Wise Women Won't Wait Any More
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Friday, July 4, 2014
People of Faith Should Boycott Hobby Lobby until they Divest
By Faith Chatham - July 4, 2014
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of Hobby Lobby, Inc. is viewed by some religious conservatives as a decision in favor of religious freedom. However, most constitutional law scholars view the "hidden payload" of this decision as a set-back for religious freedom.
On the Hobby Lobby FaceBook page, several people have pointed out that Hobby Lobby, Inc. has substantial investments in the manufacturer of the morning after pill and i.u.d. which the corporation claims covering on their employee health insurance under the Affordable Care Act infringes on their owners religious beliefs. The Company's 401K plan also invests in two insurance companies which cover surgical abortions.
The inconsistencies in the business investment practices of the Greene family and their business (Hobby Lobby, Inc.) cause many to doubt whether the family truly has as strong objections to use of the devices they refuse to cover on their employee health policy as is claimed in their Supreme Court law suit.
A national call to boycott Hobby Lobby is attracting substantial participation from women and men who object to the imposition of the owners religious beliefs on the personal health and family planning choices of their employees. Those who truly believe that life begins at conception and use of these means of family planning is wrong should join in the boycott until Hobby Lobby divests from stock holdings which manufacture or provide the very services they claim violates their religious beliefs to offer in their employee health plan.
Hobby Lobby invests in nine funds which involve three quarters of Hobby Lobby's 401(k) assets: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, manufactures Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD; Actavis, manufactures a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella; Pfizer,manufactures Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions and Bayer manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions. Forest Laboratories, manufacturer of Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions, is also in the Hobby Lobby investment portfolio. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby portfolio invests in Aetna and Humana, and both of these health insurance companies cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of their insurance plans.
Numerous supporters of Hobby Lobby point out that they cover some birth control and only exclude 4. The company investing in the manufacturer or insurance plans which provide these four, while refusing to allow their employees affordable access to them through the company health plan, indicates to this author that the family's objection to them is lame and less than sincere.
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of Hobby Lobby, Inc. is viewed by some religious conservatives as a decision in favor of religious freedom. However, most constitutional law scholars view the "hidden payload" of this decision as a set-back for religious freedom.
Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
"The decision “demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a dissent that was mostly joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotmayor.”...In her dissent, Ginsburg said court precedent and common wisdom suggest “the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities.” (Quote from Forbes Magazine editorial by Daniel Fisher published 6/30/2014: Supreme Court Holds Congress To Its Word in Hobby Lobby Decision.)
On the Hobby Lobby FaceBook page, several people have pointed out that Hobby Lobby, Inc. has substantial investments in the manufacturer of the morning after pill and i.u.d. which the corporation claims covering on their employee health insurance under the Affordable Care Act infringes on their owners religious beliefs. The Company's 401K plan also invests in two insurance companies which cover surgical abortions.
The inconsistencies in the business investment practices of the Greene family and their business (Hobby Lobby, Inc.) cause many to doubt whether the family truly has as strong objections to use of the devices they refuse to cover on their employee health policy as is claimed in their Supreme Court law suit.
A national call to boycott Hobby Lobby is attracting substantial participation from women and men who object to the imposition of the owners religious beliefs on the personal health and family planning choices of their employees. Those who truly believe that life begins at conception and use of these means of family planning is wrong should join in the boycott until Hobby Lobby divests from stock holdings which manufacture or provide the very services they claim violates their religious beliefs to offer in their employee health plan.
Hobby Lobby invests in nine funds which involve three quarters of Hobby Lobby's 401(k) assets: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, manufactures Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD; Actavis, manufactures a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella; Pfizer,manufactures Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions and Bayer manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions. Forest Laboratories, manufacturer of Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions, is also in the Hobby Lobby investment portfolio. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby portfolio invests in Aetna and Humana, and both of these health insurance companies cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of their insurance plans.
Numerous supporters of Hobby Lobby point out that they cover some birth control and only exclude 4. The company investing in the manufacturer or insurance plans which provide these four, while refusing to allow their employees affordable access to them through the company health plan, indicates to this author that the family's objection to them is lame and less than sincere.
People of faith who truly believe that these forms of contraception are contrary to their religious beliefs should join in the boycott until they divest of these stocks. Even then, this decision still provides substantial problems for people of faith.
Whenever anyone at the top of the "food chain" can impose their "religious practices and beliefs" on their employees or their subordinates, we have a serious threat to religious freedom in this country. Our nation was founded on the premise of separation of church and state to allow individuals to select and practice their religion without interference from government or other powerful interest in the community. This decision is a serious set-back for citizens. It allows a few to impose their preference on many. It allows the more affluent to use its financial clout (through costly litigation or threat to employees earnings and employees benefits) on those of lesser economic standing.
Instead of being a decision which expands or protects religious freedom, I see it as a "wolf in lambs clothing" which truly infringes upon, and chips away, at the constitutional protections of religious freedom.
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Texas population by gender
By Faith Chatham - July 3, 2014
Texas Population US Census
Population by Sex/Age
Male 12,472,280
Female 12,673,281
Under 18 6,865,824
18 & over 18,279,737
20 - 24 1,817,079
25 - 34 3,613,473
35 - 49 5,218,849
50 - 64 4,272,560
65 & over 2,601,886
There are more about 200,000 more females in Texas than males.
If women will show up at the polls and not vote against their own best interest, Democrats will win in November.
Texas Population US Census
Population by Sex/Age
Male 12,472,280
Female 12,673,281
Under 18 6,865,824
18 & over 18,279,737
20 - 24 1,817,079
25 - 34 3,613,473
35 - 49 5,218,849
50 - 64 4,272,560
65 & over 2,601,886
There are more about 200,000 more females in Texas than males.
