants. Particulate matter from coal power plants is linked to asthma and lung disease. Coal plants also emit mercury a toxic metal that causes developmental brain defects in children. In fact, women and children are warned to avoid eating fish from many Missouri waters due to mercury contamination. Under Proposition C, clean energy derived from wind and solar power will begin to replace fossil fuels for a cleaner, healthier future for Missouri families and the environment.

Because of the increasing costs of fossil fuels and the likely imposition of constraints on greenhouse gas emissions, Proposition C would produce net savings to electricity customers over time as clean energy begins to replace coal. As an added guarantee, the Clean Energy Initiative includes an ongoing rate cap that provides the best protection for consumers than any other state. The bottom line: Proposition C will protect ratepayers from impending spikes in the costs of fossil fuels, saving Missouri consumers a cumulative total of $331 million over the next 20 years.

In November, Missourians will have the opportunity to choose clean, renewable energy and take a critical first step towards a secure energy future. Proposition C, the Clean Energy Initiative, represents a true win-win situation for all Missourians as we lessen our dependence on out-of-state coal and gain critical new jobs, new businesses and new revenues for Missouri.

It’s time for Missouri to join the 26 states that have already enacted a Renewable Energy Standard and are reaping the benefits of energy independence and economic growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noble is Energy Policy and Outreach Coordinator for the Missouri Coalition for the Environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Missouri Forum. 10/08

Affirmative Action: The Numbers Don’t Lie

2008-10-20T10:06:00.000-07:00

By Deirdre Bowen , J.D., Ph.D

On November 4, Coloradoans are being asked to vote on the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative which proposes, among other things, to ban affirmative action in college admissions. Make no mistake in thinking that this proposal supports equality. Passage of Amendment 46 would be a giant step backwards.

The campaign incorrectly asserts that passage of similar anti-affirmative action initiatives in California, Washington and Michigan did not end in the dire results that opponents of such bans predicted. Ask the under-represented minority students who attend schools in those states if they agree.

A recent national study I conducted of 335 high achieving under-represented minority students majoring in the hard sciences from 33 states shows grim results for those students attending schools in the aftermath of anti-affirmative action campaigns.

Asked whether they had encountered overt racism from other students, 43 percent of students who attended school in California, Washington, Michigan and Florida where affirmative action is banned said “Yes.” Less than half of that number (20 percent) of students who attend schools in states that allow for race-based admissions answered similarly. Yet, anti-affirmative action supporters argue that such policies are outdated because racial issues no longer exist in America. They also maintain that banning affirmative action will lead to equality for all students.

Why, then, are minority students, who have been admitted under the exact same criteria as other students, almost twice as likely to have their qualifications questioned (46 percent) compared to students who attend schools in states that use race based admissions (25 percent)? Anti-affirmative action proponents claim race-based admissions increases resentment. In fact, the opposite is true. Banning affirmative action leads to suspicion and doubt.

It gets worse. While 80 percent of under-represented minority students ranked their ability to succeed as high, regardless of the state in which they attend school, substantially more students in anti-affirmative action states felt pressure to succeed because of their race (74 percent) than students in affirmative action states (40 percent). In addition, 31 percent of students in anti-affirmative action states as opposed to 19 percent of students in affirmative action states felt faculty had lower expectations of them compared to non-minority students.

But those wishing to ban affirmative action want us to believe that the use of race in admissions leads minorities to think that they can’t succeed on their merits. Once again, the numbers don’t support such a claim. Minorities don’t question themselves when affirmative action is present. Instead, far more whites question minorities’ merits when affirmative action is not present.

In light of this, many more minority students in anti-affirmative action states think race based admissions are necessary for minorities to get ahead (55 percent), compared to those students attending schools in states that do allow race based admissions (32 percent). Recall, these are students who did not benefit from affirmative action policies when they applied to school. It is the treatment they endure during their four years in higher education that leads minority students to question whether they are operating on a level playing field.

It may come as no surprise then, that after enduring at least four years of increased hostility despite the absence of “racial preferences,” only 3 percent of students in states that banned affirmative action versus 21 percent of students in race-based admissions states agree with this statement: Faculty and students no longer think minorities can only get into college with the help of affirmative action.

Furthermore, 20 percent of students in affirmative action states versus 40 percent of students in anti-affirmative states plan to investigate graduate school admissions policies on race. Not because they believe they will need such policies to get admitted, but to find a less hostile learning environment.

In other words, minorities find more divisiveness on campuses without affirmative action than those with affirmative action, contrary to what supporters of Amendment 46 would like you to believe.

Affirmative action is working, but the job is not yet complete. When minority students are admitted to schools under the same meritocracy as white students, but are disproportionately encountering overt racism, disproportionately having their qualifications questioned, disproportionately feeling pressure to succeed because of their race, and disproportionately perceiving that faculty have lower expectations of them, race still matters.

We now know the effects of doing away with affirmative action. And know this: Amendment 46 is not about gaining civil rights. It is about dismantling them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowen is a professor at Seattle University School of Law. More on this study can be found in her forthcoming article Brilliant Disguise: An Empirical Analysis of the Colorblind Ideal in a Post-Affirmative Action World.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 10/08

Don’t Ignore the Constitution During Election Season

2008-10-17T12:39:00.000-07:00

By Kathleen Taylor

America is in the midst of an election season, nearing an Election Day with what likely will be far-reaching consequences. Public interest is extraordinarily high, and candidates are debating many critical issues. Yet we have heard little or nothing about the Constitution and its Bill of Rights – the touchstone of our individual freedoms.

The most significant words of the U.S. Constitution may be the first three: “We the people.” Not “I the King,” not “I the Grand Religious Leader,” not even “I the elected President.” Our governing structure was created by the people, and ensuring that it works for the people is a continuing legal, moral, and political journey.

All through the centuries, arguments about the Constitution’s meaning have persisted: What does it mean that only Congress can declare war? (Article I) What constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors”? (Article II) Is taking an oath of office with your hand on the Bible a “religious test”? (Article VI) Under which conditions, if any, should explicit sexual language not be considered free speech? (Amendment 1) Is a urine test for drugs an “unreasonable search”? (Amendment 4)

The remarkable characteristic of the Constitution is that it offers bedrock principles—checks and balances, procedures, freedoms, responsibilities, protections—while at the same time responding to the needs of contemporary society. It’s not an accident; the founders wrote it that way on purpose. The Constitution is our civic compass. It points the way for courts, legislatures, and executive administrations. It guides us in times of war and of peace, of boom and of bust, and of everything in-between. It keeps us on the path of fair play, equal treatment, liberty, and security.

Or it does if we’re constantly vigilant.

Over the last two centuries, through activism, dissent, and dedication, citizens have expanded the scope and depth of our liberty. And today, more Americans enjoy the “blessings of liberty” than at any time in history.

Yet, in recent years, our federal government has grown more powerful and secretive, assuming powers it does not rightfully have. Our government has:

spied on Americans without the approval of Congress or the courts;

allowed the CIA to torture and abuse hundreds of people, including Americans, in secret prisons throughout the world;

held prisoners indefinitely without charge;

placed hundreds of thousands of Americans on terrorist watch lists without an explanation or opportunity to appeal; and

restricted the free flow of scientific information and set up barriers to the use of scientific materials.

No matter who wins the election, we must remember that the Constitution applies to everyone. It applies to the least desirable among us and to those with whom we vehemently disagree on matters of politics, religion, or ethics. That’s the tough part. We need to be vigilant for all people, not merely the ones whom society favors.

This election season is an opportunity to think about what the Constitution has given us, as well as what we ourselves can do to make sure it survives—not just in letter, but in spirit. We can consider whether what’s been going on is consistent with the Constitution. We shouldn’t fall into the trap of “Well, it’s not me; it’s that awful other person who’s being tortured/spied upon/denied an attorney/discriminated against/harassed.” Any of us could be that person in the future.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor is executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 10/08

Missouri Should Use Paper Ballots

2008-10-15T09:30:00.000-07:00

By Cynthia Richards

As Election Day nears, it’s hard not having the new political thriller Cassandra, Chanting on my mind. Written by an anonymous “election world insider,” it is about a race to reveal a high-tech plan to fix the upcoming presidential election after warnings about the precariousness of electronic voting have gone unheeded.

The novel’s title is apt. Surely all of us in the election integrity movement who have been speaking out about the dangers of this technology have felt like the mythical Trojan seer. Being dismissed as half-baked lunatics goes with the territory -- no matter how well-founded our concerns are. Recently, however, many states have begun to listen, and have taken bold action to protect the vote. Unfortunately, Missouri isn’t among them.

Missourians for Honest Elections has been working to alert Missouri voters and public officials about the issues surrounding electronic voting for several years. Unlike Cassandra, we don’t have the gift of prophecy. What we have -- not acquired from Apollo but through our own dogged research -- is the gift of facts. The following are some of the most sobering:

Computer scientists have testified that a computer code that would flip an election can be easily written and hidden within an electronic voting machine’s operating code and remain undetected. This could be done during the manufacturing of the machine, or during the creation of software “upgrades” that vendors often say are necessary after the machine has been purchased.

The federal government has never conducted a thorough review of the operating code on any of the voting equipment currently used in the state. Neither has the Missouri Secretary of State’s office, nor any local election board. Even if a rigorous study were done -- which would require permission from the vendor and take months to accomplish -- experts say that it would be next to impossible to discover vote tampering instructions in the tens of thousands of lines of code they would have to scrutinize.

It’s also important to underscore that electronic voting machines currently used in Missouri have been proven to be hackable by voters at the polls. Studies have shown that the physical security of the Sequoia Edge (used in Greene, Cole, Butler and Calloway Counties), the Diebold (now “Premier”) Accuvote TSx (used in the City of St. Louis and Kansas City), and the ES&S iVotronic (used in St. Louis County) all can be quickly and easily bypassed. Moreover, this can be accomplished without any unusual equipment that might alert a poll worker. This should alarm election officials who proudly point to physical security measures they take when the machines are not in use -- such as locked doors -- which they believe are sufficient protection.

Given such vulnerabilities, it’s imperative that we be able to audit election results. However, of the two types of machines used in Missouri -- touch-screen vote counting machines (DREs) and optical scanners -- only optical scanners allow for an audit. That’s because the DRE doesn’t provide a software-independent record of the vote. The “paper trail” on the DRE runs on the same vulnerable software as the machine itself, and voters often neglect to check it. Therefore, election officials have no way of knowing if it is correct. By contrast, with optical scan voting, election officials have recourse to paper ballots that voters have marked by hand. These can be hand-counted for a truly software-independent audit.

Recognizing the risk of using voting equipment that is both subject to tampering and produces unauditable totals, many states have decided to scrap their DREs and use optical scanners exclusively (some deploying one DRE per polling place for the disabled). It would be easy for Missouri to do this too, since we already have enough scanners throughout the state. However, officials in the “Show Me State” seem be waiting for a catastrophe to convince them to make this change.

The Secretary of State’s Elections Division is aware of the disturbing facts presented above. But its response -- to provide “further education” to election officials -- is sadly inadequate. We applaud any effort to better train those who oversee our elections, but this cannot begin to address the issue. Missouri must put a stop to the general use of DREs. There is still time before November. And if this much-needed change does not occur before the election, Missouri voters should implement it themselves en masse by using paper ballots, which will be available at every polling place throughout the state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richards is a steering committee member for Missourians for Honest Elections.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Missouri Forum. 10/08

Which Side Are You On?

2008-10-10T09:28:00.000-07:00

By Ellen Bravo

It can happen anywhere.

Recently, I sat in a room in Milwaukee filled with people clutching Bibles and babies and spewing venom. They were visibly enraged.

Granted, there’s a lot to be angry about these days: the persistence of poverty in our community, the lack of resources for our children’s education, the number of people who can’t afford health care, the gang of hoodlums on Wall Street holding a gun to our heads, the fact that hard-working parents can be fired for staying home to care for a sick child, and the continuing number of soldiers in harm’s way.

But the object of the rage of folks surrounding me wasn’t any of these things. It was the loving, long-term, committed relationships of people who happen to love someone of the same gender.

We were at a Milwaukee school board meeting, debating a resolution to end discrimination in benefits for same-sex couples in non-bargaining unit positions -- estimated to be about 1 percent of staff in those jobs. The cost isn’t very much, especially considering an earlier item on the agenda about the need to retain experienced employees. Treat people right and they’re more likely to stick around.

Opponents weren’t content with expressing disagreement with the proposal. They littered their comments with hateful remarks about real people sitting directly across the aisle or in some cases in the next chair -- people who simply want to build strong families and contribute what they can to their communities and who would certainly have preferred to be spending a warm fall evening playing in the park.

Someone had convinced this group that the loving couples they targeted were responsible for the problems in our society. Somewhere along the way, making life miserable for same-sex partners had become a path to easing the misery in one's own lives.

The angry speakers in the room, apparently without exception, consider themselves to be people of faith. I doubt any of them would condone physical violence against those they railed about. But I couldn’t help thinking how much their words of hate translate every day into acts that demean, diminish and discriminate against people whose chosen (and under-paid) profession is to educate our kids.

The opponents’ words, spoken defiantly in front of their own children -- girls in pinafores and boys with scrubbed faces brandishing signs -- in fact create the climate that leads to more than hurtful words or daily indignities. Their speeches give permission to those who beat people and tie them to a rail to die.

Fortunately, there were a number of others in the room, teachers and parents and a sprinkling of students who’d taken time to voice their support for domestic partner benefits. Among them were three clergy, each of whom reminded the audience that whatever one’s faith, we are called upon to act justly and promote community, not divisiveness.

The proposal passed the committee by one vote. The school board member casting that vote had been wavering on which way to go. Addressing the opponents, he announced his decision: “You swayed me to vote yes.”

His position reminds us that sometimes there is no middle ground. Either we stand with those who spread hate, or we stand on the side of the most basic American values of justice, equality and fairness.

Measures like this are on the ballot in several states and are increasingly coming up in legislatures, city councils and school boards around the country.

Regardless of where it happens, we must stand together to protect justice, equality and fairness for all Americans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bravo is an author and activist who teaches women’s studies at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum 10/08

Where do the Candidates Stand on Women’s Health

2008-10-10T09:21:00.000-07:00

By Suzanne Petroni

We’re in the waning days of the Bush administration and the ideologues are working furiously to get in their last licks. Women, including the most underprivileged and poor in the world, are their target yet again.

A third of the world's population lives on less than $2 a day. The vast majority are women and children. Many are forced into marriage at 10 or 12 years of age. Many have six to 10 children, because they have no access to education or services, and no authority to decide on sexual matters in their marriages. As a result, more than 500,000 women die each year just because they get pregnant: they gave birth too young, too old, too often, or they live too far away from any trained health care provider. And increasingly, they are becoming infected with HIV/AIDS.

Controlling one’s own reproductive decisions is important for all women, but especially for women in poor families. Birth control is a critical component in ensuring that rates of unwanted pregnancy and abortion continue to drop, and that women and their children are able to live healthy lives.

But even as the president and his colleagues prepare to pack up and leave Washington, they’ve continued to find more opportunities to take away these basic women’s rights.

Just recently, the United States Agency for International Development discontinued the provision of contraceptives to Marie Stopes International (MSI), one of the world’s leading family planning organizations. According to MSI, the decision will “seriously disrupt” family planning programs in at least six African countries – Ghana, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe - including one where the organization delivers 25 percent of all family planning services nationally. Women in these countries will be left with few options other than abortion, the majority of which will be unsafe and could very well result in their death or disability.

This is on top of the fact that for the past seven years, President Bush has blocked the congressionally approved U.S. contribution to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). UNFPA works in 140 countries to provide poor women with family planning, maternal and child health, and HIV prevention assistance. This year alone, the U.S. contribution could have helped to prevent up to 2 million unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 unsafe abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, over 77,000 infant and child deaths, and prevented countless women and men from contracting HIV/AIDS.

And of course in one of his first acts as president, Bush restored the Global Gag Rule, severely restricting groups that work in the developing world from providing much-needed family planning assistance. The move forced the closure of health clinics throughout Asia and Africa -- often the only providers of health care in their communities -- leaving millions in need.

But Bush’s apathy towards women isn’t just for those overseas.

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed regulations that would deprive women of the right to make their own informed health care decisions. These regulations would allow doctors, nurses and other health care personnel to refuse to provide services that might offend their conscience. This includes not only the provision of abortion services, from which providers are already exempt under federal law, but could include contraception as well.

