CA Rally and Press Conference

Join Us

Friday, January 8. 2016

11:00 AM

3737 Main Street

Riverside, CA 92501

Stand with us as we call on the governor and the Legislature to produce a state budget that lifts Californians out of poverty and invests in the future of our communities. 

California will have one of the toughest equal pay laws in the country in 2016

California took a major step this year toward closing the lingering wage gap between men and women, as Gov. Jerry Brown signed one of the toughest pay equity laws in the nation.

Women in California who work full time are paid substantially less — a median 84 cents for every dollar — than men, according to a U.S Census Bureau report this year.

“The inequities that have plagued our state and have burdened women forever are slowly being resolved with this kind of bill,” Brown said at a ceremony at Rosie the Riveter National Historical Park in the Bay Area city of Richmond.

The governor called the measure, which will give employees more grounds for challenging perceived discrimination, “a very important milestone.”

It is supported by the California Chamber of Commerce and most state Republican lawmakers. National women’s rights leaders said the legislation was a model for other states and for Congress, where similar efforts have been stalled by Republican opposition.

Businesses said they expected more lawsuits once the new rules take effect Jan. 1.

The sponsor of the bill was California State Senator Beth Jackson

Courts have interpreted current law to mean that male and female workers must hold exactly the same jobs to require equal pay, said state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), author of the legislation.

“Now they're going to have to value the work equally,” she said.

California and the federal government already have laws banning employers from paying women less than men for the same jobs. The new California Fair Pay Act broadens that prohibition by saying bosses cannot pay employees less than those of the opposite sex for “substantially similar work,” even if their titles are different or they work at different sites.

A female housekeeper who cleans hotel rooms, for example, may challenge higher wages paid to a male janitor who cleans the lobby and banquet halls, said Jackson. Similarly, a female grocery clerk could challenge a male clerk's higher wages at a store owned by the same employer but located a few miles away.

The new law also prohibits retaliation against employees who ask about or discuss wages paid to co-workers, and it clarifies their ability to claim retaliation.

On the employer side, those sued by workers would have to show that wage differences are due to factors other than sex, such as merit or seniority; that they are job-related and reasonable; and that they are not due to discrimination.

Workers who believe they have been discriminated against said Tuesday that the new law would help bolster future cases. Employers will now be “accountable to pay women fairly,” said Aileen Rizo, a math consultant for the Fresno County Office of Education who is suing the agency.

Rizo alleges in her federal lawsuit that a male colleague was paid $12,000 more a year for the same work, even though he was hired four years after she was and had less experience, education and seniority.

The new law will mean more employees taking more bosses to court, said J. Al Latham Jr., a labor law attorney and lecturer at the USC Gould School of Law.

“It is going to lead to lots more litigation, which further weakens the business climate in California,” he said.

Geoff DeBoskey, another labor lawyer, agreed, saying it was significant to change from requiring equal pay for equal work to mandating equal pay for substantially similar work, and that would drive some businesses out of California.

Employers will “move operations and grow elsewhere,” said DeBoskey, whose clients include Fortune 500 companies. “If an employer is going to build a new call center, they are just not going to build that in California.”

The new law is the strongest in the country, according to the National Partnership for Women & Families, a Washington-based nonprofit advocacy group for workplace fairness.

Actress Patricia Arquette, whose call for equal pay in her acceptance speech at February’s Academy Awards helped spur Jackson's legislation, hailed the new law as “a critical step toward ensuring that women in California are seen and valued as equals.”

Jennifer Reisch, legal director of the San Francisco group Equal Rights Advocates, said women, especially those of color and mothers, “continue to lose precious income to a pervasive, gender-based wage gap.”

Brown's signature on Jackson's bill “will make California’s equal pay law clearer, stronger and more effective,” she said.

Via Los Angeles Times, Chris Megerian and Patrick McGreevy 

http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-gov-brown-equal-pay-bill-20151006-story.html

Needed: Modern-Day Rosie the Riveters

Ami Rasmussen, interior assembly technician. Photo: Deanne Fitzmaurice

By Surnia Khan, CEO of the Women's Foundation of California

Some of us remember Norman Rockwell's Rosie the Riveter, her goggles, her uncanny biceps, the larger-than-life rivet gun in her lap. Most of us, however, remember a different Rosie, her red bandana, her clenched fist and her in-your-face, flexed bicep.

Though both Rosies were a propaganda tool created during WWII to recruit women to work, one thing is undeniable: these Rosies revolutionized the U.S. workforce. Between 1940 and 1945, six million women entered the workforce and, as a result, forever changed the course of our economy, politics and nation.