If women will show up at the polls and not vote against their own best interest, Democrats will win in November.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Women (and many men) are Outraged at Hobby Lobby and 5 men in the U.S. Supreme Court
By Faith Chatham - July 1, 2014
Hobby Lobby may have "won" their Appeal to the United States Supreme Court by a 5-4 decision, but they are losing customers over their claiming religious rights of the owner to refuse to cover birth control on employee insurance. In a 35 page dissent Minority Report, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Burwell v.s. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. decision,
In a copyrighted story Reuters reported:
Hobby Lobby may have "won" their Appeal to the United States Supreme Court by a 5-4 decision, but they are losing customers over their claiming religious rights of the owner to refuse to cover birth control on employee insurance. In a 35 page dissent Minority Report, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Burwell v.s. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. decision,
In a copyrighted story Reuters reported:
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the court's decision "jeopardizes the health of women who are employed by these companies. She stated:
"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would...deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage."
"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
"Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."
"Would the exemption...extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]...Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision."
"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."
Outrage at Hobby Lobby and its owners was expressed on the firm's Facebook Page. Those declaring intentions of "never shopping there again" outnumbered those who supported the company's position 9 to 1.
The Great Divide:
All 5 justices who voted for Hobby Lobby to be allowed to claim the right to refuse to offer birth control in employees health plans based on the First Amendment Right of the owner to exercise religious freedom are men. Three of the four Justices who dissented and voted against Hobby Lobby are women!
This decision, viewed as a bad thing for women, may be a good thing for Democrats in November. I concur with Emma Roller in her story: Why the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Decision Could Be Good News for DemocratsIt could help fire up a hard-to-reach voter demographic.
Roller wrote:
A recent Stan Greenberg poll posits that unmarried women can "make or break" the 2014 elections. And, as Mara Liasson wrote in May, they are firmly in Democrats' camp. But Democrats have a problem: Like most everyone else in the electorate, young women are less likely to turn out to vote in midterm elections. A Supreme Court case doesn't necessarily change that: Getting young female voters fired up about a decision is one thing; getting them to vote is another.http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-the-supreme-court-s-hobby-lobby-decision-could-be-good-news-for-democrats-20140630
Luckily, contraception coverage is an issue young women care about. A March poll conducted by Hart Research Associates (and commissioned by Planned Parenthood) found that a large majority of female voters—81 percent—believe prescription birth control should be covered as a preventive health service, at no additional cost to prescribers.
For single women, birth-control coverage presents a trinity of issues they care about—health care, reproductive issues, and pay equity (after all, this is an issue that men don't really have to worry about). The Hobby Lobby decision may not be a silver bullet, but it could be enough to energize support among female voters who are suddenly worried that their employers could stop covering their birth control.
It has been reported that the company owns stock in the corporation which manufacturers the Morning After Pill. Jessica Neubauer posted on the Hobby Lobby Facebook page:
Great, now that you don't have to pay for birth control because of your "religion", maybe you'll sell all your stock in TEVA and DANCO. You know, the companies that make Plan B and the morning after pills?Because you aren't hypocrites or anything.
Corporate Investment in Morning After Pill Manufacturer:
Jessica Neubauer posted on Hobby Lobby's Facebook page: "Great, now that you don't have to pay for birth control because of your "religion", maybe you'll sell all your stock in TEVA and DANCO. You know, the companies that make Plan B and the morning after pills?
Because you aren't hypocrites or anything."
Some defended the company claiming that they could not control what companies their mutual fund bought. Others went on record to show that was not true.
Joyce Kirkham: "There are mutual funds available that are tailor made for just about any philosophy. Your defense of the hypocritical investment practices of HL rings very hollow."
Deborah Morris: "I won’t be buying at Hobby Lobby AND my investment professional does allow me to select industries that I do not want to invest in. No tobacco or guns in my portfolio. . I am pretty sure Hobby Lobby has a lot bigger portfolio than I do and could exercise the same controls if they chose to."
Alisha Deck Niehaus Joan T, So the fact that TEVA makes other drugs aside from the ones that HL disagrees with negates the hypocrisy of denying coverage for employees, but using them to turn a profit for the 401k? That's the kind of circuitous logic that makes robots heads explode. Also, my sister is getting married in August. Everything I bought from HL for the reception just got returned this afternoon. And then re-bought from the Michaels up the road.
Jacki Ristich Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k)."
Sandra: "SV Hobby Lobby's 401(k) employee retirement plan holds $73 million in mutual funds that invest in multiple pharmaceutical companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and abortion-inducing medications.
"The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby's mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies."
Some defended Hobby Lobby's investment i TEVA citing that the company manufactured more than just abortion drugs. This did not justify the double standard in the eyes of the majorities reading the page.
Alisha Deck Niehaus: "Joan T, So the fact that TEVA makes other drugs aside from the ones that HL disagrees with negates the hypocrisy of denying coverage for employees, but using them to turn a profit for the 401k? That's the kind of circuitous logic that makes robots heads explode. Also, my sister is getting married in August. Everything I bought from HL for the reception just got returned this afternoon. And then re-bought from the Michaels up the road."
Jacki Ristich: "Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).
Sandra SV Hobby Lobby's 401(k) employee retirement plan holds $73 million in mutual funds that invest in multiple pharmaceutical companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and abortion-inducing medications.
John Smith
"Hobby Lobby I am still waiting for an explanation on why you have over 73 million invested in the companies that make the same IUDs and morning after pills you religiously object to. According to the Green family, interfering with an already fertilized egg is tantamount to abortion—an act unacceptable to the family and one they refuse to participate in no matter what the Affordable Care Act may require .
However, it turns out that the owners of Hobby Lobby do not appear to have any problem with profiting from the companies that manufacture the very products that so grievously offend their religious principles."
