February 28, 2000
- Teen Endangerment Act Set for Senate Vote
- March Events to Keep Women’s Rights Activists Busy
- Support Strong Pay Equity Bill
Teen Endangerment Act Set for Senate Vote
Action Needed
The Child Custody Protection Act would make it a federal crime (a felony) to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion, unless the home state's parental involvement laws have been followed. This bill, if passed, would pose a great risk to young women's health and would seriously limit access to abortion services.
Call, email or fax your Senators to oppose the Child Custody Protection Act (S. 661, CCPA), which we have dubbed the Teen Endangerment Act. The bill could come up any time THIS WEEK, as Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) has indicated that he wants to bring it to a floor vote as soon as possible. This dangerous legislation has already passed the House and a close Senate vote is expected. Please act right away. Contact information is at the bottom of this alert.
Background and talking points to use in your correspondence:
- The CCPA would alienate teen-agers from their families by criminalizing assistance from caring relatives (grandmother, aunt, sister) when their help and guidance is most needed. If this bill were passed, responsible family members, even the young woman's minister, could be jailed for providing necessary and crucial help for their young loved ones in times of great need. Further, if young women cannot go to their families for support, they may be forced into potentially dangerous and harmful alternatives.
- This bill attempts to legislate family communication, but would actually have the opposite effect. Approximately 75 percent of young women already involve a parent when faced with an unintended pregnancy. Minors who cannot confide in their parents usually turn to a trusted adult (93% of minors are accompanied by an adult to an abortion clinic). However, many would not do so knowing that the adult would face prison for providing assistance.
- Because of the paucity of abortion providers (86% of counties have no provider), a young woman's only realistic option could be a clinic that is nearby but across state lines.
- This legislation could risk young women's health, by isolating those who do not involve their parents in their decision for good reasons, such as the threat of violence. An example of this is a thirteen-year-old from Idaho, Spring Adams, who was shot to death by her estranged father, who was nonetheless required to be told of her plans to terminate her pregnancy (which was reportedly the result of his acts of incest). According to research, among minors who did not tell a parent of their abortion, 30% had experienced violence in their family or feared violence or feared being forced to leave home.
- Opposing this legislation are: the American Academy of Pediatrics, representing 55,000 pediatricians nationally, and the Society for Adolescent Medicine, representing 1,400 adolescent health professionals nationally. These groups wrote to Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) when the bill was before the House saying, "legislation mandating parental involvement does not achieve the intended benefit of promoting family communication. It may increase the risk of harm to the adolescent by delaying access to appropriate medical care."
Please communicate with both of your Senators, regardless of their known positions on reproductive rights and let them know that this bill will NOT promote parental involvement and it will harm young women. Call the Capitol switchboard is: (202) 224-3121 and ask for your Senators offices. You may contact Senators via e-mail as well.
What do you think? - Should parents have no say in the matter? Post your comments on the Equalitarian Discussion Board.
March Events to Keep Women’s Rights Activists Busy
Action Needed
Please take the time to participate in (or help organize!) town hall meetings and candidate forums. We need supporters of women's rights to expose candidates’ positions on such matters as Social Security and Medicare privatization; increasing funding for child care and early childhood education programs; protecting women’s reproductive rights, pay equity, hate crimes, you get the picture. What women don't know in these elections . . . can hurt our rights!
The following update will tell you about Social Security summits being planned as well as training sessions and materials that are available regarding Social Security nd Medicare. Soon we will be sending further information on organizing around child care funding and pay equity.
Social Security Training/Town Hall Meetings
You may be interested to hear that on March 10th, the day before NOW’s next national board meeting, that there is a half-day activists’ training on Social Security, being sponsored by the National Council of Women’s Organizations (NCWO) and other groups, at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. This is a free event, including a lunch, that will run from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. and would work out well for those who are planning to be in D.C. area at that time to attend. NOW is an active participant in NCWO’s Women and Social Security Task Force and has worked closely with many allied organizations to identify ways to enhance the system for women.
The session is entitled “Protecting and Strengthening Social Security for Women - Campaign 2000: From the Capitol Steps to America’s Front Porch.” Presentations on the politics and policy options for Social Security will be made by leaders of various national women’s organizations, including Dr. Heidi Hartmann, President of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Reports, training and media materials will be available.