Today, women comprise 47 percent of our workforce and our numbers are growing. In addition to being primary caretakers for our families, women are becoming primary income-earners, too. According to the Pew Research Center, women are sole or primary breadwinners in more than 40 percent of our households. And if we want women and our families to thrive, we need to dramatically change our workforce policies and workplace conditions.

This month we have a unique opportunity to showcase how women are a critical part of our workforce and economy. Women Can Build: Re-envisioning Rosie is a photography exhibit that celebrates modern-day Rosie the Riveters and invites Los Angelenos, policymakers and the businesses community to work together to give women equal opportunities in the manufacturing industry.

The exhibit was created by Jobs to Move America to accompany a sobering study by the USC's Program for Environmental and Regional Equity.

The study titled "#WomenCanBuild: Including Women in the Resurgence of Good U.S. Manufacturing Jobs" finds that women comprise just 30 percent of the manufacturing industry workforce and that the majority are employed in lower-paying, clerical positions instead of middle class-sustaining jobs.

Furthermore, the study finds that the pay disparity is significant in the manufacturing industry: women make just 74 cents for every dollar men make.

This research is important because manufacturing jobs—and in particular transportation equipment manufacturing jobs—are poised to grow in California due to significant federal and local investments in mass transit systems, including bus and rail. In places like Los Angeles County, voters are taxing themselves to build out their transportation systems. And then there's the voter-approved, albeit highly controversial, California's high-speed rail system and all the jobs that would be needed to build it.

We know that the manufacturing industry is poised to expand and we must ensure that women are poised to enter these new jobs that will pay a living wage.

But if we look at the employment data over the last five years, the outlook is less than encouraging. Post-Great Recession, women entered low-wage and part-time jobs in great numbers and continue to be underemployed. Two-thirds of all minimum wage workers are women and nearly one in five women in California lives in poverty.

The study and the exhibit point out the elephant in the room: California must create opportunities for women to equitably participate in this manufacturing boom—and our economy.

If women are to enter traditionally male-dominated industries like manufacturing, we need to recognize and remove barriers currently in their way. One of the barriers is psychological -- we need to help women see that they can do manufacturing jobs, the way the propaganda machine of the 1940s showed women they could build planes and tanks. Hence the exhibit.

"Women might think they can't lift anything heavy, but they'd be surprised that they can do this—better than half the guys…I want to prove to my girls that they can do anything they put their minds to and commit to. I want to lead by example, to them and to other women," said Ami Rasmussen, US Army veteran, a mother of two teenage daughters and one of the fifteen Rosies featured in the exhibit.

In addition to showing women that they can indeed build as well as men, we must remove the biased, outdated and unresponsive public policies that make it difficult for women to enter male-dominated (and traditionally higher-paying) industries in the first place.

We need to find policy solutions to issues such as unequal pay for equal work, lack of affordable, reliable childcare, unregulated scheduling and lack of paid family and sick leave. A groundbreaking coalition of California women's rights and poverty advocates is tackling many of these important policy challenges at this very moment and the Women's Foundation of California is proud to be one of the members.

We hope more women, especially young women, will be motivated to enter these traditionally male jobs and earn middle class, family-supporting wages.

via: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/surina-khan/needed-modernday-rosie-the-riveters_b_7337312.html

Proposition 47 Passes!

Proposition 47 lowers penalties for some nonviolent, low-level offenses and in doing so gives women and men a fair chance to rebuild their lives. Penalties for six low-level offenses will be reduced from potential felonies to misdemeanors, shortening the time people spend behind bars.

At the same time Proposition 47 saves the state money, as high as $1.25 billion in the first five years. Those savings will be allocated to K-12 after school programs, mental health and substance abuse treatment programs and victim services programs.

Read our October 3, 2014, Huffington Post article in support of Prop 47.

Why did we support this proposition? Because Proposition 47 supports women. Women are more likely to have been convicted of a crime involving drugs or property, just the offenses covered by this initiative. In California, women are three times more likely to be in prison for forgery or fraud and twice as likely for petty theft.

Our research also shows that women suffer disproportionately upon release from prison. Our recent report Bias Behind Bars revealed that, compared to men, women incarcerated for felonies are less likely to obtain public benefits and find stable housing. Despite the low risk women with criminal records for nonviolent crimes pose to public safety, women also have more difficulty finding employment upon release. This is due to the over representation of women in the fields of retail, childcare and home health care—all fields where criminal records are of great concern. Some states legally bar those with criminal records from working with children and seniors. Fields that tend to be male-dominated, such as construction and manufacturing, generally are focused less on employees’ backgrounds.

The harmful effects of a felony charge extend beyond women’s lives to those of their families. Today, six out of 10 women behind bars are mothers of minors. Thousands of children are growing up without a mother at home to fix their meals, get them ready for school or contribute to the family income. While mothers are languishing in prison, children are languishing at home.

