One Year Later: Feminists Stand By the Affordable Care Act

On the one-year anniversary of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, we see that the fight for quality, affordable care has not yet been achieved.  This essential piece of health care reform legislation in 2010 sought to end abuses by the insurance industry and extend health care coverage for all Americans.  We all remember the right-wing campaigns to spread fear in the year leading up to (still waiting for those death panels…). The House majority continues efforts to undermine the Act by trying to eliminate funding, challenging it in court, and continuing to promote lies to the public in an attempt to push for its repeal in 2013.

It is as important now as it was a year ago for us to stand with the Affordable Care Act (ACA), though many women’s rights advocates strongly disagreed with some of the provisions related to reproductive rights – the Act maintained the Hyde Amendment’s restrictions on abortion funding, extending them to newly created health insurance exchanges, making abortion less accessible and affordable in the process.  The ACA has produced the largest gains for women’s health since Medicare and Medicaid were signed into law 45 years ago.

When the Act’s full provisions take effect in 2014, it will make incredible headway in promoting gender equality in healthcare by ensuring that women can not be charged higher premiums, nor will they be denied coverage due to pregnancy or other gender-based discriminations often considered to be pre-existing conditions.

These health reforms are imperative for women, as currently nearly half of all low-income women are uninsured and more than half of all women report delaying needed care because of cost. Women are routinely charged higher premiums than men; according to whitehouse.gov, a healthy 22-year old woman can be charged premiums 150% higher than a 22-year old man.  The Act also allows young people to stay on their parent’s insurance until the age of 26 and provides steady funding for comprehensive sex education and teen pregnancy prevention.

This year, the Act requires that new insurance plans cover prevention and wellness benefits, as well as preventive services, including mammograms, cancer screenings, and annual physicals.  Because of the Act’s committed support for reproductive health and family planning, an effort by various women’s health organizations is underway to include birth control under preventive services.  We expect to see contraceptives covered and provided under the ACA, despite criticism from the Right.

Today, there is a concerted effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  Last month, the House passed a continuing resolution that would defund key parts of the ACA, particularly those affecting women.  Though they claim it is an attempt to reduce the federal deficit, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the ACA will actually reduce the deficit by over $210 billion in just the first decade. Although it does not defeat all of the barriers to comprehensive health care for women, the Affordable Care Act takes us one step closer to making health care for women more accessible and affordable. All women stand to gain from these upcoming changes, and it is imperative that we as feminists not only recognize but celebrate its one year anniversary.  Our bodies, our lives!

Moment in Herstory: Kagan Confirmed & Sworn In

This past Thursday, August 5th, supreme court justice nominee Elena Kagan was confirmed as the 112th justice and 4th woman appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On Saturday, August 7th, Kagan was sworn in twice, once before friends and family and again before the media, by Chief Justice John Roberts who told Kagan, "We look forward to serving with you."

A former Harvard Law School dean and most recently, U.S. solicitor general, Kagan will succeed John Paul Stevens as she makes history by bringing the number of women serving at one time to three of nine seats for the first time.

Kagan's presence on the U.S. Supreme Court is not expected to cause a shift in the supreme court's ideology because Stevens had a reputation for being the "leader of the liberals," but the feminist community excitedly awaits her formal installment as a justice on October 1, 2010.

Photo Credit: Boston Globe

Taking Health Care Into Your Own Hands

Yesterday, the Obama Administration launched a new, user-friendly webpage geared towards health care reform. The website, HealthCare.gov, allows U.S. citizens to find the insurance options available to their state, understand the new healthcare reform law, and learn about prevention among other things.

What I really like about the site is that it's so user-friendly, and with the confusion that so many Americans had over healthcare reform and what we were receiving, I think this site will really help to ease some of that confusion as well as inform the public of the many apparent benefits of healthcare reform legislation.

The site invites the public to voice what improvements they believe should be made on the website. So, go check out the website and if you have any suggestions, let the government know!

photo credit: Sun Sentinel

What if the Visitation Rights that were given to Same Sex couples were inclusive of those couples in which one partner is serving in the military?