While we have made laudable progress in funding the fight against HIV/AIDS abroad, this progress has not been matched at home, where AIDS is now the number one killer of black women between the ages of 25 and 34. It’s not helpful that the federal government forces schools to teach programs that preach abstinence-only-until-marriage and bans discussing condoms, except to exaggerate their failure rates. Over 20 states, including Virginia, have now rejected federal abstinence-only programs, which have proven not only a complete waste of taxpayer funds, but have likely also caused harm to the students who are taught inaccurate information.

In these last few weeks of election season, Virginians should ask candidates for federal office where they stand regarding the health and welfare of vulnerable women.

Do they support the Bush policies of denying women access to contraception and providing young people with dangerous abstinence-only-until-marriage education? Or would they give women and youth the opportunity to live healthy lives and to be free to make their own educated decisions regarding their health?

The women of the world deserve better than what the Bush administration has provided, and the American people deserve wiser, more generous policies in our name.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroni worked on health and women's issues at the U.S. Department of State from 1997 until 2001. She lives in Northern Virginia and manages a program at a foundation in Washington, DC, supporting comprehensive health programs for women and youth in the developing world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Virginia Forum. 10/08

A Mom Before the Prom

2008-10-08T08:53:00.000-07:00

By Cristina Page

Now that the national attention on Bristol Palin's pregnancy is fading (for the time being) it seems the only discussion it inspired was about John McCain's vetting process and, by extension, his decision-making abilities. But there is another far more important subject raised by the 17-year-old's pregnancy. For decades, teen pregnancy has been viewed as a problem, a danger to the children of young mothers and a hurdle to the success of the adolescent mothers.

But recent public displays of contraceptive failure by girls of visibility and means gives the misleading appearance that teen motherhood might be a lifestyle upgrade. Clearly one of the exacerbating factors is that someone like Bristol Palin is part of what feels like a growing trend: the normalizing of teen pregnancy and teen motherhood in the United States. Bristol is not alone in suggesting that to be a 17-year-old mother is not only acceptable, but exciting. Last year Jamie Lynn Spears, Britney's then 16-year-old sister, had her baby. (The Spears', it's worth noting, were proponents of abstinence-only too.) Last year also featured the movie Juno, in which star Ellen Page played a 16-year-old whose quick-wit and sarcasm made her unwanted pregnancy seem as challenging as a bad case of acne. The attention garnered by each of these girls stripped away layers of what had for years been cautions against this very fate.

None of these occasions has prompted examination of the risks and damage caused by teen pregnancy and teen motherhood. And, it should be noted, recent data show that the rate of teen pregnancy in the U.S., which is already the highest in the developed world, is on the rise. The last year witnessed a dramatic 3 percent spike in the number of pubescent parents.

Of course, Bristol, Juno and Jamie Lynn don't exemplify the average American girl confronting unintended pregnancy. And the problem is the average American teen doesn't really know that. The choice the fictional character Juno made, adoption, is almost a fiction these days too. Approximately 1 percent of pregnant teens opt to give a child up for adoption. And then Jamie Lynn Spears is a teen millionaire. Her pregnancy only enhanced her fortune. The first photos of her baby fetched a million dollars. The spotlight on Bristol Palin offers false comfort too. Bristol has resources available to her that none of her pregnant teen counterparts does -- like the secret service, the ultimate nanny.

The average teen girl would be led to believe that teen pregnancy doesn't ruin adolescence, but instead brings lavish amounts of attention, an adoring and adorable teen father, and an endless supply of parental support. The reality for most teen moms could not be more different.

According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, eight in 10 teen fathers do not marry the mother of their first child. Kids without involved fathers are twice as likely to drop out of school, twice as likely to abuse alcohol or drugs, twice as likely to end up in jail, and two to three times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems. Children who live apart from their fathers are also five times more likely to be poor than children with both parents at home.

Teen mothers, typically left to go it alone, are less likely to complete the education necessary to qualify for a well-paying job -- in fact, parenthood is the leading cause of school drop out among teen girls. College then becomes the remotest of possibilities. Less than two percent of mothers who have children before age 18 complete college by the age of 30.

Too often heartbreaking sacrifices are also foisted on the child of a teenage mom. The children of teen mothers are more likely to be born prematurely at low birthweight compared to children of older mothers, which raises the probability of infant death and disease, mental retardation, and mental illness. Children of teen mothers are 50 percent more likely to repeat a grade and are less likely to complete high school. The children of teen parents also suffer higher rates of abuse and neglect (two times higher).

Teen girls and their children are not the only ones paying dearly. Teen childbearing in the United States costs taxpayers (federal, state, and local) approximately $9.1 billion each year. Most of the costs are associated with services to address the negative consequences detailed above.

The issue of teen pregnancy needs to be taken seriously and there's no better time than an election year to demand that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page is the author of How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex and spokesperson for BirthControlWatch.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 10/08

When Your Child is Disciplined at School, Get Involved!

2008-10-01T09:04:00.000-07:00

By Rebecca Lightsey

The excitement and optimism that accompany a new school year can fade quickly when a disciplinary problem surfaces at school.

School discipline is a serious matter -- particularly when it means that a student will be removed from the regular classroom for a long period of time, or when the court becomes involved.

It is serious for the student, whose permanent school or court record may be affected; it is serious for the parent, who must make sure that behavior problems are not undermining their child’s capacity to learn and that the school is applying discipline appropriately and equitably; and serious for the school, which must maintain a safe learning environment while constantly evaluating the long-term impacts of its disciplinary policies.

Texas Appleseed has researched the impact of school discipline as part of a larger School-to-Prison Pipeline project and found that:

Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs, where students are sent for an average of 30 to 40 days for misbehavior, have five times the dropout rate of mainstream schools.

African-American students and special education students are significantly overrepresented in discretionary disciplinary referrals -- sometimes at rates three or four times their representation in the overall school population.

Where a child attends school -- and not the nature of the offense -- is the greatest predictor of a student’s receiving a disciplinary referral.

Studies show that there are fewer disciplinary referrals and fewer incidents of violence in schools where parents are involved. Here are a few steps that parents can take to stay involved.

Make sure your child understands behavior expectations at school outlined in the Student Code of Conduct -- and what can happen if he or she breaks the rules. The state requires that schools discipline students for serious misbehavior (such as aggravated assault or bringing drugs or a weapon to school), however schools have discretion to discipline for other problem behaviors listed in the Student Code of Conduct.

Find out if your school practices “zero tolerance.” Serious misbehaviors cannot be tolerated if they undermine school safety and students’ ability to learn. However, some schools adopt a “zero tolerance” approach to any infraction. It is important that Student Codes of Conduct specify that intent, self-defense, and disciplinary history be considered in decisions to discipline a student. Parents can urge schools to adopt disciplinary policies that take these factors into account.

Remember that due process counts. You have a right to be informed in a timely manner when your child is suspended, expelled or referred to an alternative school -- and you and your child must be given an opportunity to present your side at a school conference or disciplinary hearing. If you have been given a reasonable opportunity to participate, the school can hold a disciplinary hearing without you.

Neither behavior problems nor disciplinary action should derail a child’s education. Parents should work with the school and the Disciplinary Alternative Education Program to ensure that students assigned to alternative schools do not fall behind and consider dropping out.

Individual Education Plans (IEP) must be followed for special education students. Make sure that failure to follow an IEP did not cause or exacerbate your child’s behavior problems -- and that any alternative placement does not jeopardize your child’s education or emotional health.

Keep track of fines, community service and/or court dates if your child is ticketed or arrested at school. Failure to comply fully can result in additional fines or impact your child’s court record.

Throughout the disciplinary process, it is important to remain calm and open-minded and to communicate with the school. Ultimately, a child in trouble learns most from observing how the important adults in his or her life -- both at home and at school -- handle these kinds of challenges.

To download Texas Appleseed’s report on School Discipline, visit their website at http://www.texasappleseed.net/.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lightsey is executive director of Texas Appleseed
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Texas Lone Star Forum. 10/08

Protecting The Vote: Live From Main Street Columbus

2008-09-29T12:50:00.000-07:00

By Laura Flanders

Voter registration deadlines are just over a week away in many states. Polls open in just over a month. In an election that could well be decided by new voters, voter registration efforts are in overdrive. But signing people up might be the easy part: after that, there's voting. As the last two elections have shown, just showing up at the polls isn't a guarantee of a smooth ride to the ballot box.

In 2000 and 2004, all across the country, thousands of voters were removed from the rolls, without their knowledge, in official purges of voter lists. On Election Day in 2004, boxes of registrations remained unprocessed in at least two cities we know about -- Cleveland and Toledo, Ohio. On the radio that election night, I received calls from Columbus voters who had stood for hours in line because of a shortage of voting machines in the inner city, even as, in nearby wealthy suburbs, voters were able to cast their votes in a matter of minutes. As one caller put it, "Jim Crow isn't dead."

Election protection and voting rights should be central to any conversation about the '08 vote. But a lot of tough questions are getting lost in horse-race coverage. And many voters are wondering -- again -- if their vote will be counted. In contrast to most advanced democracies, the right to vote isn't conveyed automatically with citizenship or coming of age in the United States. Voters have to prove themselves and there are no end to the challenges, from felon disenfranchisement laws to monolingual ballots and a myriad of ever-changing rules which differ from election to election and district to district. Come voting day, voters rely on minimally-trained poll-workers overseeing a myriad of voting systems. Disturbing doubts remain about the security of electronic voting and the privately-owned technology many districts rely on to tally votes.

Fed up with waiting for officials or Parties to do the work, this year, as never before, citizens' groups, and voting rights organizations are taking early action to protect the vote. A few months back, national voting rights groups charged officials in Kansas, Michigan and Louisiana of illegally purging voter lists. Voters whose homes are in foreclosure are also concerned that their status might be used at the precinct to challenge their right to vote. The states with the highest foreclosure rates, Ohio, Michigan, Florida and Colorado, are also swing states where the election could hinge on tiny margins. Meanwhile, in Michigan, the ACLU has just filed a federal lawsuit against state electoral officials over statewide voter purge programs they claim would "disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Michigan voters" -- many of them college students. Thanks to independent reporting and activist organizing, the Department of Veterans Affairs was recently forced to reverse its policy that would have stopped voter registration drives at hundreds of VA hospitals serving injured and homeless vets.

While the media focus on the candidates, voting rights advocates are focusing on the future of our democracy. It’s falling to nonprofit outfits like the Advancement Project to distribute state-specific "know the facts" palm cards to poll workers in many states. And organizers are fanning out. Twenty-three states allow early voting. Ohio has a "golden week" -- September 30 to October 6 -- in which people can register and vote all in the same day. The organizers recommend voting early. Avoid the lines and the worst of the chaos.

Will citizen activism decide an election? It just might.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flanders is the host of GRITtv and Live From Main Street. Live From Main Street Columbus: Will Your Vote Count? is a virtual town hall exploring how the issues of voting rights and election security affect every day Americans. For more a full schedule of events, visit http://www.livefrommainstreet.org/.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 9/08

What’s That Smell? Burning Trash Isn’t Clean Fuel

2008-09-25T09:15:00.000-07:00

By Debra Fastino and Lee Ketelsen

It’s commonly known that burning anything isn’t good for the environment, because whatever you incinerate doesn’t actually disappear. Wafting through the air, pollutants often become even greater health hazards. That is why Massachusetts took great strides toward a cleaner environment when it imposed a moratorium on new incinerators in 1989. The state made the right decision to emphasize recycling and waste reduction, which is far better for the environment and the economy than burning garbage.

The policy still makes sense today, considering what we know about climate change and the need for clean energy. However, Governor Patrick’s administration is now looking into lifting the ban on new incinerators. Such a move would tarnish our state's efforts to clean up the environment with clouds of toxic smoke.

State environmental officials, under the justification of looking for alternative energy sources, are investigating a new generation of incinerators. These so-called trash-to-energy facilities include "biomass" incinerators. Trouble is these modern-era incinerators pose similar public health hazards and drawbacks as the traditional ones. There is no evidence that the new trash-to-energy technologies can work or are environmentally safe.

Trash-burning facilities are by definition a dirty technology, creating pollution and contributing to climate change. Waste-to-energy is actually a waste of energy. Burning trash is not a renewable energy source – it ends up costing more to generate electricity than at a coal, nuclear or hydropower plant.

Look at where the seven currently operating mass-burn trash incinerators in the state are located -- Agawan, Haverhill, Millbury, North Andover, Pittsfield, Rochester, Saugus. They can inflict pollution and blight on poorer, more urban communities who generally lack the clout to fight off their placement. Not to mention the fact that building more incinerators would only undercut successful recycling and waste reduction efforts by destroying, rather than reusing, high volumes of valuable materials. Communities could be faced with the prospect of having to burn recyclable materials in order to meet an incinerator's required level of input.

Recycling and waste reduction is cleaner, saves energy and natural resources, and creates many more jobs in the Commonwealth than new incinerator technologies ever will. An aggressive statewide public education campaign can boost recycling efforts, the same way public education helped cut down on tobacco use. The state already raises the money needed for such a campaign, from uncollected 5-cent bottle deposits, to the tune of $20 million to $25 million per year. A portion of that would pay for a vibrant waste reduction and recycling program -- if state officials agree to use the money for its original purpose.

Governor Patrick’s passage of the Green Communities and Global Warming Solutions Act was a step in the right direction for green energy. The Green Communities Act increases energy efficiency programs, allows for renewable energy to participate on a more even playing field, and creates incentives for communities to invest in green initiatives. The Global Warming Solutions Act requires the Commonwealth to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the science-based levels, 80 percent by 2050.

So we are surprised the governor would consider undoing all his great work for a cleaner environment by lifting the ban on incinerators. We hope that he will follow his own clean energy example and strongly support a renewed focus on recycling and waste reduction, and consign burning garbage to the trash heap of bad ideas.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fastino is an organizer and co-director of the Coalition for Social Justice. Ketelsen is New England Director of Clean Water Action.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2008 by the Massachusetts Forum.

Revitalizing Our Communities and the Environment

2008-09-24T09:24:00.000-07:00

By Susan Estep and Bethanie Walder

After all those fights over “jobs versus the environment,” people have finally realized that the color of money and the color of environmental protection are on and the same: green.

The emerging green economy is all the rage in political and media circles, and especially in discussions about how to fix the ailing economy while also fixing some of our energy/climate problems. But this new economy, at least as currently envisioned, is quite urban, and energy focused. What about rural America? What about forests, rivers, grasslands, and deserts that need restoration, and the economic benefits of that?

We’ve spent more than a century extracting resources from our public lands and it’s time to invest some resources back into these special places. In addition to putting rural people back to work healing the land, expanding the green economy to include restoration of our natural environment will also restore clean drinking water, hunting/fishing opportunities, rural property values and other outdoor recreational access.

People who live in rural communities can already clearly understand the connection between restoring a century-old building for a new use and reclaiming an old mine site or road in order to have clean, clear drinking water. It’s these types of activities that make up a restoration economy.

Revitalizing community assets and reclaiming natural resource assets bring benefits to workers, communities, wildlife, wildlands and water quality. The restoration economy is about creating high-wage, high-skill jobs for the environment, and getting rural communities past the old resource extraction, "jobs versus the environment" debate.

Three primary things will help create a restoration economy:

Rebuilding community infrastructure helps maintain vital, vibrant, welcoming communities. A well-maintained rural downtown can prompt private residents to also invest in upgrading or maintaining their private property, thus improving the overall conditions of the community.

Investing in projects to restore degraded agricultural lands and provide more opportunities for local farming can ensure access to high-quality, lower-cost, safe, local food that does not destroy the very land that supports that food production.

Restoring natural areas -- forests, deserts, grasslands, watersheds -- is an investment that will provide jobs while also ensuring that our public lands are as resilient as possible to the unknown impacts of climate change. Reclaiming unneeded logging roads, for example, provides high-wage, high-skill jobs to excavator and bulldozer operators -- the same people who helped build those roads. And reclaiming roads also restores clean drinking water, excellent wildlife habitat, and plentiful fisheries for residents and tourists alike.

Investing in restoration makes sense during this difficult economic downturn. During the Great Depression, President Roosevelt created the Civilian Conservation Corps to put Americans back to work and rebuild local economies. As Congress discusses new economic stimulus, they should consider packages that provide jobs to people, instead of just sending them one-time “stimulus checks” to spend at big box stores. An economy built on long-lasting, well-paying jobs can be sustainable. Any future stimulus should focus on creating new “green-collar” jobs that restore our natural environment (making it more resilient to the impacts of climate change); rebuild local, sustainable, community agriculture; and retrofit buildings to be more energy efficient and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Current discussions about green jobs, however, tend to focus almost exclusively on energy/climate connections.