The following is a summation of the companies manufacturing these products that are held by the Hobby Lobby employee retirement plan, as set forth by Ms. Redden’s remarkable reporting:
These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.
When added up, the nine funds holding the stated investments involve three-quarters of Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) assets."
Many others expressed outrage at the Company claiming providing birth control infringes on their religious freedo while most of the merchandise the company sells is manufactured in China.
Thousands of Americans have gone to the Hobby Lobby Facebook page in the past 24 hours and posted questions about why their "religion" extends to denying women employees insurance coverage for the very medication that the company's matches 401K donations in the stock of the manufacturer! They ask how come Hobby Lobby claims a "moral" "religious" position on birth control for their employees yet have no problem in supporting a Communist Chinese government which forces women to abort all but the first child!
My comment "Religious freedom should extend to the employees! A manager should not determine the religious decisions of the employees! Hobby Lobby is a Corporation! I hope many of the women find much better positions with much better employers. The customers are finding better places to shop!" In less than 24 hours 562 readers clicked that they "liked" my comment!
Darcy Baxter rebuked Justyna, declaring "this is a victory FOR government overreach. It grants more natural rights to a corporate entity, a homunculous, a soul-less creation of the state. All is not as as it seems. This is a HUGE step in favor of the corporatocracy, the plutocratic government system we live under and the subversion of individual rights. Do you know, for example that now EVERY taxpayer, regardless of religious beliefs, will have to foot the bill for HL's religious freedom, and that, in fact, HL asked the US government to do that, in the first place?"
Texas is READY FOR HILLARY
By Faith Chatham - July 1, 2014
It was an honor to work with an incredible team of volunteers in coordination with the Women's and Latino Offices of the Ready for Hillary superpac based in McLean, VA this past weekend at the Texas State Democratic Convention. Hillary's booth appeared to have the most traffic of all the booths at the Convention. We were between Leticia Van de Putte and Cozad for Congress booths and took pictures of delegates declaring their support for Hillary.
<; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
<; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Friday, June 6, 2014
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Women Empowerment Websites
By Linda Brooks April 2014
JOYFUL HEART FOUNDATION www.joyfulheartfoundation.org
NO MORE www.nomore.org
THE NEW AGENDA www.thenewagenda.net
NATIONAL WOMEN'S HISTORY MUSEUM www.nwhm.org
NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER www.nwlc.org
THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN www.aauw.org
OFF THE SIDEELINES www.offthesidelines.org
A MIGHTY GIRL www.amightygirl.com
UNITE WOMEN www.unitewomen.com
ELECT WOMEN www.electwomen.com
EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT www.equalrightsamendment.org
READY FOR HILLARY www.readyforhillary.com
WOMEN'S CAMPAIGN SCHOOL AT YALE UNIVERSITY http://www.wcsyale.org
Friday, May 23, 2014
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Pay Day Fairness is not a Partisan Fight - It's a Women's Fight!
By Faith Chatham - April 12, 2014
There is nothing PARTISAN about getting paid or not getting paid! It's is being cheated or not being cheated. Being silent and continuing to take it while you continue getting taken is being STUPID! I'm referring to my years before I retired! Honey, I've been down that road and back up it. They can "Sweet talk you" and call you nick names and what really matters at the end of the week is HOW MUCH HARDER is it for you to make your pay check stretch than it is for the guy sitting in the next cubbie hole who isn't producing what YOU are but is getting paid more?
Pay Check or Pay Day Fairness or Equal Pay for Equal Work or whatever it is called comes down to whether the WOMEN of this Nation are content to continue being shortchanged on payday while the guys have change in their pocket to go blow it after we're still stuck in the office finishing up!
Young women beware. Laws which forbid you to discuss your pay are abusive and need to be outlawed. The Pay Day Fairness Act which was voted down by six votes in the Senate and which had NO REPUBLICAN co-sponsors in the House is something that impacts your pocket book and impacts your rights in the workplace and should not be partisan. EVERY WOMAN in this nation should support it.
I don't care whether you wear elephant pins of donkey pins, it is time to unite and CHANGE IT. I went to work for 40% less 50 years ago at Harte Hanks Newspapers Inc. I found out by accident when the guy who had the same education and less experience than I did who was hired the same day accidentally dropped his pay stub. If we'd discussed it, we'd have both been fired for violating company policy. Some "Policies" are abusive. Sex offenders always tell the victims they can't tell what happened. When someone is taking unfair advantage of you they try to keep you in the dark about what is right and fair for you and they don't want others to know how abusive they are. For decades labor laws have been unfair and it is past time for that to change.
There is nothing PARTISAN about getting paid or not getting paid! It's is being cheated or not being cheated. Being silent and continuing to take it while you continue getting taken is being STUPID! I'm referring to my years before I retired! Honey, I've been down that road and back up it. They can "Sweet talk you" and call you nick names and what really matters at the end of the week is HOW MUCH HARDER is it for you to make your pay check stretch than it is for the guy sitting in the next cubbie hole who isn't producing what YOU are but is getting paid more?
Pay Check or Pay Day Fairness or Equal Pay for Equal Work or whatever it is called comes down to whether the WOMEN of this Nation are content to continue being shortchanged on payday while the guys have change in their pocket to go blow it after we're still stuck in the office finishing up!
Young women beware. Laws which forbid you to discuss your pay are abusive and need to be outlawed. The Pay Day Fairness Act which was voted down by six votes in the Senate and which had NO REPUBLICAN co-sponsors in the House is something that impacts your pocket book and impacts your rights in the workplace and should not be partisan. EVERY WOMAN in this nation should support it.