So how does Proposition 47 work? It changes six non-violent, low-level offenses (such as simple drug possession, petty theft and writing a bad check) from felonies to misdemeanors. Of course, women and men who commit these offenses would be held accountable for their actions… but they would not be considered felons, would avoid the stigma that comes with that charge, would serve in county jails closer to home and closer to their children and, because their sentences would be shorter, they would be reunited with their families sooner.

We wanted to acknowledge our Race, Gender and Human Rights (RGHR) giving circle for supporting Proposition 47 from the get-go by funding the organizing and outreach efforts by the Californians for Safe Neighborhoods and Schools.

The mission of RGHR is to promote human rights and racial and gender justice by challenging the criminal justice system and its use of mass incarceration in California.

via: http://womensfoundationofcalifornia.org/proposition-47-passes/

Suit charges California prison program discriminates against men

A California prisons program meant to expedite the reunification of inmates with their families – but which excludes male prisoners – is being challenged in federal court as discriminatory and short-sighted.

Lawyers for inmates are seeking a preliminary injunction to force prison officials to include men in the program.

An inmate enrolled in the Alternative Custody Program receives a day off her sentence for each day she participates. The inmate is released from prison and allowed to live in a residential home, transitional care facility, or residential drug treatment program for the remainder of her sentence. She is regularly checked on by a parole agent and subject to electronic monitoring. Each inmate has an individualized treatment and rehabilitation plan. Serious or violent offenders are not eligible.

As originally enacted by the Legislature in 2010, the program was open to all female prisoners, but only to male prisoners who were “primary caregivers” of dependent children.

The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation offered the program only to females. Two years later, the Legislature amended the statute to expressly exclude men, and that became permanent on Feb. 25, 2013.

The exclusion violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, the inmates’ lawyers claim in a lawsuit filed Thursday in Sacramento federal court. The clause requires that all persons in similar situations be treated alike.

“CDCR’s implementing regulations contain 16 mandatory and another six discretionary exclusionary criteria to insure that only low-risk, low-level offenders participate in the ACP,” the motion for a preliminary injunction says. “Each of these exclusionary criteria is sex-neutral and focused solely on the prisoner’s risk level.

“Nothing in the statute or implementing regulations purports to justify this blatant and illegal discrimination. Sex-based distinctions that hinge on assumptions about women’s roles as caregivers cannot stand.”

Corrections spokesman Jeffrey Callison said the only immediate comment from prison officials is, “We are currently reviewing this lawsuit.”

Prisoners’ lawyers also point out that the program has been promoted by prison officials and the last two governors as one that will help them reduce the inmate population in accord with a series of orders issued by a three-judge federal court. The judges found that crowded conditions in the state’s adult prisons are the primary cause of inmate health care so lacking that it is unconstitutional.

“Excluding men from the ACP is contrary to (court orders) because overcrowding would be further reduced if the program were offered to men as well,” the motion for a preliminary injunction states.

“CDCR nonetheless excludes a significant portion of eligible prisoners from ACP; the in-custody male prison population is approximately 120,659, whereas the female in-custody population is approximately 6,244 (roughly 1/20th the size).”

Callison pointed to a paragraph in a recent report from the corrections department to the three-judge court. It says:

“The state expects to bring an 82-bed facility in San Diego on line this month and is searching for additional sites for the Alternative Custody Program for females. CDCR is currently marketing the program to female inmates and is reviewing inmate applications to determine placement in the program.”

via: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/17/6564808/suit-charges-california-prison.html

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/17/6564808/suit-charges-california-prison.html#storylink=cpy

“CDCR’s implementing regulations contain 16 mandatory and another six discretionary exclusionary criteria to insure that only low-risk, low-level offenders participate in the ACP,” the motion for a preliminary injunction says. “Each of these exclusionary criteria is sex-neutral and focused solely on the prisoner’s risk level.

“Nothing in the statute or implementing regulations purports to justify this blatant and illegal discrimination. Sex-based distinctions that hinge on assumptions about women’s roles as caregivers cannot stand.”

Corrections spokesman Jeffrey Callison said the only immediate comment from prison officials is, “We are currently reviewing this lawsuit.”

Prisoners’ lawyers also point out that the program has been promoted by prison officials and the last two governors as one that will help them reduce the inmate population in accord with a series of orders issued by a three-judge federal court. The judges found that crowded conditions in the state’s adult prisons are the primary cause of inmate health care so lacking that it is unconstitutional.

“Excluding men from the ACP is contrary to (court orders) because overcrowding would be further reduced if the program were offered to men as well,” the motion for a preliminary injunction states.

“CDCR nonetheless excludes a significant portion of eligible prisoners from ACP; the in-custody male prison population is approximately 120,659, whereas the female in-custody population is approximately 6,244 (roughly 1/20th the size).”