But in natural areas, restoration is happening on the ground: In March, we stood atop a bluff, with about 500 other people, watching enormous excavators remove the Milltown Dam. As the excavator operators opened a bypass channel, we watched the Clark Fork and Blackfoot Rivers run free for the first time in 100 years. The temporary channel turned into a massive river as what remained in the reservoir emptied and the dam became irrelevant to these rivers. But the Milltown Dam remains extremely relevant to the communities that surround it -- as hundreds of workers have found fulltime, albeit temporary, employment on this $100 million restoration project. The multi-year project will leave Missoula and the surrounding communities with more jobs and a stronger economy, clean water (100 years of toxic mining waste were stuck behind the unstable dam and are now being removed from the site), and restored rivers that will dramatically increase property and amenity values in the area.

It would be great to hear elected officials bring restoration into the green jobs discussion. It’s already happening, just at a limited scale. It’s time to invest in urban and rural green jobs alike and put people to work restoring and revitalizing our communities and our environment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estep is a member of the Women Donors Network. Walder is executive director of Wildlands CPR, a national organization working to restore healthy watersheds and rural jobs by building a strong restoration economy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 9/08

All Chicagoans Should Benefit from Olympics, Not Just a Privileged Few

2008-09-23T09:46:00.000-07:00

By Jay Travis and Diane Doherty

Eulonda Cooper is in the eye of the storm. A spirited, hard-working mother of four who lives in an affordable rental unit in the Kenwood Oakland community, she is being denied the safety and security that any hard-working American deserves. She sits on the local school council of two elementary schools and is a member of the Kenwood Oakland Community Organization.

In a community that has rapidly gentrified since the mid-90s, she is concerned about the impact the Olympics would have on the price of housing in her neighborhood. Many of the people she knew in the neighborhood are gone; priced out due to escalating rents or moved out due to the CHA Plan for Transformation, which resulted in the loss of over 3,000 rental units. "The Olympics cannot be used as a tool to finally push all of us out. I want my children to live in stable, quality housing in this neighborhood." For her, the fear that the Olympics could mean displacement...is very real.

The convenient opinion is that the people who have lived in this community for decades -- hard-working, law-abiding citizens who work as bus drivers, single parents, teachers, nurses aides, security guards, police officers and other honorable professions...need to go. The Olympics are an opportunity to finally invest in the communities that have suffered through municipal, state, and federal disinvestment.

We have been concerned about this issue for a long time. Community groups have organized forums since January, and residents have clearly expressed their concerns around being left out of the Olympic process. Community members have met with local aldermen, the department of planning, and Chicago 2016 representatives to express these concerns, but to no avail.

This led to the formation of Communities for an Equitable Olympics 2016 (CEO 2016), a coalition of community and labor organizations, working together to win enforceable community benefits in conjunction with Chicago’s Olympics bid. Members include Action Now, American Friends Service Committee, Brighton Park Neighborhood Coalition, Centers for New Horizons, Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, Grassroots Collaborative, Illinois Hunger Coalition, Kenwood Oakland Community Organization, MAGIC, Metropolitan Alliance of Congregations, Service Employees International Union Healthcare IL/IN. We have come together to form a broad and deep coalition of South Side and city-wide groups organizing for justice and equity.

One major area of concern is Chicago’s plan to build the Olympic Village at the site of Michael Reese Hospital. Mere minutes from downtown, the 37-acre plot represents a potential bonanza for the city and developers and the prospect of hosting the games provides the city with an excuse to secure the prime lakefront property. The plans for Michael Reese set the stage for a land grab that will push out low-income residents and seniors in the area. The city plans on building over 7,000 units of housing at the site -- regardless of whether we win the bid for the games -- sending local property taxes and rents skyrocketing. With all that’s at stake, we know that it will take a broad and deep coalition to move our efforts forward -- to ensure that South Side communities not only survive in the coming years, but thrive.

Members of CEO 2016 have been intensively organizing and strategizing around the core platform of our campaign, which stipulates that affordable housing, living wage jobs and workers’ rights, transportation, public subsidy accountability, public space, education and public safety are among the issues that the city and Chicago 2016 need to address. To effectively do this, the community must be at the table. In a true mixed-income community, the institutions that impact our quality of life must be a high level of efficiency for all residents, regardless of race or economic status. As a society, we have failed at this.

In the last few weeks, over 500 community residents organized by CEO 2016 have come out in support of a process that incorporates the voices of the communities that will be directly impacted by the games. And that number is growing, as grassroots leaders insist on a seat at the table. Chicago cannot develop billion-dollar plans for the South and West Sides without any real community input.

So, in the Mid-South community that has experienced 12 school closings since 1997 and is being rapidly gentrified, the Olympics should not be used as a tool to complete the process of removing working and low-income families from the neighborhood. In essence, the Chicago 2016 Olympic bid is about the future of African-American and Latino families on the South Side of Chicago who are in jeopardy of being swept out as Chicago expands the Loop south.

Every Chicagoan should benefit from the Olympics, not just a privileged few.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travis is executive director of the Kenwood Oakland Community Organization and Doherty is chair of Grassroots Collaborative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Illinois Editorial Forum.

Building a Foundation for Success

2008-09-22T10:08:00.000-07:00

By Sharen Hausmann

A new school year is underway and with it brings continued hope and excitement, particularly for the youngest of learners.

For many children though, that excitement is replaced by nervousness -- they are not ready for school.

By most national estimates, about a third of the children who are starting school aren’t ready. Unfortunately, by the time they reach third grade, many of these students will still be falling short of what their schools expect them to be learning.

As they make their way through grade school, middle school, and high school, many under-achieving youngsters will continue to lag behind what their classmates are achieving and their schools are requiring. Worse yet, they will fall far short of what the job market will be demanding at a time when the new economy places a premium on high skills and the ability to adapt to new technologies.

Helping these youngsters get on the path to success is a crucial challenge for Georgia educators. Fortunately, research points the way to solutions. Neuroscience demonstrates that the brain’s development is nearly 90 percent complete by the time a child is five. Moreover, the most rapid brain development takes place during the years from birth to age three. Educational research reveals that children who have benefited from excellent early care and pre-kindergarten education programs are well-prepared for school and do better in the first three grades. And economists report that investments in children’s early years will reap great returns in reduced drop-out and retention rates, increased graduation rates, and, eventually, improved worker productivity.

This research explains why it is so important to ease the transition from preschool to kindergarten by making sure that children are ready for school and schools are ready for children. Acting on this insight, the United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta’s Early Learning Division -- Smart Start -- is working to improve the transition to school for children from three to six years old. In May, 2003, Smart Start was awarded $4 million over five years by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation for a new initiative -- SPARK Georgia -- that gets children ready for school and schools ready for young children.

SPARK Georgia works to create partnerships to serve vulnerable children from 3 to 6 and their families in communities of Central DeKalb, Norcross and Gwinnett. With guidance from early learning providers, educators, policymakers, business leaders, and community members, the initiative uses several strategies to serve all of the adults involved in caring for children.

In order to prepare children for school, parent educators conduct home visits to family, friends, and neighbor caregivers. They offer pointers for early learning activities. They conduct health, vision, dental, and literacy screenings. And they offer appropriate books and toys to enhance school readiness, and connect caregivers in small groups. Nearly half of the children and families served speak a language other than English, including Spanish, Vietnamese, Kurdish, Somalian, and Arabic.

In order to prepare schools for children, SPARK Georgia organizes Partnerships for School Readiness Councils to link caregivers, school personnel, and communities to work toward a smooth and successful transition to school and improve the culture within the schools. Funded by the federal Early Learning Opportunities Act, the Refugee and Immigrant Family and Child Project provides English as a Second Language classes to caregivers.

In addition to families, communities and schools, the project also works with the business community. For instance, Smart Start Georgia recently received a grant to expand literacy programs and screenings and provide additional materials to caregivers in the targeted communities, using literacy strategies and professional development for early care professionals, parents, and other caregivers. Funding from private foundations will also increase the number of caregivers and children served by the Learning Van, staffed by child care specialists who demonstrate and loan educational toys, books, and equipment to caregivers in a variety of settings including apartment complexes.

In order to succeed in school and in life Georgia’s children must have a strong foundation for learning. Encouraging children to play and explore helps them learn and develop socially, emotionally, physically and intellectually. Programs like SPARK Georgia will go a long way to build that foundation and should be expanded state-wide so all children can benefit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hausmann is vice president of early learning for Smart Start, the early childhood division, United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Georgia Forum. 9/08

Important Life Decisions Are Private Family Matters

2008-09-18T06:50:00.000-07:00

By Friedrike Merck

Sarah Palin and I have a lot in common. We were athletes and both became hockey Moms, we have held public office in small towns, we like to fish, (I am proud of my marksmanship skills but just can't seem to rustle up what it takes to shoot for sport one of God's creatures), we both have a can-do attitude and serious spiritual lives but we disagree when it comes to matters of privacy and family planning.

Maybe it's my independent New England roots or the tolerant Quaker in me that planted the simple belief that personal choices across a range of important life decisions, like when to have children, are absolutely a private family matter. The choices other people make about the size and timing of their family unit is never anyone else's business and to talk about it, where I come from, is called gossip. Neither is it anyone else's business how a family chooses to cope with the issues of dignity in dying, that's morbid prying. It is no one's right, in this country at least, to insist that there is only one way to believe in or to name a Higher Power, that there is only one way to honor the sanctity of life, that's the kind of holier than thou attitude that drove our ancestors from distant lands to this place of hope for individual liberty.

Lately we've heard the phrase "it's a private family matter" being used to protect the innocent children of candidates, which I am all for, but it has sounded more like a shield to prevent the media from talking about politicians' parading families than it does a sincere belief that we should all be protected from the uninvited bright lights, the opinions and will of others, including the government. I must have missed something along the way but, since when did women's medical decisions, and we women know that pregnancy is both a spiritual and medical condition, stop being a "private family matter?"

Instead of honoring the private discussions between women and their families, between families and their doctors, between people and their God, self appointed groups want to dictate the final say in matters they have no business being in. This dangerous meddling is happening in many areas of people's lives, from government intrusion into the private discussion of when a member of one's family should die to leaders who profess to know the mysteries of life itself. From birth control and emergency contraception availability to deciding whether an unplanned pregnancy should be continued our privacy is being taken from us because someone else claims to know better about how we should conduct our lives. At every step there are individuals, strangers, trying to gain control over our "private family matters" and I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Republicans and Democrats polled by the Women Donors Network show overwhelming support for allowing people to control their own fates in hospitals and at the doctor's office. Just as no one tells us which church to attend, which car to buy or how many guns we can own, we don't want to be limited in our medical choices. Voters across the country strongly believe that they should be able to make their own important life decisions for themselves and their families. A majority of Americans believe that government's role is to provide information, access and services to ensure that we can make these choices responsibly. If politicians can rightly demand a safe space for their "private family matters" then they ought to afford us the same courtesy and keep their noses out of other people's business and bedrooms.

As the next weeks unfold, voters across America should know where candidates stand, not just about "choice", the now polarizing code word for abortion, but more about candidates positions' on a range of common but important life decisions. We must hear the thinking of those hoping to lead this country on critical topics like affordable and readily available birth control, accurate sexuality education and how they define and defend the lines of decency and privacy not only for themselves but for all of us. Yes, the mother from Alaska and I share many similarities but regarding important life decisions, personal family matters, I only claim to know what's best for me and my family.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Merck is a portrait artist, a member of the Women Donors Network and a grateful mother
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 9/08

Using Pseudo-science At HHS

2008-09-16T13:14:00.000-07:00

By Kathleen C. Barry

I thought the battle for women's rights had largely been won but the extremists are coming out of the closet with their real agenda, the assault on birth control. This fringe has won converts for its warped pseudo-science at the Department of Health and Human Services, where a proposed rule would codify that anyone receiving federal funding could not be required to provide birth control under the basis that it might violate their religious views.

The new rules would mean that all health care providers -- including pharmacists and medical staff at hospitals and clinics, medical schools and even family planning centers -- could refuse to provide all forms of contraception. Women’s rights are being put at the whim of their providers who could now claim a “conscience” clause to refuse to cover birth control in medical plans or provide pregnancy prevention to rape victims.

It seems the debate over women's reproductive rights has come full circle, so that women are once again forced to argue for their right of self-determination. Every day, Americans face important life decisions, with outcomes that will reverberate for years: how to afford health care; how to die with dignity, how to talk to teenagers about sex; when and what kind of contraceptives to use; when to have a baby and whether it is safe to have more than one child. This debate is really about more than contraception, it's about life decisions and whether women get to make them for themselves.

How did this happen? With nine out of every ten American women using contraceptives, you'd think we were out of the Dark Ages. It's a small minority of activists who are pushing for these extreme measures. The Women Donors Network, together with Communications Consortium Media Center, conducted research and found that 91 percent of voters agreed that couples should have access to birth control. Voters believe, by 83 percent, that we should respect people's ability to make their own life decisions, including when to have a child -- and not impose our values and views on them.

The extremists' agenda is designed to strip woman of self-determination. We cannot allow the intractable debate on pregnancy termination to overshadow our right to prevent a pregnancy. Under the proposed HHS rule anyone -- the doctor, the pharmacist, the receptionist -- could deny a woman the right to contraception.

Given that contraceptives prevent unintended pregnancies, you would think that the anti-abortion crowd would be the biggest promoter of birth control. Not so, because their real target is to end family planning. It's time to move on to the critical issues about reproductive health and sexuality that face all of us every day -- issues such as access to contraception and cervical cancer prevention. Let's agree to disagree about abortion, but certainly prevention of unwanted pregnancy can be a common ground goal most Americans can agree upon.

The public has only until September 25 to send comments to HHS about the proposed rule. Send your comments to consciencecomment@hhs.gov. The proposed HHS rule should die a swift death and the anti-women activists should back off, allowing the rest of us to move on.
-----------------------------------
Barry is a board member of The Women Donors Network, a national network of progressive women donors, and a founding member of their Reproductive Rights Initiative.

Georgia is Pushing Gun Law Boundaries in Wrong Direction

2008-09-16T10:26:00.000-07:00

By Alice Johnson

A few months ago, Georgia made it legal for people with permits to carry firearms in a concealed manner into state parks and recreational areas, onto public transportation and into restaurants that serve alcohol.

The General Assembly passed these very serious public safety provisions even though no committee ever held a meeting about them. There was no scrutiny by any professional law enforcement personnel or restaurant owners, never any opportunity for public comment.

The language was added in a conference committee on the last day of the session -- a committee that met without posting any notices, in a room in the basement of the Capitol, without openness or oversight. And 60 percent of legislators voted for it two hours before the session ended on the most hectic and chaotic day, as the clock wound toward midnight and the end of the General Assembly for another year.

Currently, the Senate Firearms Law Study Committee is preparing to remove what is left of the “public gathering” section that the new law decimated -- making it possible for firearms to be carried in churches, in schools, on college campuses and in government-owned buildings. Their plan is to allow carrying concealed handguns anywhere, at any time, by anyone who can pass a fingerprint background check and pay the $15 application fee the state requires.

Does it make sense to do these things? Is there a public safety imperative that justifies these changes in the law? Can we trust a permit holder to shoot straight, know safety rules and practice emotional good judgment when no training is required to get a permit? Why do these kinds of crazy bills get passed?

At the first meeting of the Senate firearms study committee only one person was allowed to testify about gun policy -- a member of the pro-gun group that pushed for the new law.

There are places where carrying a concealed weapon by anyone other than law enforcement should not be allowed. No guns in airports, or bus stations or on buses or trains. No guns at athletic events and political rallies. No guns in church or temple or mosque. No guns in schools or on college campuses. No guns in places where large groups of people gather -- street festivals and parades and government meetings.

People who carry guns expect to use them. Using a firearm is a very calculated action for which law enforcement officers must retrain every year. They train on keeping their emotions under strict control. They practice scenarios to identify the difference between a homeless person reaching for his identification and reaching for a gun. They must prove they can shoot their weapon accurately, and they must know all the laws.

Many law enforcement personnel spend their whole career never having discharged their weapon because they know what else to do to defuse a violent situation.

Guns in schools make the least amount of sense. It would be a serious hazard if teachers and other school employees carried them in our high schools and elementary schools. But there is an effort to allow that as well.