I don't care whether you wear elephant pins of donkey pins, it is time to unite and CHANGE IT. I went to work for 40% less 50 years ago at Harte Hanks Newspapers Inc. I found out by accident when the guy who had the same education and less experience than I did who was hired the same day accidentally dropped his pay stub. If we'd discussed it, we'd have both been fired for violating company policy. Some "Policies" are abusive. Sex offenders always tell the victims they can't tell what happened. When someone is taking unfair advantage of you they try to keep you in the dark about what is right and fair for you and they don't want others to know how abusive they are. For decades labor laws have been unfair and it is past time for that to change.
Friday, April 11, 2014
Paycheck Fairness Act - Republican Revolt!
By Faith Chatham - April 9, 2014
I simply don't get it! I've worked side-by-side for decades with intelligent Republican women. They have been discriminated against payday after payday the same as Democratic women. So why is it that only DEMOCRATIC Congresswomen and Congressmen and Democratic Senators sponsored and co-sponsored the Paycheck Fairness Act? Don't only do I not GET IT, but obviously, there are more women out there than just Faith Chatham who simply isn't getting it?
The bigger question, is WHY AREN'T THEY GETTING IT? Why aren't they yelling along with us about not getting a fair deal in the workplace? How come there is such silence from the other side of the aisle? Why aren't the Republican women charging over and demanding fairness too? How come the wives of the male Congressmen and Senators aren't bashing them over the head when they get home until they finally get it?
I know this is more of a rant than a story but honestly, folks, I am trying to wrap my head around how this continues to be LEGAL and ACCEPTABLE to a vast part of the American citizenry. Over forty years ago I discovered that a man with the same education and job experience as I had who was hired the same day as I was for Harte-Hanks Newspaper in Marshall, Texas was paid 40% more than I was. I was angry. I went to my boss. I went to the publisher. I was told: "Men have to support their families." He didn't have a family. He was single just like I was. We both supported ourselves. Only he had 40% more available cash at the end of the week than I had after we'd put in the same hours and contributed equally to the company. Honestly, I think I contributed more than he did. I am still convinced that I was a better employee. I worked while he goofed off. But he got paid more.
I crossed the aisle and began working in the advertising department, not because I wanted to be an advertising person. I did it because in advertising they got a base salary and a commission. I could out-sell and out-produce any man in the department and there was more equity there than in the editorial department. It appalls me that this is still the acceptable norm and it seems to be fine with at least half of the women in this nation! That is what I simply don't get!
Why aren't we joining forces and bashing these Legislators over the Head? Why aren't women joining forces and demanding that every Congressperson who voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act get a "pink slip"!
Senator Barbara Mulinsik
Senator BARBARA MIKULSKI of Maryland champions fairness for women. She has presented the bill multiple times in the Senate and there are companion bills (identical) which have been presented in the house. No Republican has voted for these bills?
Senator Mikulski presented it again in the Senate on April 1, 2014.
There are 34 Co-Sponsors and NONE ARE REPUBLICANS. None of the co-sponsors are from Texas! Why are Texas women quiet about this?
I don't get it! Women who vote Republican and run Republican Women's Club get cheated when the paychecks are distributed just like I was! Why are they silent! Why do they let this continue without fighting beside other women to change what is wrong! Do they want their daughters and granddaughters to continue being shortchanged the way they are? Don't they care? They don't appear to think they are powerless. Why aren't they fighting with us instead of against their own best interest?
Here is the text of the bill: http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2199 It is titled: . Th A BILL To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes. 1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Paycheck Fairness Act . The first section reads:.png)
So it seems that even though there is disagreement on how much inequity there is between men and women in the workforce, there is agreement that there is inequity. Therefore, why are Republican women sitting out this fight and letting the men continue getting away with cheating all of us in the workplace?
The latest action on the Paycheck Fairness Act is:
04/08/2014 Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate.
In the House the identical bill is H.R.377 - Paycheck Fairness Act
113th Congress (2013-2014)
http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/377
I simply don't get it! I've worked side-by-side for decades with intelligent Republican women. They have been discriminated against payday after payday the same as Democratic women. So why is it that only DEMOCRATIC Congresswomen and Congressmen and Democratic Senators sponsored and co-sponsored the Paycheck Fairness Act? Don't only do I not GET IT, but obviously, there are more women out there than just Faith Chatham who simply isn't getting it?
The bigger question, is WHY AREN'T THEY GETTING IT? Why aren't they yelling along with us about not getting a fair deal in the workplace? How come there is such silence from the other side of the aisle? Why aren't the Republican women charging over and demanding fairness too? How come the wives of the male Congressmen and Senators aren't bashing them over the head when they get home until they finally get it?
I know this is more of a rant than a story but honestly, folks, I am trying to wrap my head around how this continues to be LEGAL and ACCEPTABLE to a vast part of the American citizenry. Over forty years ago I discovered that a man with the same education and job experience as I had who was hired the same day as I was for Harte-Hanks Newspaper in Marshall, Texas was paid 40% more than I was. I was angry. I went to my boss. I went to the publisher. I was told: "Men have to support their families." He didn't have a family. He was single just like I was. We both supported ourselves. Only he had 40% more available cash at the end of the week than I had after we'd put in the same hours and contributed equally to the company. Honestly, I think I contributed more than he did. I am still convinced that I was a better employee. I worked while he goofed off. But he got paid more.
I crossed the aisle and began working in the advertising department, not because I wanted to be an advertising person. I did it because in advertising they got a base salary and a commission. I could out-sell and out-produce any man in the department and there was more equity there than in the editorial department. It appalls me that this is still the acceptable norm and it seems to be fine with at least half of the women in this nation! That is what I simply don't get!
Why aren't we joining forces and bashing these Legislators over the Head? Why aren't women joining forces and demanding that every Congressperson who voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act get a "pink slip"!
I don't get it! Women who vote Republican and run Republican Women's Club get cheated when the paychecks are distributed just like I was! Why are they silent! Why do they let this continue without fighting beside other women to change what is wrong! Do they want their daughters and granddaughters to continue being shortchanged the way they are? Don't they care? They don't appear to think they are powerless. Why aren't they fighting with us instead of against their own best interest?