Preserving and strengthening Social Security is an important issue in the current election campaigns; all Republican candidates remaining in the race have vowed to “privatize” the system. This training is designed to give you powerful arguments on why Social Security should be protected and how the system could be improved to benefit women. It will also assist you in talking to the press, “staying on message” and working with other progressive groups to promote women’s Social Security interests.
Other groups who are organizing the training include the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) and The Women’s Institute for Secure Retirement (WISER). Please RSVP to Lisa Witter, Director of the Women and Social Security Campaign at (202) 785-5100 or by email at lisa@women4socialsecurity.org or Catherine Hill, Study Director, IWPR, by email hill@iwpr.org For updated information on Social Security, check out a new website at www.women4socialsecurity.org
We hope that many of you can attend. For others who want to work on Social Security in their communities, there are other organizing efforts to conduct town hall meetings and candidate forums around the various primary elections. Already many of these events have been held. In New Hampshire prior to the primary there, New Hampshire NOW was very instrumental in holding a press conference with other groups where a new IWPR report was released, noting the negative impact that the Cato Institute’s privatization plan would have on women retirees.
Other cities where Women’s Summits on Social Security are being planned for March through May by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) and Older Women’s League (OWL) include Montgomery, AL; Newark and Dover, DE; Twin Cities, MN; St Louis and four other MO towns; Albany, NY; Euclid, OH; Sarasota and Venice, FL: Eugene, Salem and Beaverton, OR; Salt Lake City; UT; Bothell, WA; and De Pere, WI. Later in the year right on up to the elections Social Security summits will be held in Kalispell, MT; Providence, RI; Piedmont, Spartanburg, Rock Hill and Newbury, SC, and Dallas, TX. NOW activists may want to join in with plans already underway or make contact with other organizations in their areas to interest them in co-sponsoring events.
On Friday, Feb. 25th, Patricia Ireland told a National Press Club gathering that privatization proposals are like a shell game. “Here’s how it works: Conservatives abolish the current Social Security program and hire non-government firms to do the job. In the end, the companies that take over the program would get to line their pockets with our tax dollars while politicians get to claim they reduced government. Like more shell games, privatization is a scam. And women will likely suffer the greatest losses, if implemented.”
Ireland noted that “privatization of Social Security would be risky and expensive. Administrative costs of Social Security are just 1% of benefits, compared to 12 to 14% for private insurers. Most of the proposals offered would create private accounts by diverting Social Security taxes while cutting benefits and raising the retirement ago to make up for lost revenues.”
The politicians who would privatize have recently toned down their rhetoric about the supposed benefits; few of the Republican presidential candidates even raise the issue anymore. Why? Because their polling shows that privatization is not a popular idea with the public and especially, not popular with women. They now say that they are in favor of “strengthening Social Security.” In fact, as noted earlier, all the major Republican candidates have vowed to privatize (with the exception of Gary Bauer who opposed privatization, but has now withdrawn from the race). The two major democratic contenders, Vice president Al Gore and former Sen. Bill Bradley are opposed to privatization.
It’s important that activists get all candidates state legislature, Congressional and presidential on record concerning Social Security and to not let them obfuscate on the issue. A good way to do this is to ask them to sign a pledge which clearly states their opposition to privatization. Utilizing a model developed by the Social Security/Medicare Project of the Campaign for America’s Future, NOW will make available forms for activists to distribute in their communities. If you would like a copy of the pledge, please email a request to: govtrel@now.org or call NOW Government Relations intern Branden Golden at (202) 628-8669, ext. 101.
Several new reports and organizing materials will be available at the next National NOW Board meeting or you can contact the NOW Government Relations Intern, Branden Golden and request a packet after March 10th. Call (202) 628-8669, ext. 161 or send a request a email, noting your ‘snail mail’ address.
Support Strong Pay Equity Bill
Take Action
Wage discrimination is suddenly a hot topic, partly because of the U.S. Women’s Soccer Team pay controversy (see story below) Please help us keep up the momentum by writing to your Senator. You can help close the pay gap by supporting the Fair Pay Act (S.702/ H.R.1271) and asking your members of Congress to sponsor this bill and pass it this session, along with special funding for enforcement. See below for sample letter and email contacts.