And what about guns on college campuses where there is binge drinking and a high incidence of depression?

How do laws like this get passed? It’s simple. Many legislators are looking to get re-elected. Gun groups are big players in the special-interest influence game -- hiring expensive local lobbyists, spending money on lavish dinners and golf outings, offering assistance for election campaigns. They will run candidates against someone who didn’t vote the way they wanted. Sometimes they use other groups to hide their activities. They will use any tactic to get their way.

Recently it was discovered that the NRA had paid a woman to spy on gun-violence-prevention groups -- to earn their trust and then use it to defeat their efforts. The gun-violence-prevention movement is led by people who have lost loved ones to gun violence, people in groups with no potential for financial or political gain, people who never forget even for a day the loved one they have lost.

What kind of people would stoop to spying on and lying to these survivors? Only those who would put gun-industry profit ahead of everything else.

And nobody can think this is good policy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson is the executive director of Georgians for Gun Safety.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Georgia Forum. 9/08

Severe Poverty Hiding Behind the Brighter Headlines

2008-09-16T09:34:00.000-07:00

By Carol Spruill

The Census Bureau recently announced the good news that the official poverty rate in 2007 was "not statistically different" from 2006.

But upon digging deeper into the Census Bureau’s full 71-page report the “not statistically different” poverty rate was an overall national increase from 12.3 percent to 12.5 percent. This meant that the number of additional people living on incomes below the poverty line in this country had increased in one year by over 800,000.

In addition, the increase in real income and the decline in the number of families without health insurance were misleading. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports, both statistics compare poorly to 2001. Despite six years of economic growth, the income increases have gone disproportionately to the wealthy. The number of people without health insurance did decline from 15.8 percent in 2006 to 15.3 percent after at least seven years of increases. However, this success in 2007 was due mostly to states expanding their child health insurance programs, a largesse that may be eroding in tough economic times. Meanwhile, the percentage of those with employer-sponsored health insurance continued to decline. Employer-based health insurance coverage was 61.3 percent in 2002 and has dropped to 59.3 percent in 2007.

Year after year, most of the headlines on poverty focus on the overall rate. The public is concerned, but only a little, when we read that 12.5 percent are in poverty, even though that is more than one out of 10 people and the poverty line itself is widely acknowledged to be inadequate and outdated. Yet subcategories of the poor yield an even more disturbing picture.

In 2007, the percentage of children under 18 in poverty was 18 percent, up from 17.4 percent the year before. The percentage of children under 6 living in poverty grew from 20 percent in 2006 to a "not statistically different" 20.8 percent in 2007. This means that one out of every five preschool children lives in poverty. Most shocking of all is that over half of our nation's families headed by a single-female parent with children under 6 are in poverty. That percentage grew from 52.7 percent in 2006 to 54 percent in 2007. This percentage would be even higher if the Census Bureau combined the statistics on this type of family composition with ethnicity, since African-Americans and Hispanics experience much higher rates of poverty.

Finally, our usual casual look at poverty does not include monitoring the status of the "severely poor." The Census Bureau defines them as those having an income of not more than half of the poverty line. In 2007, 5.2 percent, or 15.6 million people, lived on an income below one-half of the poverty line, which was the same percentage as the year before. The severely poor are a full 41.8 percent, or nearing half, of all who live in poverty. This means that in 2007, when the poverty line for a family of three was $17,170, a severely poor mother and two children were living on less than $8,585.

Solutions to poverty are plentiful. While they need to be tailored for the multiple causes of poverty, some are obvious and generic. We could choose among adequate child-care subsidies so single mothers could earn a living, more subsidized housing, increased earned-income tax credits for the working poor, access to health care, or many more avenues of assisting people to prosperity. But before we can find the will to establish solutions, we have to go beyond the headlines and acknowledge just how many people are so desperately poor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spruill is a Senior Lecturing Fellow and Associate Dean for Public Interest and Pro Bono at Duke Law School.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the North Carolina Editorial Forum. 9/08

Why North Carolina Needs A Pay Equity Study

2008-09-11T08:21:00.000-07:00

By Polly Williams

The recent passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act in the U.S. House of Representatives has drawn national attention to the continuing disparity between women’s earnings and men’s. Equal pay for equal work is fair -- we all seem to agree on that -- yet women’s wages continue to lag behind. The gender gap has narrowed so that women now make 77 percent of what men do, yet even recent gains for women only appear because men’s average earnings rate went down.

Since our state government, with about 90,000 employees, is North Carolina’s largest employer, wage disparities between men and women are, or should be, of prime concern to legislators. Yet The Studies Act of 2008 failed to include the proposed Pay Equity Study Commission. The proposal would have resulted in a study of wage disparities by both gender and race. Four such proposals have been introduced in recent years, without result.

But ever since 1982 various reports have indicated that a thorough study of gender wage disparities, followed by action, is in order. In 1982 “Patterns of Pay in State Government,” a report from the Office of State Personnel discovered a pattern of white males overrepresented in higher salary grades, and blacks and women overrepresented in lower salary grades. A bill for a comparable worth study was passed but afterwards attacked so bitterly that it was repealed the next year. Legislative reform as a result of the report: none. Twenty years later, in 2002, a report from the North Carolina Justice Center revealed the same pattern of disparities between male and female wages. As a result a bill for a pay equity study commission to analyze data and make recommendations to improve gender equity in wages in state employment received a hearing before the House Government Committee and was granted unanimous approval. But there was no studies bill that year.

Moving on to more of this ho-hum record, in 2004, we find the Office of State Personnel undertook a special emphasis project: “Female Employment in North Carolina State Government.” The data section showed that female employees made up 49 percent of the workforce subject to the Personnel Act but were 71.4 percent of those in low wage occupations (African-American women were clustered in the lowest wage jobs). Two bills sponsored by Representative Deborah Ross proposed measures for study and reform; part of one bill which raised the entry-level salary of a state employee by almost $2,000 did pass; the pay equity study commission, however, was not approved, nor were measures addressing accountability of managers for wage disparities.

The figures from the Office of State Personnel in 2007 indicated that white men make up a little more than one-third of the workforce subject to the Personnel Act but are over 50 percent of those in the very top salary grades. Meanwhile black women who are less than 20 percent of the workforce are overrepresented in the lowest grades.

Two questions arise here. One is whether women are paid as well as men in the same jobs. A study would give a rough answer and permit further analysis. The other question is whether positions mostly occupied by women pay less than positions mostly occupied by men even when job skills and credentials such as education and experience are comparable. Or another potential explanation is that women sometimes might need even more credentials to be hired for jobs that pay less than men’s. Here is where we especially need a study -- not to see whether women aren’t ambitious, are in and out of the job market, or whether they really prefer to stay home with the kids -- but whether one female-occupied job requires more and pays less than one somewhat-comparable male-occupied job.

Pay disparities between women and men won’t be wiped out overnight. But let’s see some progress here in the direction of fairness. A Pay Equity Study Commission could discern and define problems and point the way toward some changes that would move our state government toward being the model employer it ought to be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Williams is a retired university professor and a volunteer at NC Justice Center. More information about NC Women United may be found at: www.ncwu.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the North Carolina Editorial Forum. 9/08

Art Drives the Vote in Missouri

2008-09-10T10:31:00.000-07:00

By Sue McCollum

It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s a giant squid?

When you look up in the sky while driving Missouri’s highways during the next few weeks, don’t be surprised if you see something unusual. You won’t catch a glimpse of Superman, but you may encounter a giant squid brandishing gas pump nozzles like a six shooter, Captain America or a field of sunflowers--all super-sized images with one central message: to encourage Missourians to register and vote in this November’s election.

Featuring the work of eight contemporary artists, 70 billboards with the language, “Vote: Your Future Depends On It” and http://www.artthevote.com/, began appearing across Missouri in the beginning of September. Look for the billboards on major highways across the state and in urban areas like Kansas City, Springfield, Cape Girardeau, Hannibal, St. Louis, Kirksville and Columbia. The billboards are sponsored by Art the Vote, an initiative of the Missouri Billboard Project, which is using art to inspire voter registration and voting in this November’s election.

The billboard images, sometimes subtle, sometimes provocative, reflect the artists’ thoughts on many of the key issues facing our state and nation, including fuel prices, the environment and the war. The billboards were created by seven nationally renowned artists and the winner of an Art the Vote online billboard competition. Four of the artists are Missourians--Tom Huck, Peregrine Honig, May Tveit and competition winner Karen Kay. The other artists, Annette Lemieux, Willie Cole, Mark Newport and Martha Rosler are known for their political artwork.

Like all art, the images on the billboards may receive mixed reviews. Some may like it. Some may not. But, whether you like the art or not, we all can agree on the importance of the billboard’s message and the artists’ desire to inspire young voters to register and vote this fall.

In many respects, young voters have the most at stake in an election because they will live the longest with the consequences of any particular administration’s decisions. Yet, as an age-based voting bloc, they don’t act like it. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in the 2006 election, only 22 percent of eligible voters, ages 18 to 24, voted. That means more than 75 percent of eligible young voters didn’t vote. Despite having the most to gain or lose, these young voters chose not to participate. By contrast, 63 percent of adults 55 and older voted in 2006.

In the 2004 presidential election, 72 percent of the eligible voters 55 or older voted. Though young voters visited the polls in this contest more than in 2006, their participation paled in comparison to other age-based voting blocs. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only 47 percent of eligible voters ages 18 to 24 years went to the polls in 2004.

One of the main reasons for the difference in voting rates stems from weak voter registration. Fewer young voters register. Only 58 percent of eligible young voters registered in 2004; whereas 79 percent of citizens aged 55 and older registered. The two greatest reasons eligible young voters cited for not registering: a lack of interest in the election or involvement in politics and missing the registration deadline.

The goal of Art the Vote is to make this fall’s election interesting to young people and to make voting fashionable, hip, the thing to do. If eight artists can engage young Missourians and inspire their interest in this election, Art the Vote will have successfully used art as a gateway to political involvement and voting. In addition to the billboards, Art the Vote is coordinating voter registration activities at arts and cultural events throughout the state this fall.

The next time a giant squid grabs your attention, remember that October 8 is the last day to register to vote in Missouri before the November 4 election. Register and vote: our future depends on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCollum is a co-founder of Art the Vote, an initiative of the Missouri Billboard Project, a nonpartisan effort organized to encourage potential voters to vote by supporting the creation of art that draws attention to public policy issues. To see all billboard artwork and for more information on Art the Vote go to http://www.blogger.com/www.artthevote.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Missouri Forum. 9/08

The Politics of Teenage Pregnancy

2008-09-10T06:53:00.000-07:00

By Joan Lamunyon Sanford

Much has been said about 17 year-old Bristol Palin’s pregnancy and the so-called “right” decision she made to choose parenting over abortion. But we should remember that what is the right decision for Bristol may not be the right decision for all young women with an unplanned pregnancy.

Bristol is fortunate to have loving parents who support her decision, and all of our youth deserve the same. Loving parents who will support them in whatever decision they make. Sadly, this is not always true.

The decision about how to resolve an unplanned pregnancy, whether through abortion, adoption or parenting is a deeply personal decision for a young woman. Most talk to their parents or other trusted adults, including their clergy. Many seek prayerful guidance from their own religious or spiritual traditions. The notion that their religious tradition would insist that they continue their pregnancy is inaccurate. The mainline Protestant and Jewish denominations that are members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice support a woman in making what ever is the best decision for her, including abortion, according to her faith and her life circumstances.

Bristol is also fortunate that she has access to affordable pre-natal care, and that her family has the resources to make sure she has the support she needs to finish high school. Again, not all of our youth have these options, especially in primarily rural states like Alaska or New Mexico.

The Palin family has requested privacy for themselves and Bristol during this difficult time, something we all should have, even though Governor Palin has chosen to put her family and their values under a spotlight. Bristol and her future husband should be treated respectfully, but we as a nation now have the opportunity to learn more about an issue that most of us and most candidates would rather not face, our country’s high teen pregnancy rate, the highest for all industrialized nations.

So before you make your decision about any candidate, state or federal, ask them if they support medically accurate, comprehensive sexuality education for our youth. We have a moral obligation to provide our youth with the best and most accurate information so that if they become sexually active, they can make an informed decision to protect themselves from unplanned pregnancy, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Punitive, mandatory parental notification or consent laws do not reduce abortion and teen pregnancy; they only drive youth without loving, supportive parents to desperate measures when they are facing an unplanned pregnancy. Young women who do not inform their parents may have very sound reasons. Often they fear physical abuse or abandonment, or their pregnancy may be the result of incest. Compassion demands that we not subject them to more trauma.

We should all work to provide our youth and their families with all of the resources they need to make their best decisions regarding sex and sexuality, in keeping with their own faith and values.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford is the executive director of NM Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 8/08

Listen Up! America’s Families Demand Action

2008-08-26T07:54:00.000-07:00

By Luz A. Vega-Marquis

In McAllen, Texas, Martha Sanchez doesn't dare drink the water that runs out of the tap, for fear of getting sick. In Augusta, Georgia, Sunny Johnson, a single mother of two, thinks that working full-time as a certified nursing assistant should earn her a wage that puts her above the poverty line. (It doesn't.) In San Francisco, California, Cathleen Muhammad wants justice and good health for her children, who appear to have been made seriously ill by exposure to asbestos from a nearby construction site.

These three stories exemplify the different struggles families are facing in America today; meanwhile we have 37 million people -- 7.7 million families -- living in poverty.

As the country prepares to elect the next president of the United States pundits and politicians will certainly talk about 'working families' -- 'middle class families' -- and 'poor families.' Isn't it time we address the needs of America's families collectively?

All families despite their economic status -- be they two parent or single parent families -- share the same goal: to provide for their families and ensure a bright future for their children. America's families rise and fall together.

Last year, Marguerite Casey Foundation launched the Equal Voice for America's Families campaign -- a campaign designed to hear directly from families as to the challenges they face and to change how we as a country address the social and economic needs of our families.

Between January and June 2008, approximately 12,000 families from diverse backgrounds, often with children in tow, gave up their weekends and evenings to participate in 65 Equal Voice town hall meetings held across America. At each town hall meeting, they were inspired, engaged and motivated. Families conveyed not only a sense of urgency but also their desire to be directly involved in the creation of policies that affect them -- to be drivers of change.

They tied family stability to living-wage jobs, affordable housing, quality healthcare and education. They let us know that their well-being is not tied to a single issue and that piecemeal solutions have failed to address the complexities of their lives. The testimonies of families at the town hall meetings have been synthesized into a cohesive National Family Platform.

On September 6, 2008, at a multicity convention of 15,000 families in Birmingham, Chicago and Los Angeles, we will release the Equal Voice for America's Families National Family Platform and call on the country, lawmakers and the next president of the United States to adopt a comprehensive approach to addressing the issues and challenges that families face.

Families are the backbone of our nation and no family should live in poverty. Everyone who works hard should be able to advance and participate fully in the economic, political, and cultural life of the nation. To do so America's families need income equality and the opportunity to build wealth to insure upward mobility and equal outcomes.

We can no longer ignore that single issued policy solutions are failing families. The needs of families must be addressed universally.

The strength of our country depends on the strength of our families. It's time we listened to the voices of America's families.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vega-Marquis is president and CEO of Marguerite Casey Foundation, sponsor of the Equal Voice for America's Families campaign.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 8/08

E-Verify: A Flawed Approach to Immigration Reform

2008-08-07T10:00:00.001-07:00

By Suzanne Brown

The federal government has continually failed to address fundamental, structural problems with the country’s broken immigration system. Missouri’s leadership hasn’t done us any favors either by approving the Illegal Aliens and Immigration Status Verification law. This law does not adequately deal with Congress’ failures to provide options for employers to hire legal workers or to keep families together because an “enforcement-only” approach is not a viable solution.

There are three main problems with the new law.

First, the Missouri State Highway Patrol will now be required to designate at least some of its officers for training with the Department of Homeland Security in order to enforce federal immigration laws – a measure which not only redirects already limited law enforcement funding to target minor traffic violations, but also encourages racial profiling, as more motorists are stopped for “Driving While Foreign” violations. Additionally, such agreements instill a mistrust of police within immigrant communities, resulting in increased victimization of immigrants, who are already too afraid to report many crimes, or to come forward as witnesses to others.

Second, Missouri municipalities are prohibited from enacting “sanctuary policies” and are denied state funding if they are found to be in violation of this policy. The term “sanctuary policy” is ambiguously defined and a complaint of any state resident can initiate an investigation, which is ultimately decided by the Attorney General’s opinion. The lack of guidelines coupled with the consequence of withheld state funding make this policy potentially disastrous for municipalities across the state.