Here is the text of the bill: http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2199 It is titled: . Th A BILL To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes. 1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Paycheck Fairness Act . The first section reads:
2. Findings Congressfinds the following:(1) Women have entered the workforce in record numbers over the past 50 years. (2) Despite the enactment of theEqual Pay Act in 1963, many women continue to earn significantly lower pay than men for equal work. These pay disparities exist in both the private and governmental sectors. In many instances, the pay disparities can only be due to continued intentional discrimination or the lingering effects of past discrimination. (3) The existence of such pay disparities— (A) depresses the wages of working families who rely on the wages of all members of the family to make ends meet; (B) undermines women's retirement security, which is often based on earnings while in the workforce; (C) prevents the optimum utilization of available labor resources; (D) has been spread and perpetuated, through commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of commerce, among the workers of the several States; (E) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; (F) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce; (G) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; (H) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce; and (I) in many instances, may deprive workers of equal protection on the basis of sex in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments. (4) (A) Artificial barriers to the elimination of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex continue to exist decades after the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938(29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.)and the Civil Rights Act of 1964(42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.). (B) These barriers have resulted, in significant part, because the Equal Pay Act has not worked asCongressoriginally intended. Improvements and modifications to the law are necessary to ensure that the Act provides effective protection to those subject to pay discrimination on the basis of their sex. (C) Elimination of such barriers would have positive effects, including— (i) providing a solution to problems in the economy created by unfair pay disparities; (ii) substantially reducing the number of working women earning unfairly low wages, thereby reducing the dependence on public assistance; (iii) promoting stable families by enabling all family members to earn a fair rate of pay; (iv) remedying the effects of past discrimination on the basis of sex and ensuring that in the future workers are afforded equal protection on the basis of sex; and (v) ensuring equal protection pursuant to Congress’ power to enforce the 5th and 14th Amendments. (5) TheDepartment of Laborand theEqual Employment Opportunity Commissionhave important and unique responsibilities to help ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work. Why aren't all intelligent women behind this bill? How can there be such a partisan divide on something that impacts women of all political parties? NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON of the Washington Post wrote April 8, 2014 in an article titled: Paycheck Fairness Act has already failed twice. Will the third time be the charm?
What do Republicans think of this bill? Not much. The bill has no Republican co-sponsors, and they blocked it from going forward when it came up for a vote in 2012. Republican women, perhaps a natural place to look for support, voted with their party. Senators Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), who voted for the Lilly Ledbetter Act in 2009, were no votes in 2012. The GOP, which released a memo Monday, cites increased lawsuits as a possible result of the legislation. Republicans also say discrimination based on sex is already illegal, so this bill is just piling on. Some conservatives and Republicans have also been questioning how big the pay gap actually is. Although the Democrats use the 77 cents on the dollar figure, other studies suggest it’s closer to 84 cents, depending on how you slice the numbers and account for life choices. (It’s hard to find a study that finds no pay disparity in what men and women make). Read moreThe chart published with that article is:
.png)
Sponsor: Rep. DeLauro, Rosa L. [D-CT-3] (Introduced 01/23/2013) Cosponsors: 207 Latest Action: 04/23/2013 Referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections. Notes: On 4/11/2013, a motion was filed to discharge the Committee on Education and the Workforce from the consideration of H.R.377. A discharge petition requires 218 signatures for further action. (Discharge Petition No. 113-1: text with signatures.)All of the 208 Co-sponsors in the House of Representatives are Democrat. From the Texas Congressional Delegation these 12 members are co-sponsors: Rep. Green, Al [D-TX-9] Rep. Green, Gene [D-TX-29] Rep. Hinojosa, Ruben [D-TX-15] Rep. Johnson, Eddie Bernice [D-TX-30] Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20] Rep. O'Rourke, Beto [D-TX-16] Rep. Veasey, Marc A. [D-TX-33] Rep. Vela, Filemon [D-TX-34] Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] Rep. Cuellar, Henry [D-TX-28] Rep. Doggett, Lloyd [D-TX-35] Rep. Gallego, Pete P. [D-TX-23] In the House the bill appears stalled. It was referred to the Here is the list of Congressmen and Women and Senators who have voted against Paycheck Fairness for women: EVERY REPUBLICAN SENATOR VOTED AGAINST IT! That's the list! Every Republican Senator voted against the Pay Check Fairness Act. The Washington Post story by BY WESLEY LOWERY published April 9, 2014 reported:
Despite a heavy messaging push from top Democrats, the Senate failed to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act on Wednesday, aimed at cutting into the national gender wage gap -- falling six votes short. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), had 52 co-sponsors, but Democrats were unable to peresuade any Republicans to vote in favor of the legislation.Now what are we to do? I suggest that we corner EVERY REPUBLICAN WOMAN WE KNOW and ask them: "Why are you standing still and allowing them to take money out of your pocket each and every week and not cornering them to pass this bill?" If she thinks she is paid fairly, ask if it is forbidden to share information about pay rates in her company? Then explain to her that she has a right to know what other people are paid for the same level of work. Maybe we'll have to educate these women. Obviously they aren't as sharp as Democratic women or they'd have already gotten it! They'd already know they were being cheated. They'd care. They'd be fighting right along side us. They'd be cornering the guys and refusing to do their bidding.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Monday, March 3, 2014
Women have been waiting decades for equal pay for equal work.
By Faith Chatham - March 3, 2014
U.S. Congressional candidate David E. Cozad says: "Women tell me that you are discriminated against simply because you are women. I know that is true. I watched my wife graduate from architecture school and face discrimination because she is a woman! I'm David E. Cozad. I'm the Democratic Nominee facing Joe Barton for the Texas 6th District in the United States Congress. I need your help."