Support the Fair Pay Act
Several bills have been introduced in Congress regarding wage discrimination: the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 74/ H.R. 541) and the Fair Pay Act Fair Pay Act (S. 702/H.R.1271) (a much stronger bill). In addition, President Clinton announced an Equal Pay Initiative to close the pay gap between men and women. He proposed spending $27 million to improve enforcement if equal pay laws. Sen. Charles Robb (D-VA) is leading an effort to have the Senate authorize the additional funding. Place a call or send a fax or e-mail message to the Senate in support of the Fair Pay Act and the funds to enhance enforcement activities. Contact information and a form letter are provided at the end.
Background
Spurred on by the U.S. Women's Soccer team and with the help of soccer star Michelle Akers (see story below), President Clinton announced on January 24th that he is seeking a $27 million Equal Pay Initiative intended to close the wage gap between women and men. This initiative allocates $10 million to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to strengthen their ability to identify and respond to wage discrimination, teach employers and businesses how to meet legal requirements, and to disseminate public service announcements informing employers and employees of their rights and responsibilities. This initiative also appropriates $17 million to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to train women in non-traditional jobs, make information concerning high-quality employment available, make career guidance accessible in a "One-Stop Career Center delivery system," assist employers in maintaining effective wage policies, and fortify industrial partnerships in order to help women progress in the workforce.
In his State of the Union address, President Clinton urged Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 541/S. 74) sponsored by Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT). Although the President clearly understands the many unfair consequences of pay discrimination, his recommended bill does not go far enough. The Paycheck Fairness Act is very limited in that it expands the availability of damages under the Equal Pay Act 1963 (which affects only jobs that are nearly identical), develops fair pay guidelines that would be *voluntary* for employers, and prohibits employers from retaliating against those employees who inquire whether their own pay is fair.
The Fair Pay Act
The Fair Pay Act is a much stronger bill (S. 702/H.R.1271) sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), which seeks to end pay discrimination against women who work in female-dominated job categories by addressing the equivalency of different jobs. The Fair Pay Act would prohibit employers from paying lower wages to women (working at jobs held predominantly by women) than they would pay men (in predominantly male-held job categories) if those jobs are equivalent in value to the employer. This is an approach which overcomes several of the persistent obstacles to reaching pay equity - that is, many jobs are equivalent but not identical and women and people of color tend to be relegated to the ones that are traditionally lower-paying.
One negative aspect of the Fair Pay Act, however, is a small business exemption, which would create an exception for employers with 25 or fewer employees, initially, and then later for employers with 15 or fewer employees.
"The pay gap exists," according to the National Committee on Pay Equity (NCPE), "in part, because women and people of color are still segregated into a few low-paying occupations. More than half of all women workers hold sales, clerical and service jobs. Studies show that the more an occupation is dominated by women or people of color, the less it pays." Another part of the wage gap is due to a difference in education, experience or time in the workforce. However, the biggest part of the pay gap can only be explained as the result of discrimination.
The impact of the wage gap follows women throughout their lives. As Social Security is based on earnings, the less a woman earns, the less she will receive in benefits down the road when she begins to collect Social Security; and fewer women than men have a pension through their employers. President Clinton emphasized that, “keep[ing] in mind that the pay gap is 75 percent the average woman who is about to retire, if she even gets the pension in the first place, can expect only half the pension benefits of the average man who retires.”
There should be little wonder that there is such a high poverty rate among older women. After accounting for education, age, pay, geographic area, and the number of hours worked, this gap translates to a loss of about $4,000 in annual income for employed women’s families, according to a February 1999 study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) and the AFL-CIO. This amount summed over a 35 year working history amounts to a substantial loss; for higher earners, of course, the cumulative impact of pay discrimination throughout a lifetime career represents an enormous loss.
One popular misconception is that women earn less than men because they work fewer hours. However, the statistic that women earn $ .73 to every man's dollar does not factor in part-time workers. Full-time women workers earn 73% of what full-time working men earn (these figures are based on the information available between 1997-98).
Pay inequity example: U.S. Women's Soccer Team
The dispute between the Women's Soccer team and the U.S. Soccer Federation is an excellent illustration of the huge disparity that still exists in funding for female and male athletics and the persistent pay gap in the work force. Twenty members of the U.S. Women's Soccer team refused to play in an Australian tournament in January and demanded to be paid the same amount as the players on the Men's Soccer team. The Women's Soccer team in their 1996 agreement with the U.S. Soccer Federation were to be paid $3,150 per month for the most experienced players and about $250 for every game, while the Men's Soccer team received $5,000 per month and an additional $2,000 for the 18 players who were going to Australia (Washington Post, Jan. 24).