Callison pointed to a paragraph in a recent report from the corrections department to the three-judge court. It says:

“The state expects to bring an 82-bed facility in San Diego on line this month and is searching for additional sites for the Alternative Custody Program for females. CDCR is currently marketing the program to female inmates and is reviewing inmate applications to determine placement in the program.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/17/6564808/suit-charges-california-prison.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/17/6564808/suit-charges-california-prison.html#storylink=cpy

California Senate passes bill to ban sterilizing prison inmates

California jails and prisons would be forbidden from sterilizing inmates for the purpose of birth control under a bill the state Senate passed Tuesday.

Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, wrote Senate Bill 1135 after theCenter for Investigative Reporting found that over a five-year period, doctors under contract with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sterilized nearly 150 female inmates without required state approvals. Former inmates and their advocates said that prison officials coerced women into consenting to the procedures if the officials thought they were likely to return to prison.

"This measure is absolutely necessary to make sure sterilizations are not performed in a coercive prison environment," Jackson told senators Tuesday.

The bill spells out limited circumstances in which prisons would be allowed to sterilize an inmate, such as if it is necessary to save her life. It passed the Senate with unanimous support and now heads to the Assembly for consideration.

PHOTO: Former Valley State Prison for Women inmate Kimberly Jeffrey with her son Noel, 3, shown in June 2013. During her imprisonment in 2010, Jeffrey says a doctor pressured her to agree to be sterilized, but she refused. Noah Berger/ For The Center for Investigative Reporting

via: http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/05/27/3947170/capitol-alert-california-senate.html

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/05/27/3947170/capitol-alert-california-senate.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/05/27/3947170/capitol-alert-california-senate.html#storylink=cpinmate, such as if it is necessary to save her life. It passed the Senate with unanimous support and now heads to the Assembly for consideration.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/05/27/3947170/capitol-alert-california-senate.html#story

y

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/05/27/3947170/capitol-alert-california-senate.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/05/27/3947170/capitol-alert-california-senate.html#storylink=cpy

Women Overlooked in California Prisoner Realignment Program

California is in the midst of reducing its state prison inmate population to no more than 137.5 percent of capacity, the first step to address what was deemed inhumane overcrowded conditions. Much of the overcrowding in state prisons has been due to offenders violating conditions of their parole and automatically being sent back to prison. One of the programs undertaken has been transferring parole supervision of low level, non-violent, non-sex offenders to county probation departments. While still more than 5,400 inmates away from the desired benchmark, the population has been reduced and overcrowding has been eased somewhat in many of the state’s prisons.

However, the efforts seem to be more of an accounting trick.

A little discussed loophole in the mandate concerns how the reduction occurs. The court order requires that the overcrowding has to be reduced overall, but there seems to be some leeway regarding the percentage as to individual facilities. So while some of the more notable facilities have seen a reduction, many are still well above the desired capacity.

The most overcrowded are women’s facilities.

At the beginning of the realignment in 2011, women overwhelmingly benefited from the realignment. In the first year, more than 5,200 female prisoners were released. The majority of these releases were first time, non serious offenders.

As a result, the three women’s prisons were quickly below the court ordered benchmark. One facility, Valley State Prison for Women, saw a 36 percent reduction in inmates in 2011. The California Department of Corrections decided to convert the facility to a men’s prison to reduce overcrowding elsewhere. The remaining inmates at Valley State Prison were then transferred to the state’s two remaining women’s prisons.

The two women’s facilities are now operating higher than the court mandated level, one of which is currently at 175 percent capacity.

Nearly two-thirds of female prisoners are incarcerated for nonviolent offenses, such as drugs or property crimes. Under the realignment, they are put under county jurisdiction as parolees. This gives them access to diversion programs which provide alternatives to jail should they violate their probation. Furthermore, all newly convicted offenders of non-violent, non-sex crimes are also eligible to serve their sentences under county jurisdiction instead of state.

A program that has become popular with several counties is called split sentencing. Under this program, offenders serve a portion of their term in the jail, and the remainder under strict supervision of the probation department. Often this means serving the remainder of their term under house arrest with electronic monitoring. They are subject to regular and surprise inspections and searches, with any violations subject to a number of penalties, including returning to jail.

Not all counties are created equal, however.

Nearly 30 percent of the realignment prisoners released fell under the supervision of Los Angeles County. Only 5 percent of the inmates in LA County jails are involved in a split sentencing program, with officials claiming that they don’t have the resources for the time intensive program. This means that most offenders that would normally serve in prison are serving longer sentences in jails that are not equipped for extended stays.