Unopposed in the Democratic Primary, David E. Cozad will face Republican incumbent Joe Barton in the November General Election. He has run against Barton before. "The district was much bigger when I ran before," explained Cozad. "Then it was seven counties. Now it only contains all of Navarro and Ellis counties and part of Tarrant." In Tarrant, the District includes Mansfield, Crowley and the part of Arlington not represented by U.S. Congressman Marc Veasey (D). Cozad and his family have been residents of Arlington for over 30 years. Cozad claims Arlington as his hometown. Having grown up on or near military bases in the United States and Europe, and serving as a United States Marine Corps officer himself, Arlington was the first and only place he was able to put down roots long enough to claim as a "hometown."
Cozad's world view and that of the incumbent in this district are very different. Both agree that energy self-sufficiency is vital for our national security. However, they differ greatly on how to best achieve it! Barton is noted for "protecting" the coal and fossil fuel energy producers. Cozad states: "Barton used his position when he was Chair of the House Energy Committee to block EPA oversight of the Oil and Gas industry. His efforts slowed our transition to sustainable resources. He even apologized to British Petroleum for the President of the United States requiring them to put money in escrow to pay for some of the damage their negligence caused to the Gulf Coast! He was elected by the people of the 6th District but seems to have greater loyalty to the interests of the coal and oil and gas producers who help finance his campaign."
The damage to the Texas Gulf Coast hurt all the residents of that region. Women-owned businesses and families headed by single mothers were among those who struggled to recover.
Cozad said: "For over three decades Phil Gramm and his handpicked successor, Joe Barton, have voted to the detriment of women and girls. This North Texas district went Republican when Phil Gramm switched parties under Ronald Reagan. More than THIRTY YEARS LATER, my daughters and their generation are still undervalued and underpaid for their contribution in the workplace."
He states: "I am running for the U.S. Congress because I want my grand-daughters to have the same opportunities and pay as their brothers! I will fight to pass Equal Pay for Equal Work!"
On raising the Minimum Wage he says: "I know that raising the Minimum Wage is of utmost importance to women and their families. That will be my first priority. It is the economically sound thing to do!"
He continues: "Women deserve affordable health care. Women's diseases deserve the same research Dollars as men's but they don't get them! I will work to change that!"
He think the women's health clinic laws passed by the Texas Legislature last year went "much too far." Cozad says: "The government should not control you or your loved one's life or death decision. I will fight to preserve your right to make your own health decisions. When faced with horrible choices, no one should have the government dictate which life must be sacrificed if a difficult pregnancy endangers the mother's life. That is something that should be based on the soundest medical advice available and no woman should be denied health care procedures in one state which are legal in others! Texas is one of only a few states which denies women access to clinical abortions in cases of rape, incest and extreme endangerment to the life of the mother!"
"As a father and a grandfather, I would be very upset if I learned my daughter was denied a medical procedure in Texas which could save her life which is legal in most other states in the nation!"
The impact of access to healthcare for women in Texas was acute before the passage of the bill which Senator Wendy Davis filibustered. Texas leads the nation in the number of uninsured adults. A disproportionate number of Congressman Joe Barton voted repeatedly to shut-down the government in attempting to force the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Cozad says: "Healthcare must be affordable and accessible to everyone. I will work to improve the Affordable Care Act, not to repeal it. When you help send me to Washington, I assure you that I will not vote to shut the government down to dodge a difficult vote! I'm going there to solve problems, not avoid them!"
"Joe Barton voted to shut the government down and to keep it shut-down, ignoring the damage it was doing to the very people who sent him to office to improve their lives. Instead he made their lives more difficult!" Cozad continues and explains that the amount of money the Governmental Shut-Down in 2013 cost the taxpayers each day it was shut down was approximately the same as the construction cost for the Cowboy's new football stadium in Arlington. "When I think of what 16 times the construction cost of the Cowboy Stadium could accomplish for women and their families in this district, it angers me. When I'm angry, I look for solutions!" Cozad says: "This former Marine Corps officer wants to join Congressman Marc Veasey in the North Texas Congressional Delegation to work for solutions which improve the lives of the people in this state."
When asked why people from outside his district should support him he says: "The Democratic Party must gain at least 16 seats in the United States Congress to stop the obstruction. My opponent works to hinder the EPA in enforcing the Clean Air Act. This impacts mothers with children who have asthma all over the United States, not just in Arlington or Navarro or Ellis Counties. Congressman Barton's efforts to exempt damage to water from horizontal drilling and fracking exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act. This impacts families in Wyoming, Colorado, Pennsylvania, New York and many other states across the nation.
He says: "I need help to make the Texas 6th District one of 16 additional Democratic seats to stop the obstruction in Congress. Please contribute to my campaign by Act Blue."
NOTE: Activist and author Faith Chatham is currently serving as Chief of Staff for the Cozad for Congress Campaign. A frequent author and editor on Wise Women Won't Wait Anymore, she identifies campaigns which advance the rights of women and girls. She joined the Cozad for Congress Campaign because she agrees with him on the importance of rapid conversion to sustainable energy and the importance of passing the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act and for access to affordable health care for everyone.
U.S. Congressional candidate David E. Cozad says: "Women tell me that you are discriminated against simply because you are women. I know that is true. I watched my wife graduate from architecture school and face discrimination because she is a woman! I'm David E. Cozad. I'm the Democratic Nominee facing Joe Barton for the Texas 6th District in the United States Congress. I need your help."