Finally, participation in the federal work authorization program E-Verify is required for a broad spectrum of employers. E-Verify is a result of the latest in a growing patchwork of state immigration laws employers are forced to navigate. Many fear that the growing number of regulatory burdens imposed by state laws will drive existing businesses to relocate, and deter new businesses from operating in Missouri.

In addition to the added cost of an e-Verify system are the headaches associated with a system that is still very flawed. Missouri is now one of only five states mandating the use of E-Verify (proposals are pending in 13 other states) even though a recent Immigration Policy Center report cited a 4.1 percent error rate in the system. Although these errors can and do affect immigrant workers, many of them involve U.S. citizens. All of them are unacceptable if they keep lawfully authorized immigrants or citizens from working.

The Illegal Aliens and Immigration Status Verification law changed several laws regarding undocumented immigrants and immigration status verification and duplicates several provisions of ineffective federal laws that have already been in place since 1996. It also presents additional challenges to businesses and employers which will only deter growth in this time of economic uncertainty.

Missouri’s new illegal Aliens and Immigration Status Verification law is a mean-spirited and hopelessly flawed approach to immigration reform.

The state and federal government must disregard the politics of the issue and come up with a fair and practical solution to our immigration crisis that requires undocumented immigrants to earn legal status and contribute to the American economy and society if they so choose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brown is the Missouri/Kansas chapter chair of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Missouri Forum. 7/08

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Tehran

2008-08-06T09:44:00.000-07:00

By Rev. Amanda Hendler-Voss

This week the words of Wendell Berry come to mind: “We concluded in 1945, after our atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that we had made war ‘unthinkable’ -- and we have gone on thinking of it, preparing for it, fighting it, suffering and profiting from it ever since.” Who could have imagined, in the midst of a disastrous war in Iraq, that we would be in such desperate need of remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki? After all, war is utterly destructive and incredibly costly -- win, lose or draw.

And yet, according to former chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, “the war between the United States and Iran is on.” More than 230 members of Congress are co-sponsoring a proposal, which includes language that sounds an awful lot like a unilateral naval blockade of Iran -- deemed by the UN to constitute an act of war unless sanctioned by a Security Council resolution. And in case you missed it, Congress already approved $400 million to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran (which may include a major air attack and a nuclear option).

Initially dismissed by the American public as absurd and implausible, war with Iran remains an abiding concern to those closest to the Bush administration. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has long favored talks with Iran while strongly discouraging military action. In an off-the-record lunch meeting with the Democratic caucus in the Senate, one senator recalls that Secretary Gates warned of the consequences of a pre-emptive strike on Iran, saying “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.” Admiral Fallon, described by Esquire magazine as the only thing standing between the Bush Administration and war with Iran, resigned from his role as Commander of the U.S. Central Command, citing complications with the administration. Meanwhile, the gang of five former secretaries of State -- Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, and Madeline Albright -- recently urged the U.S. to open a line of dialogue with Iran. “One has to talk with adversaries,” said Kissinger.

In January, Kissinger joined Sam Nunn, George Shultz, and William Perry to call for the global elimination of nuclear weapons. The elephant in the room, of course, is what Mohamed El-Baradei, head of the IAEA, calls “the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue nuclear weapons but morally acceptable for others to rely on them.” Even if most Americans agree that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, we’ve surrendered the moral high ground with our cache of thousands of nuclear warheads, which we maintain to the tune of $16 billion annually. In May, 79 Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim groups joined together to oppose the Bush administration’s plans to reactivate the U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure and build new nuclear bomb plant facilities. These people of faith agree that the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons is ultimately a spiritual failure and rising up from under the shadow of nuclear weapons will require political and moral courage.

Thankfully, members of Congress are slowly withdrawing their support under the pressure of Americans resisting yet another rush to war. A preemptive strike with the purpose of preventing the development of a nuclear Iran might be the legacy that Bush seeks, but it would be catastrophic for our nation and our grandchildren. And arming militant dissident groups opposed to the Iranian government in a covert operation funded by taxpayers is the very strategy we used to arm dangerous warlords in Afghanistan.

As we round the bend on yet another anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the question remains: When will we learn that guns, nukes, and war don’t deliver a more secure world?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hendler-Voss is the Faith Communities Coordinator of Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 8/08

Title IX: Ensures Equality In Education

2008-07-30T08:02:00.000-07:00

By Janet Bandows Koster (pictured on left) and Betty Shanahan

Recent efforts by federal agencies to verify university compliance with Title IX are under scrutiny. Some claim Title IX compliance reviews are a “new” way to apply the law to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), but this law has been applicable to all educational programs receiving federal funds for 36 years. Title IX compliance can open the doors to the so-called “male-typical pursuits” in STEM fields to women, just as equal opportunity mandates have done for once-closed careers of firefighters, police officers and military personnel.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. It requires gender equity for boys and girls, men and women in every educational program that receives federal funding - not just in college sports. It also authorizes and directs federal funding agencies to implement the provisions of the law.

A 2004 Government Accountability Office report noted that the federal agencies have not discharged their obligations to ensure that educational institutions comply with the statues. In fact, most only passively receive statements of compliance with Title IX -- usually in the form of a pro forma assertion.

Title IX compliance reviews can help to confirm that academic institutions receiving federal funding establish a climate that ensures a representation of women in STEM disciplines that reflects their level of interest. Any difference in participation, then, is a result of the personal interests of women and not due to environmental factors that discourage them from entering or remaining in these fields.

There have been several recent articles arguing that women don't want to be scientists and engineers, and that those of us advocating for more women in these fields are not acknowledging innate gender-specific career inclinations. In fact, the problems encountered by women considering a STEM career vary by discipline. The low number of women earning degrees in physics, chemistry, computer science and engineering is often attributed to a lack of interest, but the fact that many women with excellent academic performance enter but later abandon these fields suggests otherwise.

Asking federal agencies to complete Title IX compliance reviews will not lead to a quota system. No one is suggesting that the number of men participating in science careers be cut to achieve gender parity in participation. Rather, such reviews can help to create an academic environment in which more women -- and men -- can succeed.

The arguments against conducting compliance reviews completely ignore a large body of recent research exploring reasons for the poor retention of women in science and engineering fields and examining the issues that female students and faculty confront. They avoid the question of why women scientists are not showing expected career advancement even in fields where they earn 50 percent of the degrees.

Women enter faculty positions in engineering and physics roughly in proportion to their presence in the PhD pool, but then gradually disappear from higher ranks. This pattern suggests a discouraging environment once they join the faculty. The existence of a discouraging environment is supported by the trends seen in life sciences, where women have earned close to 50 percent of the PhDs for several decades. Biology departments rarely have more than 30 percent women faculty, and women average less than 25 percent of the full professors in biomedical departments at research universities. Isn't this alone sufficient reason for federal agencies to examine what is going on?

To remain competitive in the global economy, our country must educate and retain the brightest minds in science and engineering to provide the needed talent and diversity in our workforce. Providing federal Title IX oversight helps America compete, and ensures that a large segment of our population is not left out of the educational, economic and other opportunities STEM fields present. Forty years of experiences have shown us that when the gates to opportunity are questioned, the entryways become larger, and all of us benefit. This is what Title IX reviews will help achieve. To be competitive in this new global economy, women -- and the nation -- cannot afford to wait.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koster is the executive director of the Association for Women in Science. Shanahan is the executive director of the Society of Women Engineers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 7/08

Railroading Immigrants…and the Constitution

2008-07-29T07:46:00.000-07:00

By Kathleen Walker

Federal immigration officials swept into Postville, Iowa in May and detained nearly 400 workers at a kosher meat processing plant. Swiftly, local enforcement and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency arrested, charged with crimes, extracted pleas, and sentenced 297 of these individuals by the end of the following week. Apparently, this shock and awe strategy was specially designed to drop the hammer on undocumented workers doing backbreaking jobs under reportedly sub-optimal conditions.

This new high-speed judicial railroad required extensive planning and coordination between the U.S. Attorneys' office in Iowa, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Judiciary. The tracks laid down to carry this new enforcement train were designed to force rapid guilty pleas under the threat of serious jail time, avoid the inconvenience of trials, limit access to immigration counsel, eliminate the prospect of all future relief, and impose criminal sentences and removal orders simultaneously. To speed the process up, the court appointed attorneys were required to represent groups of 10 to 20 or more individuals, and more than 90 individuals were processed by the court in a single day.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association wrote to the U.S. District Judge who apparently authorized these expedited procedures, Chief Judge Linda R. Reade, expressing our deep concerns with the process. Chief Judge Reade subsequently said that "the immigration lawyers do not understand the federal criminal process as it relates to immigration charges." It would be hard to overstate our respectful disagreement with that assertion.

It is precisely because immigration lawyers understand the complexity of the interplay between immigration law and criminal charges that we have recoiled so forcefully at this new approach. Leveraging excessive criminal charges through an exploding plea bargain (sign the deal within seven days of arrest or face max prosecution) to secure jail time and forfeiture of all possible immigration relief, shows an utter disregard for that very complexity.

The nearly 300 individuals subjected to this process who reportedly pled guilty to the use of false documents (in order to work, mind you) in exchange for five-month prison terms and deportation were neither adequately screened, nor advised of their rights under U.S. immigration law. Some may have derivative U.S. citizenship claims. Others may have legitimate fears of persecution or torture in their home country. Still others may be eligible for visas as witnesses to crimes that may have been committed by their employer. Many are ethnic Mayan Guatemalans for whom Spanish is a second language and who signed agreements without any Mayan interpretation. In the interest of government efficiency, however, these individuals were denied access to the experts needed to help them make informed judgments about whether pleading guilty was in their best interest.

With the “government” bearing down hard and fast, these folks did just what the engineers of this new machine intended, they got on board and signed away their life in this country. The court proceedings in Iowa were a travesty of justice and have no place in a constitutional democracy. Immigrants, even those working without documentation, deserved their day in court, not a five-minute ride on a judicial cattle car that compromises the integrity of our system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Walker is the immediate past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 7/08

HHS Proposal Undercuts State Birth Control Laws

2008-07-23T07:08:00.000-07:00

By Cristina Page

The Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has been called "ground zero for the ideological wars in this country," and a new HHS proposal leaked this week proves why. In a spectacular act of complicity with extremists on the right, HHS is proposing to allow any federal grant recipient to obstruct a woman's access to contraception.

The American public is nearly unanimous in supporting contraception: 90 percent favor wide availability for birth control, and 90 percent of sexually active women of reproductive age are using it. It is simple common sense: the average woman spends nearly three decades of her life attempting to be sexually active without getting pregnant, and access to contraception is the only proven way to avoid an unintended pregnancy.

For most women, birth control is a basic health care need. But with this new proposal, the Bush administration plans to hand over the gears of health care to the few extremists who want to impose their deeply unpopular right-wing doctrine on the many. The "Pill Kills" fringe has generally been ignored for its warped pseudo-science, but not at Bush's HHS. Its new proposal would make agencies receiving HHS funding promise not to discriminate in hiring against anyone who objects to abortion -- and then redefines abortion so as to include most commonly used forms of birth control including oral contraceptives and IUDs.

This is the latest -- and now incontrovertible -- proof that the anti-abortion movement, and the administration that appears beholden to it, opposes basic pregnancy prevention and is firmly committed to control over Americans' sex lives. If the HHS proposal is approved, anti-contraceptive operatives will seize health financing, one of the most important levers of control. The regulations would be vast in scope and serve as an open invitation for local extremists to directly meddle with your most important life decisions.

Under the new rule, any health care provider who receives federal funding and would like to prevent women from having access to prescription birth control would have federal protection for doing it. State laws requiring hospitals to give pregnancy prevention to rape victims would be automatically invalidated. Pharmacies nationwide could be granted instant permission to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control. Health centers may be forced to hire religious extremists who would refuse to provide contraception to their patients, even if contraception service is the main focus of the facility.

The new regulation would overrule laws in 27 states requiring health insurers to cover contraceptives. Keep in mind that reluctance of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) to cover contraception was what led to these state mandates in the first place. Health insurance plans would likely be able to eliminate contraceptive coverage, re-imposing on women 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care expenses than men pay.

President Bush has been committed to restricting Americans' access to pregnancy prevention since his first days in office. In 2001, he attempted to eliminate contraceptive coverage for federal employees and soldiers. At the request of the anti-contraception movement, he has obstructed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's process of approving proposals for wider access to contraception; appointed self-described anti-contraception leaders to oversee the nation's federal contraception program for the poor; eliminated funding for international family planning programs; appointed anti-condom activists to the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS; promoted programs that withhold information about birth control from sexually active teens; and sunk unprecedented sums of public funding into these no-sex-until-marriage programs, even after witnessing, as governor of Texas, that the result there was the highest teen birth rate of any state in the union.

The proposed regulation is just one of many campaigns against contraception, all led entirely by the anti-abortion establishment. Few Americans know that not one anti-abortion organization in the United States supports contraception. Even fewer understand that every effort to ensure Americans' access to pregnancy prevention is met with fierce, well-financed, and increasingly successful opposition by anti-abortion groups.

The Bush administration has been able to implement these deeply unpopular attacks against birth control and family planning because the American public doesn't really believe that an anti-contraception movement even exists. Under the cover of public denial, behind the banner of "Who could be against contraception?" ideological extremists have accomplished much of their agenda. Approval of the HHS proposal would be the most encompassing and far-reaching attack on the right to contraception they could hope for. What the anti-birth control extremists need now is for the public to continue to believe it can't happen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page is the author of How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex and spokesperson for BirthControlWatch.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 7/08

G8 to Poor Women: Let Them Eat Dirt

2008-07-17T09:48:00.000-07:00

By Yifat Susskind

Last week, leaders of the world’s richest countries, the Group of Eight (G8), met to chart the course of the global economy at the luxurious Windsor Hotel Toya Resort and Spa in Toyako, Japan. While President Bush and his colleagues discussed world hunger over a six-course lunch, women in Haiti were preparing cakes of dirt for their children’s dinner.

Eating dirt, mixed with salt and vegetable shortening, is the latest coping strategy of Haitian mothers trying to quiet hungry children in a year when the cost of rice (Haiti’s staple food) has risen nearly 150 percent.

Ironically, many of these women were once rice farmers themselves. But in the 1980s, U.S.-grown rice began pouring into Haiti. Thanks to federal subsidies, the imported rice was sold for less than what it cost to grow it. Haitian farmers just couldn’t compete.

Neither could millions of other farmers around the world, who have been bankrupted by the influx of rice, corn, and wheat from the U.S., Europe and Japan. These farmers have gone from growing their own food and feeding their countries to having to buy food that’s priced on a global market. Now that these commodity markets have spiked, millions of more families cannot afford to eat.

Even here in the U.S., still the world’s richest country, more and more families are struggling to afford food these days. Thankfully, we are not forced to feed our children mud cakes. But ultimately, all working families and small farmers, whether in Haiti or Iowa, are hurt by farm policies that are designed for the benefit of giant food corporations.

Consider the U.S. grain subsidies that have pushed so many Haitian families to the brink of survival. They have also hurt family farmers here at home. That’s because the lion’s share of this $307 billion goes to the largest factory farms, leaving small-holder farmers to fend for themselves.

As we saw last month, when floods wiped out hundreds of acres of crops in the Midwest, farming is a risky business. It’s the family farmers who don’t have much of a financial cushion that we should be protecting with subsidies.

The same goes for small-holder farmers in Haiti and other developing countries. Most of these farmers are women, are mothers, who like most moms in the U.S., are responsible for putting dinner on the table every day. In developing countries, these mothers often grow their family’s food from scratch.

The small-holder, women farmers had no say in the decisions that the G8 leaders’ made about the global food crisis. Yet, it turns out that they have a lot to say when it comes to finding solutions to the crisis they are facing.

Just before the G8 meeting, a network of women’s groups from Haiti, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Colombia issued an open letter to the G8. Brought together by the international women’s human rights organization, MADRE, the women called on the G8 to support real solutions to the food crisis. They proposed concrete changes in the global economy, like international mechanisms to stabilize the cost of food and protect the livelihoods of farmers. They called for billion-dollar-a-day agricultural subsidies to be converted from support for big agribusiness to incentives for sustainable, small-scale and organic farms.

These are solid proposals backed up by research and years of first-hand experience in communities that are on the frontlines of today’s food crisis.