State prisons and county jails differ due to their populations. Prisons facilities and services are built and designed to house offenders with longer sentences. Jails are temporary facilities, housing those recently arrested, on parole violations, or serving a sentence of a year or less. The influx of prisoners has lead to overcrowding at the jails, which have seen stretched resources, including having to house the overflow in makeshift dorms such as basements.

This has become especially hard on women.

The majority of incarcerated women have children. In jail, visitations must occur through a window, if they happen at all. There are no family rooms, or outside yards for exercising as there are in state prisons. Personal items, such as feminine hygiene products, aren’t easily available or in the same quantities. The standard issued sandals are the only option for footwear. Bad medical conditions and several inmates in a cell are also becoming more common.

The conditions are much like those that were occurring in state prisons, leading to the need for the prisoner realignment.

These issues also exist in the men’s jails, where many are seeing a marked increase in violence. There are plans for a new women’s jail in LA County, though it is still in the planning stages. The sheriff’s department is also looking to developing their jail diversion programs for both men and women.

In the meantime, the state prison population continues to decline because none of the prisoners in the county jail system count towards the state prison population, which makes them closer to meeting their reduction goal.

Crystal Shepeard

via: http://ow.ly/tWzXp 

Maria Shriver returns to Sacramento to discuss women and poverty

After more than three years away, former First Lady of California Maria Shriver returned to Sacramento Thursday to deliver a new report on women and poverty to the governor and legislators.

Her afternoon kicked off with a discussion of the report's findings at the California Museum, attended by dozens of the capital's most powerful women, including Secretary of State Debra Bowen and U.S. Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento.

Shriver emphasized that women's empowerment efforts must broaden from the "1 percent" and "talking about getting the corner office" to include the one-third of American women living in financial insecurity.

"They are looking for some help to give their family a life that's better than theirs," she said during the 45-minute conversation, part of Dewey Square Group's quarterly She Shares speaker series.

Calling on the government to get creative in how it helps women, Shriver said her work on this subject is largely influenced by her father, Sargent Shriver, who headed the War on Poverty in the 1960s. Shriver affectionately referred to him as "Daddy" as she spoke about initiatives like Head Start and low-income legal services.

When they're funded, Shriver said, "Those programs work."

Even as she spoke about raising a family, Shriver conspicuously avoided mentioning estranged husbandArnold Schwarzenegger. His name only came up once, when Shriver urged more bipartisan cooperation in the state and federal governments.

Having grown up a Kennedy, she joked, "I think the first Republican I met was Arnold."

With veteran U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman announcing his retirement earlier in the day, buzz also surrounded whether Shriver, a resident of his Los Angeles district, might enter the family business and run for his seat.

"No. Nope," she told The Bee after the event.

PHOTO: Maria Shriver meets event attendees before speaking about women and poverty at the California Museum on January 30, 2014. The Sacramento Bee/Alexei Koseff

via: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/01/maria-shriver.html

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/01/maria-shriver.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/01/maria-shriver.html#storylink=cpy

The Republican War on Hungry Women: The Newly Invisibile and Undeserving Poor

While the rest of the world debates America's role in the Middle East or its use of drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the U.S. Congress is debating just how drastically it should cut food assistance to the 47 million Americans -- one out of seven people -- who suffer from "food insecurity," the popular euphemism for those who go hungry.

The U.S. Government began giving food stamps to the poor during the Great Depression. Even when I was a student in the 1960s, I received food stamps while unemployed during the summers. That concern for the hungry, however, has evaporated. The Republicans -- dominated by Tea Party policies -- are transforming the United States into a far less compassionate and more mean-spirited society.

The need is great. Since the Great Recession of 2008, the food stamp program, now called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), has doubled from $38 billion in 2008 to $78 billion in the last year. During 2012, 65 million Americans used SNAP for at least one a month, which means that one out of every five Americans became part of the swelling rolls of "needy families," most of whom are women and children.

Democrats defend the new debit card program, which can only be used to purchase food, as feeding needy Americans at a time of high unemployment and great poverty. Republicans, for their part, argue that the program is rife with fraud, that its recipients (who are mostly single mothers) are lazy and shiftless, and that we must make drastic cuts to reduce government spending. Their most Dickensian argument is that if you feed the poor, they won't want to work.

But as the New York Times economic columnist Paul Krugman has repeatedly pointed out, welfare entitlements, including the food debit card, are not only good for families; they are also good for the economy. People who receive such help spend the money immediately. Single mothers hold down multiple jobs at minimum wages to keep their family together. The debit card allows them to go shopping and to buy needed groceries. Such entitlements boost spending and the economy, rather than depleting it.

Despite these arguments, the cuts have already begun. On November 1, 2013, Congress cutnearly $5 billion from SNAP and Republicans now want to cut another $40 billion dollars. The stalemate has resulted in the failure of Congress to pass the farm bill, which provides SNAP subsidies to farms, mostly of which are large agricultural corporations.