Unopposed in the Democratic Primary, David E. Cozad will face Republican incumbent Joe Barton in the November General Election. He has run against Barton before. "The district was much bigger when I ran before," explained Cozad. "Then it was seven counties. Now it only contains all of Navarro and Ellis counties and part of Tarrant." In Tarrant, the District includes Mansfield, Crowley and the part of Arlington not represented by U.S. Congressman Marc Veasey (D). Cozad and his family have been residents of Arlington for over 30 years. Cozad claims Arlington as his hometown. Having grown up on or near military bases in the United States and Europe, and serving as a United States Marine Corps officer himself, Arlington was the first and only place he was able to put down roots long enough to claim as a "hometown."
Cozad's world view and that of the incumbent in this district are very different. Both agree that energy self-sufficiency is vital for our national security. However, they differ greatly on how to best achieve it! Barton is noted for "protecting" the coal and fossil fuel energy producers. Cozad states: "Barton used his position when he was Chair of the House Energy Committee to block EPA oversight of the Oil and Gas industry. His efforts slowed our transition to sustainable resources. He even apologized to British Petroleum for the President of the United States requiring them to put money in escrow to pay for some of the damage their negligence caused to the Gulf Coast! He was elected by the people of the 6th District but seems to have greater loyalty to the interests of the coal and oil and gas producers who help finance his campaign."
The damage to the Texas Gulf Coast hurt all the residents of that region. Women-owned businesses and families headed by single mothers were among those who struggled to recover.
Cozad said: "For over three decades Phil Gramm and his handpicked successor, Joe Barton, have voted to the detriment of women and girls. This North Texas district went Republican when Phil Gramm switched parties under Ronald Reagan. More than THIRTY YEARS LATER, my daughters and their generation are still undervalued and underpaid for their contribution in the workplace."
He states: "I am running for the U.S. Congress because I want my grand-daughters to have the same opportunities and pay as their brothers! I will fight to pass Equal Pay for Equal Work!"
On raising the Minimum Wage he says: "I know that raising the Minimum Wage is of utmost importance to women and their families. That will be my first priority. It is the economically sound thing to do!"
He continues: "Women deserve affordable health care. Women's diseases deserve the same research Dollars as men's but they don't get them! I will work to change that!"
He think the women's health clinic laws passed by the Texas Legislature last year went "much too far." Cozad says: "The government should not control you or your loved one's life or death decision. I will fight to preserve your right to make your own health decisions. When faced with horrible choices, no one should have the government dictate which life must be sacrificed if a difficult pregnancy endangers the mother's life. That is something that should be based on the soundest medical advice available and no woman should be denied health care procedures in one state which are legal in others! Texas is one of only a few states which denies women access to clinical abortions in cases of rape, incest and extreme endangerment to the life of the mother!"
"As a father and a grandfather, I would be very upset if I learned my daughter was denied a medical procedure in Texas which could save her life which is legal in most other states in the nation!"
The impact of access to healthcare for women in Texas was acute before the passage of the bill which Senator Wendy Davis filibustered. Texas leads the nation in the number of uninsured adults. A disproportionate number of Congressman Joe Barton voted repeatedly to shut-down the government in attempting to force the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Cozad says: "Healthcare must be affordable and accessible to everyone. I will work to improve the Affordable Care Act, not to repeal it. When you help send me to Washington, I assure you that I will not vote to shut the government down to dodge a difficult vote! I'm going there to solve problems, not avoid them!"
"Joe Barton voted to shut the government down and to keep it shut-down, ignoring the damage it was doing to the very people who sent him to office to improve their lives. Instead he made their lives more difficult!" Cozad continues and explains that the amount of money the Governmental Shut-Down in 2013 cost the taxpayers each day it was shut down was approximately the same as the construction cost for the Cowboy's new football stadium in Arlington. "When I think of what 16 times the construction cost of the Cowboy Stadium could accomplish for women and their families in this district, it angers me. When I'm angry, I look for solutions!" Cozad says: "This former Marine Corps officer wants to join Congressman Marc Veasey in the North Texas Congressional Delegation to work for solutions which improve the lives of the people in this state."
When asked why people from outside his district should support him he says: "The Democratic Party must gain at least 16 seats in the United States Congress to stop the obstruction. My opponent works to hinder the EPA in enforcing the Clean Air Act. This impacts mothers with children who have asthma all over the United States, not just in Arlington or Navarro or Ellis Counties. Congressman Barton's efforts to exempt damage to water from horizontal drilling and fracking exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act. This impacts families in Wyoming, Colorado, Pennsylvania, New York and many other states across the nation.
He says: "I need help to make the Texas 6th District one of 16 additional Democratic seats to stop the obstruction in Congress. Please contribute to my campaign by Act Blue."
NOTE: Activist and author Faith Chatham is currently serving as Chief of Staff for the Cozad for Congress Campaign. A frequent author and editor on Wise Women Won't Wait Anymore, she identifies campaigns which advance the rights of women and girls. She joined the Cozad for Congress Campaign because she agrees with him on the importance of rapid conversion to sustainable energy and the importance of passing the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act and for access to affordable health care for everyone.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Virginia roadblock on Ratification of ERA - Stalls Workplace Equity -- Del. Mark Cole is Stopping Economic Equality for all Women in the US after VA Senate Passes ERA
By Progressive Democrats of America - Feb. 7, 2014
This letter went out to PDA subscribers this week:]
Del. Mark Cole's legislative aide said he is not planning on introducing the ERA legislation to be heard in the House committee effectively stopping progress on the ERA bill for Virginians and for our nation. This is unacceptable! We need to call and to keep calling Del. Cole and Speaker Howell. Ask them to allow a vote on the ERA bill HJ 12. The Virginia Senate bill passed with bi-partisan support 25-8.Tell your friends across this nation to call NOW!!!! One man has chosen to stop the path for economic stability for all women in the United States. Remind Delegate Cole and Speaker Howell that the number one issue for women is economic equality and women all across the nation are watching Virginia! Del. Mark Cole (804) 698-1088
Email Address: DelMCole@house.virginia.gov
Twitter: @MarkColeVA
Speaker Howell (804) 698-1028
Email Address: delwhowell@house.virginia.gov
Twitter: @SpeakerHowell
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Monday, January 13, 2014
77 cents on the dollar? It’s even lower if you have a Master’s
By Erin Delmore - MSNBC - Jan. 13, 2014 Read more at http://on.msnbc.com/1hkNAef
For the nearly fifty million Americans living below the poverty line and the more than hundred thousand teetering on the brink, education can be a lifeline to a better future. According to a survey conducted among low-income women for this year’s “Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Pushes Back from the Brink,” three out of four of the women surveyed wished they had put more of a priority on their education and career. Just 58% of Americans among all income levels agreed.