But instead of taking steps that could remedy the problem, the G8 plugged more of the same corporate-friendly trade and agriculture policies that brought on the food crisis in the first place.

G8 leaders called for more “open markets” in food trade. Openness sounds good, but in practice this means that poor countries can’t use tariffs to protect farmers from unfair competition.

The G8 also pushed for stricter patent laws. These rules take ownership of seeds -- the very basis of all agriculture -- away from small farmers and enable giant biotech companies like Monsanto to control our food supply.

The G8 did call for more aid to countries like Haiti that have been hard hit by the spike in food prices. That’s an important step when lives are at stake. But the money is to be administered through the International Monetary Fund, famous for making offers with strings attached. In this case, governments will be required to implement more of the kind of trade liberalization that hurts poor people and small farmers and has created record profits for big food corporations this year.

But as the women’s letter to the G8 clearly shows, it’s not corporate profits, but human rights --including the basic right to food -- that will underpin real solutions to the food crisis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Susskind is the communications director of MADRE: Rights, Resources and Results for Women Worldwide.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2008 by the American Forum. 7/08

Creating a Stronger, Safer Juvenile Justice System

2008-07-09T10:56:00.000-07:00

By Frances Deviney

Texas’ juvenile justice system is necessary and critical for protecting our citizens and helping to rehabilitate troubled youth. Unfortunately, it has not done either very well in recent years.

Last year, reports of physical and sexual abuse of youth in custody by Texas Youth Commission (TYC) staff rocked the state, shedding light on Texas’ troubled juvenile justice system and prompting Texas to make much needed improvements.

The state immediately jumped into action after the scandal. In response, the legislature authorized increased training for juvenile corrections officers, greater oversight for the entire juvenile system, and in an effort to further reduce the strain on the system, prohibited future incarceration of youth for misdemeanor offenses.

In addition, the Texas Youth Commission created a special Blue Ribbon Task force whose recommendations included placing more emphasis on preventing children from entering TYC; increasing parental involvement throughout the juvenile justice process; and providing specialized programs to treat drug abuse and mental health problems which plague more than one in three youth in Texas custody.

Although these were important first steps to reforming Texas’ beleaguered juvenile justice system, a new report reveals that more work is needed.

According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s KIDS COUNT Data Book, released last month, Texas was in the top third of states with the highest rates of youth ages 10-15 in custody at juvenile justice facilities in 2006 (136 of every 100,000 Texas youth). In 2007, Texas began addressing their over reliance on incarceration by releasing youth in custody for misdemeanors and prohibiting future misdemeanor incarcerations. There are still areas where incarceration policies and procedures are still highly questionable.

For example, Texas must reduce the number of youth involved with the adult corrections system (TDCJ). In 2006, more than 700 Texas youth ages 15 to 17 entered adult prisons. Although the number may seem small, the practice is problematic. Research finds that youth tried as adults go on to commit more violent crime and more crime overall than youth with similar offenses who remain in the juvenile system. In 2003, 47 percent of Texas youth released from adult prisons were rearrested within three years compared to only 27 percent of adults released from prison. Unfortunately, Texas’ recent changes have only increased the number of youth going to adult prisons by reducing the age TYC youth can be transferred to TDCJ from 21 to 19.

We also must take vigorous action to reduce the persistent overrepresentation of youth of color in our juvenile justice system. In Texas, youth of color are twice as likely to be in custody as white youth. However, national studies repeatedly find that youth of color do not commit crimes at higher rates. Texas should review underlying biases and promote practices that equalize treatment.

Past improvements made to Texas’ juvenile justice system in the wake of the Texas Youth Commission scandals were necessary and critical. Texas should continue its commitment to our youth, not only by preventing future abuse, but by drawing upon additional data, local recommendations, and best practices to create a stronger and safer juvenile justice system that sets youth up for future success, not failure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Deviney is Texas KIDS COUNT director at the Center for Public Policy Priorities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Texas Lone Star Forum. 7/08

Rebate Checks Alone Won’t Rebuild the Economy

2008-07-08T12:51:00.000-07:00

By Blanca Rojas

As millions of Americans receive their tax rebate checks in the mail, the government is waiting to see whether this cash infusion will trigger a mass spending spree. Supporters believe this strategy will create rebate-fueled purchasing power that will give consumers the confidence they need to purchase that new flat-screen TV or simply pay off their overdue bills, jolting the economy back to life in the process.

The problem with this scenario is that no one can predict whether the rebate checks will do the job. Rebate checks are only one piece of the economic recovery equation; Congress must also create a growth package that contains proven initiatives for pulling the country out of a recession. This package should include four things: an expansion of unemployment insurance, a temporary increase in food stamp benefits, increased aid to state and local governments, and investment in infrastructure projects that would immediately put people to work.

There is no question that more and more Georgia families are struggling to meet basic needs. In the past year alone gas prices have soared 20 percent, while food staples such as bread, milk, and eggs have surged at double-digit rates. As of April this year, the number of people seeking food assistance from the Open Door Community House in Columbus, doubled from 300 to 600 over the same period last year.

At the same time, more people are facing unemployment or reduced work hours. In Georgia, unemployment rates rose from 4.2 percent to 5.3 percent between March 2007 and 2008.

With at least 25 states facing a combined estimated budget shortfall of $40 billion for fiscal year 2009, there is little that financially strapped states can do to ease the burden. Georgia’s current budget deficit of $200 to $300 million, according to the most recent figures available from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, is already producing harmful cuts in heath care, education, and other vital services.

None of this is likely to be solved by a $1,200 rebate check for a family of three. Any responsible effort to pull the country out of the current recession should start with an expansion of unemployment benefits. The U.S. Department of Labor ranks expanding unemployment compensation as the No. 1 tool for stimulating the economy. Studies show that for every dollar spent on unemployment insurance, anywhere from $1.73 to $2.15 is re-circulated back into the economy.

A temporary increase in food stamp benefits is another quick way to stimulate the economy and assist those in need. The recession has forced more people onto the food stamp rolls, where they receive an average of just $1 per meal. A temporary increase in that allotment could be easily added to food stamp electronic debit cards and spent quickly, boosting the economy while helping to prevent millions of children and seniors from going to bed hungry.

Increasing aid to state and local governments is also imperative to stem job loss and halt further cuts in critical programs and services including Medicaid and SCHIP. Without help, the budget shortfalls confronting states will increase hardships for low-income people and push the country into a deeper recession.

Finally, investing in much-needed infrastructure projects would create jobs, rebuild communities, and strengthen the economy. This is especially true of projects that are already underway but could be accelerated or repaired.

Before the economic downturn, average Americans worked hard but lost ground to rising costs in health care, food, gas and housing. In the midst of the current economic crisis, the Bush Administration has done little to help them get back on their feet, yet it has managed to provide tax breaks to the wealthy, bail out investment banking giants, and spend $12 billion a month on the war in Iraq. It’s time to give a hand to families in need and states facing serious financial crisis. Our elected officials must act now with a recovery package that stimulates the economy by helping those who are hurting most.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rojas is the Invest in America’s Future coordinator for the Georgia Rural Urban Summit Affiliate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Georgia Forum.

Rinku Sen: Eating American on the Fourth of July

2008-07-02T09:53:00.000-07:00

Eating American on the Fourth of July

2008-07-01T07:14:00.001-07:00

By Rinku Sen

[Click here to read this essay in Spanish. You can also see a video of Rinku Sen speaking.]

On this Fourth of July, I will be eating hot dogs. While I was trying to fit in as an Indian immigrant child throughout the 1970's, they represented the quintessential American food. I begged my mother to let me have them for dinner every night instead of chicken curry and rice. She nixed the hotdogs but sometimes allowed spaghetti and meatballs -- straight from a can. Hotdogs were "invented" by German immigrants serving their traditional sausages in the hustling streets of the new world, and spaghetti, everyone knows, came from Italy. If I had been celebrating Independence Day 150 years ago, however, neither would have been on the menu. In those days, Germans and Italians weren't considered Americans, or even white. When they fought over the most lucrative street corner for food vendors in the 1880's, the press reported these incidents as "race riots."

I'll be sharing this holiday with a group of restaurant workers, largely immigrants. Along with the hotdogs, we'll have tacos, samosas, falafel. According to one side of the immigration debate, we can keep our goodies to ourselves. America doesn't want them, or us.

Immigration restrictionists argue not only that we need to stop undocumented immigration, but cut back drastically on legal immigration as well. They argue that this economy -- no longer industrial but focused on information and service -- has no room for masses of poor immigrants. There's a fear that technology makes travel and communication so easy that new immigrants won't break ties with the old country and reassign their loyalty. To them, the telephone is a dangerous device and communication with relatives a terribly un-American act.

Restrictionists have tried to modernize their argument, but it hasn't changed much through the years. Immigration of the late 19th century was dominated by Italians, Poles, Hungarians, Jews, and other groups from southern and eastern Europe. At that time, these new residents were widely seen as inferior to native-born whites. They were reviled for their refusal to speak English, for their political and economic demands on American corporations, for being so poor that they became "public charges" or undercut the wages of the native-born workers, and for their unacceptable sexual behavior.

The Immigration Acts of 1920 and 1924, the most restrictive immigration policies we've ever had, limited new entrants to 150,000 per year, which was less than a quarter of the total immigration rate at that time. These laws crafted large quotas for northern Europeans while setting limits for countries like Russia and Italy. Thousands of southern and eastern Europeans, however, continued to come.

As immigrants were deported for violating the quota policies, social reformers began to fight for long-time residents who had built families and communities in the U.S. These reformers won a series of changes that gave immigration officials the ability to change someone's status.

The liberalization remade the American identity, but kept it white. Mexicans, for example, were left behind by the process. According to historian Mae M. Ngai, They weren't explicitly excluded, but they had little access to the mechanisms through which to change their status, and no one cared to correct that oversight. In 1929, Congress also passed the Registry Act, allowing people to change their status if they paid $20, hadn't left the U.S. since 1921, and were of good moral character. Of the 115,000 people who were forgiven between 1930 and 1940, 80 percent were European or Canadian. The attorney general began to suspend deportation orders after 1940, and an internal Justice department study in 1943 revealed that the overwhelming majority of suspensions went, ironically, to Germans and Italians; only 8 percent involved Mexicans. Instead of liberalization, Mexicans got a guest worker program, and in 1954, Operation Wetback, the country's first mass deportation program.

Restrictionists have frozen images of a "true" America, as though our identity hasn't changed since 1776. Stasis, however, is a fiction. Cultures do not stand still, nor should we want them to. We have the chance now to remake our immigration policy in the modern era, not by taking it back to the 1920's, but by grappling honestly with the fact that the American identity is always undergoing cultural change. Modernity challenges us to create a policy that finally recognizes the full humanity of all immigrants without regard to their racial identity.

If we are indeed what we eat, Americans are already eating like the world. It's time for our policy to catch up to our palates.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen is the president of the Applied Research Center and the publisher of ColorLines magazine. Her book, The Accidental American, will be released in September.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 6/08

Comiendo a lo Americano el Cuatro de Julio

2008-07-01T06:50:00.000-07:00

Por Rinku Sen

[Click here to read this essay in English]

Este Cuatro de Julio, voy a comer hotdogs. Mientras que estaba tratando de pertenecer como un niño inmigrante Indio a través de los años 1970, que representaban la quintaesencia comida Americana. Le rogué a mi madre que me dejara comerlos para la cena cada noche en vez de pollo con curry y arroz. Ella me negó los hotdogs pero a veces permitía espaguetis y albondigas directamente de la lata. Los hotdogs fueron “inventados” por los inmigrantes Alemanes sirviendo sus tradicionales salchichas en las bulliciosas calles del nuevo mundo, y espaguetis, todos saben, vienen de Italia. Si estuviera celebrando el Día de la Independencia hace 150 años atrás, ninguna de las dos cosas estarían en el menú. En esos días, los Alemanes y los Italianos no eran considerados Americanos ó ni siquiera blancos. Cuando se peleaban por las esquinas más lucrativas para vender comida en los años 1880, la prensa reportaba estos incidents como “disturbios racistas”.

Voy a compartir esta fecha patria con un grupo de trabajadores de restaurantes, la mayoría inmigrantes. Además de los hotdogs vamos a tener tacos, samosas, falafel. De acuerdo con un lado del debate de inmigración, podemos quedarnos con nuestras delicias para nosotros mismos. America no quiere eso ó a nosotros.

Los restriccionistas de la inmigración discuten que no solamente necesitamos parar la inmigración indocumentada sino que también debemos cortar drasticamente la inmigración legal. Ellos discuten que esta economia, no más industrial pero enfocada en la información y el servicio, no tiene lugar para masas de inmigrantes pobres. Hay temor de que la tecnología hace a los viajes y a la comunicacion tan fácil que los nuevos inmigrantes no van a cortar sus contactos con su vieja patria y reasignar su lealtad. Para ellos, el teléfono es un aparato peligroso y la comunicación con los familiares, un terrible acto anti Americano.

Los restriccionistas han tratado de modernizar este argumento, pero no ha cambiado mucho a través de los años. La inmigración al final del siglo 19 fué dominada por Italianos, Polacos, Húngaros, Judíos y otros grupos del sur y el este de Europa. En ese tiempo estos nuevos residents eran vistos como inferiores a los nativos nacidos blancos. Ellos eran insultados por negarse a hablar Inglés, por sus demandas económicas y políticas a la corporaciones Americanas, por ser pobres y convertirse en “cargas públicas” ó bajar los salarios de los trabajadores nacidos nativos, y por su comportamiento sexual inaceptable.

Los Actos de Inmigración de 1920 y 1924, la política de inmigración más restringibles que hemos tenido, limitó nuevas entradas a 150,000 por año, que era menos de un cuarto de la cantidad total de inmigración en esos tiempos. Estas leyes construyeron grandes cuotas para Europeos del norte mientras que establecía límites para paises como Rusia é Italia. Sin embargo miles de Europeos del sur y del este continuaban viniendo.

Mientras que inmigrantes eran deportados por violar la política de las cuotas, reformistas socials empezaron a pelear por viejos residents que habían formado familias y comunidades en los Estados Unidos. Estos reformistas ganaron una serie de cambios que dieron a los oficiales de inmigración la habilidad de cambiar la situación de alguien.

La liberalización rehizo la identidad Americana, pero la mantuvo blanca. Los Mexicanos por ejemplo, fueron dejados atrás por el proceso. De acuerdo al historiador Mae M. Ngai, ellos fueron explícitamente excluídos, pero ellos tenían poco acceso a los mecanismos a través de los cuales cambiar su condición y a nadie le importó corregir esa situación. En 1929, el Congreso también pasó el Acto de Registro, permitiendo a la gente a cambiar su condición si pagaban $20, no habían dejado los Estados Unidos desde 1921 y eran de un buen caracter moral. De las 115,000 personas que fueron perdonadas entre 1930 y 1940, 80 por ciento eran Europeos ó Canadienses. El abogado general empezó a suspender las ordenes de deportación después de 1940 y un estudio interno del Departamento de Justicia en 1943 reveló que la mayoría de suspensiones fué ironicamente a los Alemanes é Italianos, solo 8 por ciento envolvia a los Mexicanos. En vez de liberalización, los Mexicanos recibieron programas de trabajadores invitados, y en 1954, la Operación Espalda Mojada, el primer programa de deportación en masa del país.

Los restriccionistas han congelado las imágines de la “verdadera” America, como si nuestra identidad no hubiese cambiado desde 1776. La estasis es una ficción. Las culturas no permanecen quietas, y tampoco queremos que lo hagan. Tenemos la chance de rehacer nuestra política inmigratoria ahora en la era moderna, no llevándonos atrás a los 1920, pero lidiando honestamente con el hecho de que la identidad Americana ha ido siempre cambiando culturalmente. La modernidad nos desafía a crear una política que finalemente reconoce la humanidad total de todos los inmigrantes sin importar su identidad racial. Si realmente nosotros somos lo que comemos, los Americanos ya están comiendo como el mundo. Es tiempo que nuestra política alcanze a nuestro paladar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen es la presidenta del Applied Research Center y el publicista de la revista ColorLines. Su libro, The Accidental American, va a ser publicado en Septiembre.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Derechos reservados © 2008 por el American Forum. 6/08

No Girls Allowed In Golf

2008-06-30T13:14:00.000-07:00

It turns out that the Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia isn’t the only “no girls allowed” golf club. Veronica at WorkItMom points to a New York Times article about Phoenix, Arizona country club, where women’s weren’t allowed in the men’s dining room.