Meanwhile, poverty grows, the stock market zooms to new heights, the wealth of the one percent increases, and corporate executives continue to get tax exemptions for business entertainment expenses, which allow corporations to deduct 50 percent of these costs from their annual taxes.

In all this discussion, the real face of poverty -- single mothers -- has strangely disappeared. Welfare policy in America has always favored mothers and children. In a country that values self-sufficiency and glorifies individualism, Americans have viewed men -- except war veterans -- as capable of caring for themselves, or part of the undeserving poor. Women, by contrast, were always viewed as mothers with dependents, people to be cared for and protected precisely because they are vulnerable and raise the next generation.

As I read dozens of think tank and government reports, and newspaper stories, however, I am surprised to notice that even strong opponents of the cuts describe SNAP's recipients as children, teenagers, seniors or the disabled. Why have single mothers disappear from such accounts about the poor? There are plenty of "needy families," "households," and "poor Americans," but the real face of poverty and the actual recipients of food assistance are single mothers, whose faces have been absorbed by the more abstract language of "poor Americans" and "needy households."

Even the strongest opponents of these cuts don't focus on women or mothers. Instead they publicize pinched-faced children -- a better poster image -- staring hungrily at food they cannot eat. Or, they discuss the public health impact these cuts may have on children. According to most reports, even from the Agriculture Department, "children and teenagers" make up almost half of the recipients of food assistance. But they don't mention the mothers who receive this assistance in order to feed those children and teenagers. From the stories about food stamps, you'd think that only children, teenagers, the elderly and the disabled have gone hungry.

The words "women" or even "mothers" rarely appear. In a powerful column against the cuts, the liberal and compassionate New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, for example, argued that "two-thirds of recipients are children, elderly or disabled" and warnedhis readers about the long-range impact of malnourished children. He, too, never mentioned women, who are the main adult recipients of the SNAP program and who feed those children, elderly or disabled. Nor did he point out that those who apply for such assistance are the mothers and women who seek to nourish these children. It's as though women are simply vehicles, not persons, in the reproduction process of the human race.

Yet the reality tells a different story. In 2010, for example, 42 percent of single mothersrelied on SNAP and in rural areas, the rate often rose as high as one-half of all single mothers. What's missing from this picture -- on both sides -- are the real faces of hunger, which are not "needy" families, or "poor Americans", but single mothers with "food insecurity" for themselves and their families. According to the Center for Budget Priorities, women are twice as likely to use food stamps as anyone else in the population. They are the ones who apply for the SNAP debit card, go shopping, takes buses for hours to find discounted food supplies, and try to stretch their food to last throughout the month for their children, teenagers and, less often, husbands. They are the pregnant women with older children whose infants are born malnourished, and the Americans who, at the end of the month, make hasty runs to relatives, food banks and even join other dumpster divers.

When journalists do focus on the women who are recipients of food assistance, they discover a nightmare hiding in plain sight. These women are either unemployed, under-employed or service workers who don't earn enough to feed themselves and their families. By the end of the month, they and their children frequently often skip meals or eat one meal a day until the next month's SNAP assistant arrives.

So why have women disappeared from a fierce national debate over who deserves food assistance? I'm not actually sure. Perhaps it is because so many adult women, like men, now work in the labour force and are viewed as individuals who should take care of themselves. Perhaps it is because Republicans find women's appetite, as opposed to that of children, an embarrassment, hinting at sexual desire. Perhaps it is because this is part of the Republican war on women's reproductive freedom -- a single mother with children is somehow guilty of bringing on her own poverty.

Whatever the reason, the rhetoric does not match the reality. Once in while, the media publishes or broadcasts a "human interest" story that gives poor women a face.

"It is late October," one reporter began, "so Adrianne Flowers is out of money to buy food for her family. Feeding five kids is expensive, and the roughly $600 in food stamps she gets from the federal government never lasts the whole month. 'I'm barely making it, said the 31-year-old Washington, D.C., resident and single mother."

End of story. On to weather and the sports.

For the most part, however, poor women remain invisible, even as the mothers who feed the children, teenagers, elderly and disable who live with them. They do not elicit compassion. If anything, they are ignored or regarded with contempt.

Whatever the reason, Americans are having a national debate about poor and needy Americans without addressing the very group whose poverty is the greatest. The result is that we are turning poor, single mothers, who are 85 percent of all single parents, into a newly invisible and undeserving group of recipients.

Republicans may view single mothers as sinful parasites who don't deserve food assistance. But behind every hungry child, teenager and elderly person is a hungry mother who is exhausted from trying to keep her family together. Women who receive food assistance are neither invisible nor undeserving. They are working-class heroes who work hard -- often at several minimal wage jobs -- to keep their families nourished and together.