"I have been on the team for 12 years and during that time we have had to have outside jobs to make a living,"said Co-Captain of the Women's Team Carla Overbeck at a press conference on February 1st, "Women have to be treated equally as men. I have been doing appearances on the side and people would come up to me and tell me that they are behind us. We believed what we’re doing was right and had the support of the nation behind us. We had nothing to lose -- only the opportunity to make a statement for professional women sports."
The U.S. Soccer President Dr. S. Robert Contiguglia announced on February 1st that the U.S. Soccer Federation and the Women's National Team have drawn a new five year contract that guarantees ongoing pay parity with the Men's National Team. The Women's Team will earn $2,000 per appearance, the same fee the men are paid, and the Women's Team's bonus for competition in major tournaments and wins will match that of the bonus awarded to the men's team.
Soccer star Michelle Akers has been very outspoken about this issue and teamed up with President Clinton on January 24th to announce the Equal Pay Initiative. You can e-mail her your support at communications@ussoccer.org or write to her at U.S. Soccer House, 1801-1811 S. Prairie Avenue, Chicago, IL 60616.
Equal Pay Day
May 11th is Equal Pay Day and scores of events are being panned to raise awareness about the pay gap. This date was derived by subtracting the 1998 average woman’s salary ($25, 862) from the average man’s salary ($35,345); the sum is $9,483 or 37% of the average woman’s salary. It will take her 37% of the new year (135 days) in order for her to make up that difference.
How to reach your members of Congress
The main number for Congress is (202) 224-3121 or you can access web sites for the Senate and House of Representatives to send email messages. Be sure to include your snail mail address, especially if you live in the member’s district. Please send a copy of your e-mails to GOTOBUTTON BM_2_ govtrel@now.org. Thank you!
Contact Your Senators: http://www.senate.gov/senators/index.cfm
Contact Your Representative: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
The Honorable __________
Senator
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator ___________:
Please support the Fair Pay Act (S. 702/H.R.1271) to begin closing the disparity between men's and women's incomes. This bill will require employers to base employees’ pay on objective factors such as skill, education, level of responsibility, experience and working conditions -- to ensure that employees working equivalent jobs will receive equal pay.
The Institute for Women’s Policy Research and the AFL-CIO estimate that working women’s families lose $4,000 annually in income because of inequitable pay. The AFL-CIO also reports that the average 29-year-old white woman with a Bachelor’s degree will lose about $990,000 in pay during her lifetime. The average man of color will experience a similar loss, while the average woman of color may lose even more in wages. This discrepancy has a lifelong cumulative effect that reduces the economic well-being of millions of women, people of color and their families.
Also, it is very important that you support efforts to provide an additional $10 million in funding to the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) for its handling of wage discrimination cases and to conduct public education and employer training. Another $17 million requested by the President will help the Labor Department train women in non-traditional jobs - jobs which usually pay higher wages - and to help employers develop programs to help women retain jobs and gain promotions. All these activities will strengthen women’s economic status and diminish discrimination in pay.
Thank you for your attention and I hope that you will be able to help us reach our goal of pay equity for all.
Sincerely, Your Name
(Note: If you want to send the letter to your House member as well, address your Representative as follows: The Honorable________, Representative, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515) Dear Representative __________:
What do you think? - Are women already being paid appropriately, or is discrimination still rampant? In the sports arena, Tennis has previously been used as an example of pay discrimination though as David Thomas noted in Not Guilty: The Case in Defense of Men, when pay was broken down by number of games paid and ticket receipts women actually ended up making more per game than men. Is this another case of distorting the numbers to fit the desired result, or is there a real case to be made? Post your comments on the Equalitarian Discussion Board.
This Legislative Update was compiled by the Government Relations/Public Policy Team at the NOW Office. Questions? Call Jan Erickson, Government Relations Director, at (202) 628-8669, ext. 101. To receive free copies of any bill, call your U.S. Senator or Representative (202) 224-3121 or connect to thomas.loc.gov This update is mailed monthly to the NOW leadership. Any member can receive a copy of this update by mail for $25 per year, or you can read it at http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/. Join our Action Alert email network by sending the message subscribe-now-action-list.
|