Women at the club are not permitted to have lunch in the men’s grill room with their husbands after a round of golf; they have been barred from trophy ceremonies after tournaments, even ones they have sponsored, and may not participate in one of the most sacred rituals of the men’s grill room — sealing a deal over a beer with a client.

Of course separate but equal, right?

“The ladies’ grill is a very small room where a bunch of little old ladies gather to play cards,” said Wanda Diethelm, a health care executive. “And if you make any noise, they shush you.”

The fact is most so-called "private clubs" aren't private at all -- and instead benefit from companies that get tax benefits to underwrite the clubs. As Veronica writes:

These clubs may not have to be fair, but the companies that we work for do. They should not be allowed to pay for memberships to any group that discriminates and certainly should not encourage workers to take clients to discriminatory places either. We’re not that far from the time when business meetings were held at strip clubs too.

Martha Burk of course has been writing and protesting about this injustice for years but few people have been listening. It seems that even the spouses of the women of Phoenix Country Club, can’t even advocate for change without having their lockers defaced. The spouses should consider themselves lucky. Martha's gotten death threats.

--Rachel Joy Larris

Bias in Cocaine Sentencing Remains

2008-06-24T10:50:00.000-07:00

By Kara Gotsch

Willie Mays Aikens was not a drug kingpin, but he received a kingpin-sized sentence for selling crack cocaine. A former Kansas City Royal and 1980 World Series record holder, Aikens received a 21-year sentence for selling 63 grams of crack. At the end of his baseball career he had become addicted to powder cocaine but had no previous record for drug distribution when an undercover officer asked him to sell the drugs that led to his lengthy incarceration in 1994. This month Aikens received a sentence reduction after 14 years in prison -- authorized due to the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s determination that penalties for crack cocaine offenses are unnecessarily harsh. He returned to his major league hometown, Kansas City, to enter a halfway house, and hopes to soon reunite with his daughters, who live in Mexico with their mother.

Aikens’s release coincides this month with the 22-year anniversary of the death of Len Bias, another prominent sports figure who played basketball at the University of Maryland. His legendary cocaine overdose on the night he was drafted by the Boston Celtics launched the punitive legislative reaction by Congress that would later subject Aikens to a stiff mandatory sentence for selling crack cocaine.

The federal law that Bias’s death inspired, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, established a five-year mandatory sentence for offenses involving as little as five grams of crack cocaine, the weight of two sugar packets. Offenses for powder cocaine, a similar yet more expensive substance, only receive that penalty for 100 times the amount of the drug. The harm caused by the excessive crack cocaine sentences prescribed under the law has been decried by judges, civil rights groups, faith-based organizations and many others.

At the time Len Bias died it was assumed that his killer was crack cocaine. When the truth later emerged that his drug of choice was in fact powder cocaine the legislative damage had already been done. Policymakers’ rush to make ill-considered reforms to the laws during the 1980s did not end the war on drugs or stop crack cocaine addiction. Indeed, the harsh penalties are responsible for breaking up many families and wasting the lives of many youths who did not require a decade in prison to learn that their crime was wrong. The penalties also created an assumption among communities of color that equal justice does not apply to them.

Each year about 5,000 people are convicted of a federal crack cocaine offense, the majority of whom are low-level operators -- typically they sell drugs on street corners or act as look-outs or couriers. But by focusing on low-level cases, federal prosecutors divert resources from pursuing the "kingpin" operators who are responsible for importing and trafficking drugs. And large-scale incarceration of low-level sellers only results in their being replaced on the streets by other young men and women seeking to make quick money in the drug trade.

The enormous racial disparity in who goes to prison also surrounds the crack cocaine sentencing debate. Over 80 percent of the men and women serving time for federal crack cocaine offenses are African American, despite the fact that two-thirds of crack users are white or Hispanic. The strategy of the war on drugs has largely targeted black and minority communities, so Congress’s mandatory penalties have a disproportionate impact on people of color. The Sentencing Commission’s own findings conclude that reducing the mandatory sentences for crack cocaine would lessen racial disparity in federal prisons and improve public perceptions of fairness within the criminal justice system.

Momentum has emerged over the last year to address the hastily passed law. At the end of last year, a U.S. Supreme Court decision acknowledged the legitimacy of the crack cocaine sentencing controversy and the U.S. Sentencing Commission amended the sentencing guidelines governing crack cocaine offenses. As a result of the Commission’s action, 7,000 prisoners have received sentence reductions since March 2008. Some members of Congress understand the futility of the crack cocaine sentencing law and reform legislation has been introduced by both Democrats and Republicans. But despite the fact that hearings on the issue were held in February, 22 years later justice is elusive. Let us not allow another anniversary to pass without Congress correcting its mistake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gotsch is the director of advocacy at the Washington, DC-based Sentencing Project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 6/08

The Anti-Family Planning Movement: Coming to a Bedroom Nearest You

2008-06-06T11:27:00.000-07:00

By Cristina Page

Like lawn ornaments in summer, protesters outside the local abortion clinic are fixtures in many places in the United States today.

Their presence and message have long been so predictable that, without looking or listening, people believe they understand the point. And so you might not notice that the protest taking place outside your local clinic today has fundamentally changed.

It is no longer about abortion. June 7 is the anniversary of Griswold v Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court decision that granted married people the right to use contraception. To mark the day, anti-abortion groups are taking to their normal posts outside clinic entrances not to convince Americans to oppose abortion but rather to stop using contraception.

The national campaign is called "Protest the Pill Day 08'" and it is organized by several leading anti-choice groups including the American Life League and Pharmacists for Life. The groups’ website is full of unscientific, medically inaccurate information.

Anti-contraception activism has been working its way up the priority list of the anti-choice movement in the United States in recent years and today's campaign is one of the most organized and visible displays of this broadening agenda.

Currently, there is not one pro-life organization in the U.S. that supports contraception. In fact, the multi-pronged attack against the right to use contraception is led entirely by anti-abortion groups. Their initiatives (to name just a few) include opposing health insurance of contraception, urging pharmacists to deny women's birth control prescriptions, and attempting (with no scientific rationale) to reclassify the birth control pill, and all other hormonal forms of contraception, as abortion methods with the goal of banning them. This represents an important and frightening shift in focus by the anti-abortion movement.

Despite the fact that contraception is the only proven way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and reduce abortion rates, anti-choice groups would forgo these benefits, and even risk dramatically increasing abortion rates, in favor of a larger, more insidious goal: changing Americans' sex lives.

As the American Life League, the nation's largest pro-life educational organization, explains in its materials, "The American Life League denies the moral acceptability of artificial birth control and encourages each individual to trust in God, to surrender to His will, and to be predisposed to welcoming children." The American Life League prefers to put the choices in the hands of God, a choice they want to impose on everyone. "It must be clear that couples understand that when they ask God to not send them another child just now they are also saying, ‘If it is Your will to send us another child at this time, we praise You for Your divine providence,’” the group says.

Buoyed by their success in rolling back abortion rights, these groups seek nothing less than a complete American lifestyle makeover: sex can't ever exclude the possibility of procreation. But instead of convincing Americans to see things their way, groups like the American Life League have decided the more expeditious path is to attack the right to use contraception.

The right to use contraception is relatively new: the Griswold decision was rendered in 1965 and Supreme Court granted single people the right to use contraception as recent as 1972. But the changes these decisions set in motion now form a list of what Americans won't live without. Today, 95 percent of people have sex before marrying. Indeed, studies show that most Americans in a relationship are having sex, on average, once a week. The typical American female is fertile for approximately 30 years of her life. For about 23 of those years she is trying not to get pregnant. Much of our lifestyle, and the architecture of our most intimate relationships, is rooted in family planning. And we should be grateful for this.

In the 1950s, when there was no sex education, no birth control, no legal abortion (the exact legislative agenda of today's pro-life movement!) teen birth rates soared and have not been equaled since. Today, the rate of teen motherhood, not coincidentally, has been reduced by more than half.

The right to plan your family to the size you want and can support is a cherished, and frequently exercised, American family value. So, the next time you pass by the protest outside your local clinic listen carefully: their real target is your way of life.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page is the author of How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex and spokesperson for BirthControlWatch.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 6/08

Food Policies Leave People Hungry

2008-06-06T08:52:00.000-07:00

By Yifat Susskind

This week the U.N. convened world leaders in Rome to hammer out solutions to the food crisis. Once again policy leaders are forgetting that food is about people. Over the past few months, 30 countries have been wracked by food riots. The government of Haiti has been toppled. Rice reserves in the Philippines are now under armed guard. And U.S. corporate agribusinesses have a starring role in this disaster. Farmers in poor countries have gone broke by the millions because they can't compete with the artificially low prices of U.S. food imports.

Take Mexico, for example. Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the U.S. demanded that Mexico open up its markets to cheap U.S. corn. Since NAFTA took effect, U.S. corn exports to Mexico have tripled, flooding the Mexican market and causing domestic corn prices to drop by more than 70 percent. As a result, most of the country’s 15 million corn farmers have gone from being poor -- but getting by -- to watching their children go hungry. Mexican President Felipe Calderon explains the food crisis in his country as a direct outcome of U.S. food policy.

The same story is repeated in nearly every country where the food crisis is raging. Millions of rural families from Colombia to Cameroon have been forced to go from growing their own food to buying imported staple items, putting them at the mercy of global markets. In the past year, the costs of basics like corn, rice, and wheat has doubled and tripled. Farming families whose livelihoods were destroyed by U.S. agribusiness can no longer afford to buy food from these same companies. That injustice -- not any absolute “food shortage” -- is at the heart of today’s crisis.

Meanwhile, U.S. agribusiness is making a killing. Last month Cargill announced that its third-quarter profits were up 86 percent. They’ve already raked in over $1 billion this year, in about the same amount of time that another 100 million people were pushed into extreme poverty (surviving on less than $1 a day) because of rising food costs.

Clearly, our global food system is broken. So what would fix it?

It seems that small-holder, sustainable agriculture -- precisely the type of farming that’s been devastated by agribusiness -- has the best potential to resolve the global food crisis. That, in a nutshell, is the conclusion of a four-year United Nations study by 400 experts on agriculture and development released in April.

But if local, sustainable agriculture is the way to go, there’s another, overlooked dimension to solving the food crisis: the majority of the world’s small-scale farmers are women. In the poorest countries, where the food crisis is at its worst, women grow and produce 80 percent of all food.

That means that policies aiming to resolve the food crisis need to also weed out the widespread discrimination that bars women farmers from owning land and from accessing credit, seeds, tools, and training. Agricultural subsidies were originally conceived to protect small-scale farmers from poverty. We still need to do that -- and on a global scale. Today, subsidies can play a positive role in building the capacity of women farmers to grow food sustainably.

It’s high time to put the human rights and productive capacity of small farmers at the center of agriculture policy. The Rome summit presented us with an opportunity to rethink food policy. Unfortunately the outcome continues the same misguided polices of free trade instead of investing in local food production. It’s time to realize that the world’s small farmers – especially women -- are our best hope for feeding people and protecting the planet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Susskind is the communications director of MADRE: Rights, Resources and Results for Women Worldwide.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2008 by the American Forum. 6/08

Immigration Raids Lead U.S. to a Moral, Legal Crisis

2008-06-05T11:18:00.000-07:00

By Raquel Aldana

Postville, Iowa has been turned into a ghost town. Nearly a third of its residents, mostly undocumented workers from Guatemala and Mexico, sit in jail convicted of identity crimes or awaiting deportation. Hundreds more hide in fear. Their children, too scared to go to school, have left the town’s classrooms nearly empty. For this, Postville should thank their local police, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE), and a failed immigration policy.

Aided by local law enforcement, ICE arrested 389 workers during the largest single-site immigration raid in U.S. history at the Postville meatpacking plant, the area’s major employer. In an unprecedented move, ICE criminally charged 302 of these workers with aggravated ID theft and/or using false social security numbers. Within days, ICE resolved their fate: 297 men and women pled guilty and were sentenced to prison and subsequent deportation. Only a few await criminal trials or immigration hearings.

Postville is one of the latest in a series of immigration raids that have intensified in the past three years. These raids are leading our nation to a moral, legal and humanitarian crisis.

ICE’s heavy handed enforcement against undocumented workers in the wake of failed immigration reform is shameful. Under current immigration laws, no more than 10,000 of the backlogged visas for unskilled workers and 66,000 temporary visas for seasonal workers are available each year. In contrast, an estimated 2,000 persons cross the Southwest border into the U.S. daily and an estimated 12 million undocumented persons live in the U.S.

Global economic realities push willing workers out of their nations, where they have no means to earn even a subsistence living and pull them into low wage jobs in the U.S., where the lack of labor protection leaves them vulnerable to exploitation. U.S. employers and we as consumers benefit from their cheap labor, but these workers and their families bear the brunt of a broken immigration system.

Few employers face civil and criminal sanctions for violating immigration and labor laws. So far, no one from Postville plant has been charged despite overwhelming evidence that the company helped workers procure false documents, paid substandard wages, failed to pay overtime, and seriously mistreated its workers. All the while, Congress continues to kill proposals granting even temporary legal status to agricultural workers, while doling out large subsidies to U.S. farmers without regard to their effect on future migration of rural workers from developing nations into the U.S.

Legally speaking, ICE and federal prosecutors overstepped their powers when they criminally charged the workers. Congress specifically exempted from prosecution workers who use false Social Security numbers to engage in otherwise lawful conduct, such as to procure jobs.

This unprecedented criminalization of undocumented workers also has not been accompanied by a comparable infusion of constitutional guarantees in the handling of these cases. ICE conducted the investigation leading to the Postville raid with easy access to immigration databases and employee documents. ICE then executed the raid with easily-procured administrative, not criminal, warrants.

Thus, the protection of stricter Fourth Amendment search and seizure, Fifth Amendment due process, and Sixth Amendment right to counsel constitutional guarantees available to most criminal defendants were unavailable to these workers. Nearly all waived any rights they might have had under extreme prosecutorial pressure. The uncharacteristic speed and efficiency of the Postville raid left workers without adequate opportunity to consult with defense counsel, and none or few had access to immigration lawyers to learn about the immigration consequences of their pleas.

The involvement of local law enforcement in these raids is also worrisome. Distrust of police keeps many immigrants from reporting crime. This increases their vulnerability as victims. Moreover, the drain on limited resources from these additional responsibilities on local police takes away from their primary duties as community caretakers.

The courts must be vigilant in protecting the rights of workers and their families and insist on stricter constitutional guarantees when criminal charges are involved.

These raids should be halted immediately. The prospect of future raids should certainly create a sense of urgency for the U.S. to adopt immigration policies that allows employers to hire migrant workers, and include strong labor protections that offer a path to legalization for workers and their families. If workers are legal, we are all better off.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aldana is a board member of the Society of American Law Teachers and a professor of law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas School of Law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 6/08

Unfinished Business on Women's Issues

2008-05-08T09:29:00.001-07:00

By Polly Williams

With the General Assembly about to start its “short session” – it is important to remind the legislature of its unfinished business on issues of women’s equality.

North Carolina Women United’s recently released report card on the 2007 legislature is a good assessment of what was accomplished in 2007 – and a blueprint for what needs to happen on some issues in the upcoming session.

While the report focuses on women, the truth is that many of these measures benefit men as well. What is good for women and families also benefits everybody.

On the whole, last year shows a number of successes in proposals supported by the NCWU coalition in areas of economic security, access to health care, violence against women, and citizen participation and equality. Perhaps the most exciting of these is the state earned income tax credit (EITC). The federal EITC has been shown to be the most effective economic benefit offered by the government to enable working families to emerge from poverty. Although the state will allow a tax credit of only 3.5 percent of the federal EITC, it will provide a refundable credit to over 800,000 low and moderate-income families. A recent report from the North Carolina Budget and Tax Center showed that the state’s poorest working families pay more out of their income for taxes than those who earn more. The EITC is an offset for this disparate tax burden.

The Assembly also made progress affecting victims of sexual assault or domestic violence. One move made it a felony to violate a domestic violence protection order while carrying a deadly weapon. Another allows women who are victims of domestic violence or stalking to change their names without a public posting.

The General Assembly deserves credit for this legislation, but there’s a slew of work that wasn’t accomplished.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment is the failure of the state to provide comprehensive and accurate sex education, including STD and pregnancy prevention. At least 17 states have rejected abstinence-only program funds because states must provide matching funds, and the programs have been shown to be ineffective. At the same time, the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases among women has increased, and in North Carolina the decrease in teenage pregnancies has leveled off. The proposal to change the state’s current abstinence-until- marriage curriculum to an abstinence-based comprehensive sexuality education curriculum met bitter opposition and never came to the floor of the legislature.