This story originally appeared on openDemocray.net.

 

Message from National Women's Law Center: Tax Family Credits

For millions of low- and middle- income Americans, tax season can mean extra money in their pockets. Claiming tax credits — including the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Child Tax Credit (CTC), and Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) — can provide thousands of dollars for vulnerable women and families struggling to make ends meet. The EITC alone is worth up to $5,891. But women and their families can't claim these credits if they don't know about them. 

Families can start filing their 2012 as early as January 30, so there's no time to lose. Today, on EITC Awareness Day, help us spread the word to make sure families know about available tax credits. Our new and improved Tax Credits Outreach Resources make it easier than ever for advocates to spread the word about these credits. 

Our new resources include:

• State-specific outreach fliers in English and Spanish (and some in Vietnamese and Mandarin Chinese)
• Our Toolkit for Advocates, with a sample:
• Newsletter
• Letter to the Editor
• PSA script
• Press release
• Social Media tools
• List of what to bring to free tax preparation sites
• Fact sheets on tax credits for families and tax information for domestic violence advocates
• A link to sign up to become an NWLC Community Partner

If you work or volunteer with families that are likely eligible for tax credits and/or in a program that supports children and families, you can help get the word out! Simply hanging fliers in classrooms, hallways, and offices, sending them home with young children, or encouraging employers to send fliers enclosed with W-2 forms could make a difference for the families you work with. Be sure to let us know how you're spreading the word about tax credits, or if there's anything we can do to help, by emailing Amy Qualliotine at aqualliotine@nwlc.org. 

via National Women's Law Center 

Female senators push to reauthorize Violence Against Women Act

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) (Elaine Thompson - AP)
Keying up what could become the next chapter in a weeks-long fight over women’s rights, six Democratic women senators — and one of their Republican female colleagues — urged colleagues Thursday to quickly reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.
The landmark 1994 measure is up for renewal this year and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has said that he expects to hold a vote in the coming weeks. Democrats see the debate over the bill and potential amendments as an opening to continue accusing Republicans of “waging war” on women’s rights. In recent weeks, the

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has used the issue — and the 11 Democratic women running in Senate races this year — to raise money from supporters.

The bill cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee last month on a party-line vote after Republicans opposed new elements of the legislation that provide protections to immigrants and same-sex couples and raised concerns about accounting for the effectiveness of federal grants it authorizes.

Republicans hope to introduce amendments to the law and some of the seven women who spoke Thursday said they would welcome those proposals.

“This one shouldn’t be about politics. Protecting women against violence shouldn’t be a partisan issue,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

But Democrats are making it a partisan issue, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) charged Thursday.

Responding to reports that Senate Democrats hoped to slow debate on a bipartisan jobs measure and capi­tal­ize on the reauthorization of the domestic violence measure, McConnell said Democrats were
“manufacturing fights — and 30-second television ads” instead of approving a jobs bill.

“If you’re looking for the reason Congress has a 9 percent approval rating, this is it,” McConnell said.

Indeed, Congress remains deeply unpopular, but women view it more favorably than men. A higher percentage of women approve of congressional Democrats, 39 percent, than Republicans, 26 percent, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. A separate survey by pollsters Peter Hart and Bill McInturff found recently that 51 percent of women favored Democratic control of Congress; only 36 percent wanted to see the Republicans in charge.

On Thursday the seven women urged their colleagues to join them in reauthorizing a law that expanded sentencing guidelines and provides billions of dollars in funding to law enforcement agencies, municipal agencies and nonprofit groups to help the victims of domestic violence.

During a series of speeches by the women, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) directly addressed the concerns regarding immigrants and same-sex couples: “If the victim is in a same-sex relationship, is the violence any less real? Is the danger any less real because you happen to be gay or lesbian? I don’t think so. If a family comes to the country and the husband beats his wife to a bloody pulp, do we say, sorry, you’re illegal you don’t deserve any protection?”

Feinstein added: “When you call the police in America, they come, regardless of who you are.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) — one of four GOP cosponsors, but the only one to speak about it publicly Thursday — said she believes the Senate should be primarily focused on economic issues but that she hopes for “an overwhelmingly bipartisan deal” to reauthorize the law.

“This is too important an issue for women and men and families that we not address it,” Murkowski said.

By Ed O'Keefe for Washington Post

HHS issues final rule on insurance exchanges

March 12, 2012 | Mary Mosquera, Contributing Editor


WASHINGTON – The Department of Health and Human Services has released its final rule on the establishment of health insurance exchanges - online marketplaces. The rule also includes provisions for qualified health plans and exchange functions in the individual market.