Yet a half a century after President John F. Kennedy signed legislation making gender-based waged disparity illegal, women are still earning less than men who hold the same job. After decades of movement toward parity, the average female-to-male earnings ratio has flatlined at a rate of 77 cents to the dollar. It remains virtually unchanged since 2001.
But a deeper look into the data reveals that women of all education levels – even women who hold bachelor’s and master’s degrees—are plagued by a persistent wage gap. According to a study by the American Association of University Women, women who are one year out of college earn 7% less than their male counterparts, even when they earned the same degree, at the same kind of school, and are doing the same job for the same number of hours per week.
The wage gap widens with higher educational attainment: Women who hold a graduate or professional degree earn on average 75.6 cents on each dollar earned by a man with the same level of education in the same position. For women with a college degree, that number ticks up slightly to 79.5 cents on the dollar– virtually in lockstep with women who haven’t earned a high school diploma.
“Overall, a woman with a college degree doing the same work as a man will earn hundreds of thousands of dollars less over the course of her career,” President Obama said at a White House Forum on Women and the Economy in April 2012. “Closing this pay gap—ending this pay discrimination—is about far more than simple fairness, it’s about strengthening families, communities and our entire economy,” he wrote in an op-ed a few days later.
According to the Center for Women’s Policy Research, the U.S. economy could produce $447.6 billion in additional income if women were paid an equivalent wage to that of their male counterparts. That’s greater than the GDP of the state of Virginia.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
By Faith Chatham Jan. 5, 2014
.
Alice Paul stood up and demanded the right to vote. She went on a hunger strike as a demonstration. She was force fed and committed to a sanitorium. When she was examined to be declared insane, her doctor declared: “Courage in womn is often mistaken for insanity.”
January 11, 1885, in Moorestown, New Jersey, Paul lived in England after studying at Swarthmore College. While living abroad, she participated in the women's rights movement.
Returning to the States in 1910, she , she became a leader in the suffragist movement, She was one of the founders of the National Women's Party which advocated for the passage of the 19th Amendment and worked for change at the National Level. Her group was the first to demonstrate at the White House.
. January 11, 1885, in Moorestown, New Jersey, Paul lived in England after studying at Swarthmore College. While living abroad, she participated in the women's rights movement.
While in London from 1906 to 1909, Paul became politically active and unafraid to use dramatic tactics in support of a cause. She joined the women's suffrage movement in Britain and was arrested on several occasions, serving time in jail and going on a hunger strike. Alice Paul. (2014). The Biography Channel website. Retrieved 01:21, Jan 05, 2014, from http://www.biography.com/people/alice-paul-9435021.
Returning to the States in 1910, she , she became a leader in the suffragist movement, She was one of the founders of the National Women's Party which advocated for the passage of the 19th Amendment and worked for change at the National Level. Her group was the first to demonstrate at the White House.
"After women won the right to vote with the 19th Amendment in 1920, Paul devoted herself to working on additional empowerment measures for women. In 1923, she introduced the first Equal Rights Amendment in Congress and in later decades worked on the civil rights bill and fair employment practices. Although she did not live to see the ERA added to the U.S. Constitution, she did get an equal rights affirmation included in the preamble to the United Nations charter." Alice Paul. (2014). The Biography Channel website. Retrieved 01:21, Jan 05, 2014, from http://www.biography.com/people/alice-paul-9435021.Reading Paul's biography reminds us of how long women have been working for passage of the Equal Right's Amendment.
In 1923, she introduced the first Equal Rights Amendment in Congress and in later decades worked on the civil rights bill and fair employment practices. The Biography Channel website. Retrieved 01:21, Jan 05, 2014, from http://www.biography.com/people/alice-paul-9435021.
It's been 91 years folks. Let's get this thing ratified!
Friday, January 3, 2014
Bill Moyers quotes John Nichols who lists passing the ERA as one of the "Five Much-Needed Reforms That Could Make Our Politics Matter Again"
From Bill Moyers Journal: January 2, 2014 by John Nichols from THE NATION
4. Vote for Equal Rights
The Equal Rights Amendment struggle of the 1970s and early 1980s was an intense, inspiring and heartbreaking fight to finally guarantee equal rights for women. A massive right-wing pushback prevented the project from succeeding at the time — although it opened up debates that would lead to significant progress on a number of legislative fronts. In recent years, there has been something of an ERA renaissance. Three years ago, on the 100th Anniversary of International Women’s Day, then-Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) proposed legislation to eliminate the congressionally imposed deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. And in February 2013, the New Mexico state House of Representatives formally asked Congress to lift the deadline for ERA ratification. At the same time, new versions of the amendment have been introduced.
Beyond Washington, 21 state constitutions embrace ERA-like equal rights provisions, and the state of Oregon is likely to see a test in 2014. Late in December, the group VoteERA.org won approval to start gathering 116,284 valid signatures to place a state ERA proposal on the November ballot. “Shouldn’t women be explicitly equal in every Constitution?” Leanne Littrell DiLorenzo, the president of VoteERA.org, told reporters. “To me, the answer is an absolute ‘Yes, of course.’”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)