Unfortunately this and other domestic violence issues are still with us and need more attention. Some proposals still pending would strengthen domestic violence protective orders while another increases funding for domestic violence programs.

There were some gains and some setbacks made in the area of help for elderly and disabled people. Legislators approved a proposal that establishes a star rating system for adult care homes, a means of giving guidance to families of persons in need of assisted living in choosing a new home that will offer good quality care. Such a system is especially important in trying to select a home from long distance. However it was disappointing that the increase for the Home and Community Care Block Grant -- which funds services that enable elderly and disabled persons to remain at home -- was so small, only $536,000. The reality is that $14 million is needed to provide services for the 10,900 people on waiting lists.

There are a host of other issues the General Assembly needs to consider. There are proposals that address the prevention of bullying and harassment in schools, and another, requiring hospitals to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims. Likewise, proposals for paid or unpaid sick days to help the estimated 42 percent of North Carolina’s workers without sick leave that went nowhere last year, should be addressed this session. It’s time for North Carolina’s elected officials to get to work on this unfinished business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Williams is a retired university professor and a volunteer at NC Justice Center. More information about NC Women United may be found at: http://www.ncwu.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the North Carolina Editorial Forum. 5/08

Playing Political Games In Doctors’ Offices

2008-05-07T06:48:00.000-07:00

By Kellie Freeman Rohrbaugh

Over 700,000 Missourians don’t have access to adequate health care coverage. The fact that women experience this disparity more intensely than men, is further compounded if they live in rural Missouri. Politicians in Jefferson City just don’t understand the struggles of women and families living in “outstate Missouri.”

In order to access health care, rural Missouri women make an appointment, often well in advance, make sure they have time off work and childcare, and then fill the gas tank for the long ride into the doctor’s office. The last thing anyone wants to deal with is more politicians and lawyers telling them how and when to talk to their doctor.

But it seems another aspect of women’s health care has just gotten more complicated.

In April the Missouri House passed a proposal which includes a laundry list of provisions restricting abortion -- many of which will have a disproportional impact on rural women.

Missouri already has some of the nation’s strictest laws regarding abortion. One of these is a 24-hour waiting period between counseling and the procedure. Right now, women living in rural Missouri can talk to their own physician before meeting with the doctor who will perform the procedure. This proposal takes away that option by mandating that the counseling and abortion care be done by the same physician. Living in a rural area this will cause delays of several days or even weeks -- pushing a woman’s procedure later into her pregnancy. This is not good medical practice and it is awful public policy.

The action by the House forces politics further into the exam room by requiring doctors and counselors to use brochures and videos produced by state bureaucrats. Another outrageous provision forces health care workers to post signs that carry false promises of state-backed assistance in carrying a child to term and providing for that child once born.

A responsible government should promote medically accurate information for women to make responsible decisions. Bureaucrats feeding doctors lines to recite isn’t going to help women get the care they need. The government should not invade the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship -- nor order women where to go for their medical care.

Perhaps the most egregious part of the process has been the sponsors going on and on about how much they care about women’s health. They certainly don’t think women can make their own decisions because the proposal actually takes away the rights of women who have been victims of domestic abuse or even rape.

The bill redefines coercion in this way, if a woman facing an unintended pregnancy reveals that she is the victim of domestic abuse or even rape, it becomes a crime for the doctor to provide her with abortion care. It is telling that most domestic violence experts are opposed to this provision, and are asking "how does your status as a battered woman take away your ability to make up your own mind?"

There’s nothing in the proposal that addresses the real issues that women who are victims of rape or abuse face. It just takes away their ability to act on their own behalf in the doctor’s office.

The idea that women are being forced into abortions by abusers is entirely false. Missouri statute already requires women to sign a consent form stating that her decision is free and voluntary. But beyond that measure, Planned Parenthood’s trained staff goes through medical and social histories with each patient to determine that it is her own decision to have an abortion. If at any time a counselor determines that there are pressures from someone else, the procedure is not performed. Like all health care providers, Planned Parenthood is subject to mandatory reporting policies, and required to report sexual assault or domestic abuse.

This plan will infringe upon the doctor-patient relationship and further restricts abortion care in Missouri. Using emotionally-charged language hides the proposal’s true intentions and further burdens victims of domestic abuse. It does nothing to help women in need and instead is merely using scare tactics to win elections.

If the political leaders in Missouri were serious about reducing the need for abortion, they would not enact measures that put further strain on rural women and victims of domestic violence who are seeking health care. It’s time to put prevention first and focus on common sense solutions such as increasing access to contraception and other family planning services.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rohrbaugh is public affairs director of Planned Parenthood of Southwest Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Missouri Forum. 5/08

Many Women Unaware of Access to Emergency Contraception

2008-05-05T08:10:00.001-07:00

By Alison Mondi

Since emergency contraception was approved by the FDA in 1998, Washington’s pharmacists and lawmakers have led the nation in ensuring that women have access to this safe and effective form of birth control. Yet many women are still unaware of the many resources and programs our state provides to ensure that they can access Plan B.

The FDA approved Plan B for over-the-counter sales to women over the age of 18 in 2006. However few women are aware that Washington passed a law in 1998 allowing pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception without a doctor's prescription. This program -- known as Pharmacy Access -- allows all women, regardless of age, to obtain Plan B without a prescription at participating pharmacies and goes a long way toward removing the age-barrier to over-the-counter Plan B access.

In April 2007 the Washington State Board of Pharmacy took a further step to ensure women’s access to Plan B emergency contraception by unanimously approving two rules that protect access to valid prescription and behind-the-counter medications. Unfortunately opponents to Plan B access have obtained an injunction which currently puts these rules on hold and allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense emergency contraception for personal, non-medical reasons.

The ongoing challenge to Plan B availability led NARAL Pro-Choice Washington Foundation to launch the Emergency Contraception Access Project to better understand how accessible Plan B is for women across the state. Using lists supplied by the Pharmacy Board, we compiled a comprehensive list of all the pharmacies in the state then recruited project volunteers to survey these pharmacies by phone regarding their stocking, prescribing and billing policies for Plan B. The results can be seen on an interactive map on our website.

What did we find? On the positive side, the survey indicates that a woman can obtain Plan B at the majority of pharmacies across the state. But we were surprised to find, in a state as progressive as Washington, that 10 percent of surveyed pharmacies did not stock or refused to dispense Plan B.

Unfortunately availability is not the same as accessibility. Depending on the pharmacy Plan B retails for up to $80 for a single dose, greatly impeding access. Fortunately for some low-income women, Washington State’s Medicaid and Take Charge programs will cover the cost of family planning supplies and medications, which includes Plan B.

Yet we found in the course of our study, that 24 percent of pharmacists surveyed were either unaware that the Medicaid reimburses pharmacy providers for Plan B for eligible clients, or had never utilized the option.

This is a problem to which better education for pharmacists might help. That is why the next phase of the Emergency Contraception Access Project involves distributing informational brochures about Medicaid and Plan B to pharmacies and community service offices throughout the state. Low-income women, like all women, should not be denied assistance the state specifically set out to give them.

Washington State’s pharmacists have been leaders in the effort to increase women’s access to Plan B. Ensuring that low-income women are aware of the full range of payment options regarding Plan B is the next step in ensuring that all women in Washington have access to this form of contraception.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Mondi is the communications director for NARAL Pro-Choice Washington. Click here for an interactive map of availability of emergency contraception in Washington State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Washington Forum. 4/08

Fair Wage Engenders Basic Human Dignity

2008-05-01T10:01:00.000-07:00

By C. Melissa Snarr, Ph.D.

The United States first introduced minimum-wage legislation in the midst of the Great Depression. Recognizing the failures of unregulated markets, the nation chose to draw a moral line below which no market economy could fall; desperate people should not be required to work at desperation wages.

Citizen-emboldened politicians understood taking advantage of people's economic vulnerability was morally unconscionable, even amid economic turmoil.

Minimum-wage legislation secured a simple principle for the regulation of markets: A job should keep you out of poverty, not keep you in it. But in the past 40 years, elite-driven politicians eroded this principle as they refused to index the wage with consumer-price demands. The minimum wage will rise this year to $6.55 an hour, but it would take $9.70 an hour to reach its buying power in 1968 -- the year the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. died supporting Memphis sanitation workers' fair-wage struggle.

The living-wage movement seeks to restore a basic moral principle to the ongoing regulation of markets. People working a full-time job should be paid enough money to secure decent housing, food, transportation and health care for their family. In other words, people should be able to "live" in the most basic way on a minimum wage. In Davidson County, this means Metro government employees would need $10.36 an hour to avoid choosing between food, rent, electricity or doctor visits for their children (and that excludes savings, dining out and entertainment). Similarly, a worker living in Memphis would need $12 an hour without health insurance or $10 if health care were provided.

Contrary to common myths, 70 percent of minimum-wage earners in the U.S. are adults, many with families. These are not starter jobs for wealthy suburban teens. Wages are not depressed by undocumented workers but by corporate greed (states with the largest influx of undocumented workers have actually seen increases in jobs for documented workers and comparable stagnation of wages). As the Fiscal Policy Institute and others have documented, the number of small businesses and overall employment rate actually grew in states requiring wages higher than the federal minimum.

While worker productivity has increased steadily over the past several decades and CEO salaries have skyrocketed, wages have not. This is a moral and economic issue that requires government action.

In 1968, the Memphis sanitation workers carried signs that said simply, "I AM A MAN." They knew living wages were signals of basic human dignity. An employee who works multiple jobs to make ends meet has little time for family, kids, church or community. Homework help, neighborhood watches and volunteering fade under the demands of basic survival. We all lose in that erosion of community.

As a person of faith I must note that all religious traditions address the dignity workers deserve. Nations are judged by their treatment of the poor. God even rejects the worship of those who build their wealth on the backs of the poor. Created in the image of God, we are called to honor that image in the other -- and that includes what we pay for the work our nation requires.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Snarr is an Assistant Professor of Ethics and Society at Vanderbilt University Divinity School.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Tennessee Editorial Forum. 5/08

Juan’s Story: Undocumented But Not Un-American

2008-04-28T07:18:00.000-07:00

Watch a video of Juan telling his story.

By Sally Kohn

The first thing I noticed about Juan when I met him is his presence. For a young man, just graduated from high school --- that period when most of us were shy and awkward at best --- Juan is confident and vocal, the kind of person with clear potential to be a leader in whatever field he might choose.

The second thing you notice about Juan is the sadness in his eyes. His country, the only home he has ever known, decided his potential is irrelevant --- that no amount of talent and passion and vision and drive could ever overcome the fact that he and his family once crossed our nation’s borders without permission. It’s as though Juan the person doesn’t exist without Juan the paperwork. In our country, he’s treated as a number --- one to be reduced or feared.

Fear is one of the dominant motivating and manipulating forces in politics today. Some have tried to convince us that we should be afraid of immigrants, exploiting our fear about our jobs, healthcare and the economy, while pointing fingers at immigrants and saying they’re the cause of our problems. These are problems that have existed for years, deep flaws in the distribution of wealth and opportunity in our society, and undocumented immigrants are just the latest scapegoats. Fear is used to distract us while the real problems only grow.

The other motivating force is usually pity. But that’s not the answer either. Pity is equal parts compassion and isolation --- a sort-of thank goodness that it’s not me in his shoes. Pitying Juan would rob him of his dignity and power --- and absolve ourselves of responsibility.

What else, then? The most mutually respectful of emotions, where your fate is entwined with another’s, where you could never be truly safe if they are in danger, truly free if they are imprisoned, truly happy if they are unhappy -- we call that love. I don’t just mean romantic love. I mean the moral, even spiritual love --- a deep feeling of connection to other human beings, that their struggles are our struggles, their pain our pain, and that no one person’s happiness or security or hopes for the future can be rightly put above any one else’s. Just as the interests of billionaires should not be put ahead of people who are starving or losing their homes, one person’s claim on the American dream should not be put above anyone else’s by simple virtue of the geography of birth.

At what point did we close the borders on the American dream? The ideal of America has never been perfect in practice --- our present is still stained by a past of Native American extermination, slavery and sexism. Yet we have always marched toward inclusion, sometimes slowly, sometimes begrudgingly, but always bending the arc of our nation toward justice, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. observed. When did the arc start flattening out? Did we decide we’ve dished out just enough love and justice or that there’s not enough to go around? In a nation founded on the idea that freedom and equality and opportunity are renewable resources and the more the merrier, have we achieved “peak love” and tapped out?

The writer CS Lewis wrote, “We love to know that we are not alone.” And we are not alone. And as a nation, we are blessed by the bounty of generation upon generation of immigrants who have come to our borders and our shores to make a better life for themselves and, in so doing, make a better country for us all. It is the nation that, despite its hiccups and growing pains on the path to justice, is one that we should be proud to love. And Juan, like millions waiting at the gates of the American dream, loves his country and asks for our love in return.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kohn is a senior campaign strategist for the Center for Community Change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 4/08

Who Really Pays for Taxes in North Carolina?

2008-04-16T08:03:00.000-07:00

By Meg Gray Wiehe

Two workers arrive at the office at 8 am. By 8:34, one of the workers has earned enough money to pay his share of state and local taxes for the day. The other worker must keep going for another 17 minutes to earn enough to pay his share. The difference between these two workers is their income, but not in the way you make think.

In North Carolina today, it is the state’s poorest taxpayers who pay the highest share of their incomes in state and local taxes and the wealthiest taxpayers who pay the least.

State and local taxes pay for many of the things that keep North Carolinians safe and enhance their quality of life. These include physical structures like roads, jails, and school buildings, and services like health care, education, and restaurant inspections.

Because these investments benefit everyone, each North Carolinian should contribute an appropriate share of his or her income to pay for them. It should be a common goal that all North Carolinians pay similar shares of their incomes in state and local taxes. A good case can also be made that wealthier taxpayers should contribute a greater share of their incomes.

However, the situation today is the exact opposite of this ideal. In 2007, the bottom 20 percent of North Carolina households, with an average annual income of $10,000, paid 10.7 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes. In the same year, the top 1 percent, with an average annual income of $970,000, paid only 7.1 percent. The responsibility of paying local and state taxes falls hardest on those with the least ability to pay.

North Carolina’s state and local tax system on the whole is unfair, or “regressive.” North Carolina relies primarily on income, property and sales taxes to fund state and local services. The income tax is the largest of North Carolina’s combined state and local revenue sources. This helps to lessen the overall “regressivity” of the state’s tax system, but it is not enough to offset the impact that the sales, excise and property taxes have on the poorest households. A fair tax system should be structured such that the combined impact of all tax sources results in households with higher incomes paying the greatest share of income in state and local taxes.

The “regressivity” of North Carolina’s tax system has a serious impact on the state’s ability to collect adequate revenues. The majority of state income is concentrated in the wealthiest households, and the incomes of the top 1 percent are growing at a much faster rate than any other income category. Because North Carolina’s state and local tax system primarily targets working families who have seen their wages stagnate and have the least ability to pay, state revenues are in danger of lagging behind. Unless the state makes some key tax policy changes, we will certainly face serious budget problems in the future.

Changes that would require wealthy households to pay their fair share are essential to the state’s success. If we were to change the state and local tax system to require the wealthiest 1 percent of households to pay as much of their income as the poorest 20 percent do, the revenue yield would have been $589 million in 2006.

One way to improve tax fairness is to expand the sales tax base to include more personal services (used more by the wealthy) and use the revenue gains to lower the overall sales tax rate. Another is to increase the size of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to offset the impact of the sales tax on low-income households.

Changes can also be made to the property tax to benefit low-income homeowners and renters. The preferred approach, used in more than 30 states, is a refundable “circuit breaker” credit that would return a portion of property taxes low-income homeowners and renters pay through a refundable credit on their state income tax form.

Ideally, when lawmakers consider any changes to North Carolina’s current revenue system, they should account for the impact the change will have on low- and moderate-income taxpayers. If fairness is not at the center of every tax policy debate, reform efforts will fall short on achieving long-term adequacy. Focusing on fairness will help the state meet its needs without relying on those with the least to contribute.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray Wiehe is a policy analyst at the North Carolina Budget and Tax Center and the author of a special report entitled “Who Pays Taxes in North Carolina?”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the North Carolina Editorial Forum. 4/08