The final rule, which combines what originally had been separate proposed rules published in July and August 2011, encompasses the key functions of exchanges related to eligibility, enrollment and plan participation and management. The department received more than 24,781 comments on the proposed rules.


HHS seeks further comments from the public on several sections, which are issued as interim final rules, related to options for conducting eligibility determinations, the ability of a state to permit agents and brokers to assist qualified individuals, and Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program.


The 644-page rule appeared March 12 in a preview section of the Federal Register. HHS will officially publish the rule on March 27.


The policies incorporated in the rule give states more flexibility to design and create their exchanges - websites - where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for and compare health coverage. Exchanges are scheduled to go live in 2014 under the health reform law. “Exchanges will offer Americans, competition, choice and clout,” the final rule said.


The rule offers guidance about the options on how to structure exchanges in setting standards for establishing exchanges, setting up a small business health options program (SHOP), performing the basic functions of an exchange, and certifying health plans for participation in the exchange.


The rule also provides guidance for establishing a streamlined, web-based system for consumers to apply for and enroll in qualified health plans and insurance affordability programs.


Boosting competition


Insurers will have to compete for their customers’ business, said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “More competition will drive down costs and exchanges will give individuals and small businesses the same purchasing power big businesses have today,” she said in a statement.


The final rule makes sure that exchanges will coordinate with Medicaid, CHIP, and the Basic Health Program so that an applicant experiences a seamless eligibility and enrollment process regardless of where he or she submits an application.


In response to comments, the final rule provides two ways for exchanges to interact with Medicaid agencies when making eligibility determinations. Exchanges can conduct eligibility determinations for Medicaid and for advance payment of premium tax credits, or the exchange will make a preliminary eligibility assessment and then turn it over to the state Medicaid agency for final determination.


Also, a state-based exchange may determine eligibility for advance payments of the premium tax credit and cost-sharing reductions, or it could be approved ifHHS makes determinations for these functions.


HHS previously provided a total of $50 million to all states except Alaska, which refused it, to begin to plan the exchanges. Recently, 33 States and the District of Columbia have received more than $667 million in establishment grants to begin building exchanges.


The federal government will put in place an exchange for states that choose not to establish one or will not have one operational by 2014.


The health reform law also provides for a premium tax credit for eligible individuals who enroll in a qualified health plan through an exchange to reduce the cost-sharing obligation of eligible individuals.


HHS said it has worked with states, small businesses, consumers, and health insurance plans and sought public comments to come up with the rule’s provisions.




http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/hhs-issues-final-rule-insurance-exchanges 

Intel Inspires Young Women to Change the World

Last week the world celebrated International Women’s Day and this past weekend, the Women in the World Summit took place in New York City. The summit offers the opportunity for women from around the world to get together and discuss the importance of educating girls throughout every corner of the earth, and what it takes to break down the barriers preventing some girls from receiving an education.

We sat down with Shelly Esque, Vice President and Global Director of Corporate Affairs at Intel, who also participated in the “Girls Can Change the World Panel,” at the Women in the World Summit. Between Intel’s Classmate PC project, the Intel Science Talent Search program, we have known for sometime that the company is heavily invested in education. But Shelly spoke to us more specifically about Intel’s continued efforts to bridge the gender and technology divide. During our conversation together, Esque brought up an interesting point, and that is that technology is gender neutral, yet it really has the potential to unleash a woman’s confidence.

In the U.S. we take internet access for granted, but in places like the Middle East, women are just a minority of online users. And this is a shame, because access to information leads to more empowered women. For example, Esque spoke of one Turkish woman who was at first only allowed to dust the computer in her home. Then Intel created a women’s education program in her local community center. After enrolling in the program, the woman not only learned some valuable computer skills, but she also gained the confidence she needed to apply those new skills to her business. Today her business has become so successful that she is going global. And because she is making money, her male family members no longer seem to be bothered with her using a PC.

Intel believes that technology brings young girls more opportunities for education. Of course, once girls have the opportunity to get an education, they also gain the ability to make a difference in the world. To that effect, Intel has been working with non-government organizations like Room to Read, which is an organization that creates libraries in places that don’t have any. Organizations like this one has helped bring more educational opportunities to young women in developing nations. Furthermore, since 1995, Intel has set-up over 100 Intel computer clubhouses around the world where girls can learn from mentors, as well as from each other.

Intel also has a special Hackathon event coming up soon at their head-quarters Oregon. This 2 day event brings together Intel’s software engineers with groups of young women. The Hackathon will start out with the software engineers coming up with app ideas to solve the girls problems. There will also be opportunities for young women to learn how to create their own apps. All in all, Intel’s goal is to move people to action to help empowering women and girls through education and technology.

http://www.chipchick.com/2012/03/intel-inspire-change-world.html