This week President Obama signed a directive that would allow same sex partners hospital visitation rights if the one of them were to fall ill. Granting same sex couples the right to be beside their loved one as they pass (if the illness or injury is fatal) was a decision that came after hearing a story in which a woman was denied the right to hold her lover as her spouse died. Before the signed directive same sex partners would be denied visitation due to the fact that they were not considered family by blood or legally wed.

Of the 1,138 rights that are denied to same sex couples because same sex marriage is not legal in every state, hospital visitation was only one of them. Currently same sex marriage is legal in only 5 states as well as Washington D.C. Unfortunately under of the Defense of Marriage act (DOMA), same sex couples that legally wed in a state that allows same sex marriages will have an annulled marriage license once they return back to their state where same sex marriage licenses are not recognized. Obama has it in his agenda to repeal that as well as the controversial military ban on gays and lesbians serving openly known as Don’t ask Don’t tel (DADT)l.

I must say that although I am grateful to have this single right granted to me, I am disappointed with how he went about the issue. It should not take a story of sorrow to make one understand that love is not a bad thing even if it is between two people of the same sex. Love should not be taken away or toyed with it should not be a bargaining tool for votes. Instead of signing this directive that grants rights to only some of the LGBTQ community why don’t you do what is humane and repeal DADT and DOMA. Under DADT a civilian in a same sex relationship with a soldier cannot visit them openly if the soldier is wounded in battle therefore this directive does not extend rights to all LGBTQ couples. If he had repealed DOMA same sex couples could marry elsewhere in the U.S. and still have a legal marriage license upon return to their state. If DOMA was repealed, then the rights given to those married could be applicable to all same sex couples who are wed anywhere in the United States. If his adminstartion repealed both DADT and DOMA then the lesbian and gays serving our military could wed. Is this the next step? What he did was good for the community but I find that it was nothing great. It was fair and right but it was something that should have been done a long time ago.

P.S.- Celebrate National Day of Silence today!!

Photo compliment of See-ming Lee

Expect Delays--Not a Good Enough Answer

During the past few weeks, rumors have been circulating about the delay of creating any formal agreements or legislation at the international climate change negotiations in Copenhagen. However, not all countries are eager for the delay. UN environment chief Achim Steiner warns that such delays would have a “human cost” as well as harm the planet as discussed in yesterday's Guardian.

This past weekend, President Obama acknowledged that the US would not enter in any binding agreements at Copenhagen, that it would be impossible. But there is still hope, despite a lack of formal agreements or legislation positive outcomes are still possible. Even negotiations can set time limits requiring further action.

Gridlock in Copenhagen would have big risks economically and socially. More and more people are being affected by climate change… and the lack of formal agreements only furthers these problems which adversely affects women more than men.

Check out the Feminist Majority Foundation’s Women & the Environment campaign. Information can be found at http://www.feminist.org/global/womenclimatechange.html.

Photo Credit: Estherase on flickr.com

Obama Takes a Stab at Stupak

Throughout this Stupak whirlwind, we've been awaiting to publicly address where he stands on the legislation.

Last night, on ABC news, the President defended the rights of 50% of the American population, as well as put the debate in big picture terms, by saying:

“I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill...And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions...I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices.”

Here, Obama points out that Health Care Reform should be just that, and not be used as a means to sneak in conservative slashes to reproductive rights. Thank you, President Obama!! You are what a feminist looks like!

photo credit: vmarinelli on flickr.com

Thousands of Gay Rights Supporters March in DC

Tens of thousands marched yesterday from the White House to the nation's Capital at the National Equality March in Washington, DC, in support of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender rights. March spokesman Phil Siegal, estimated the crowd at "more than 150,000" according to the Los Angeles Times.

Activist and blogger Corey Johnson told the the New York Times "I think this march represents the passing of the torch...The points of power are no longer in the halls of Washington or large metropolitan areas. It's decentralized now. You have young activists and gay people from all walks of life converging on Washington not because a national organization told them to, but because they feel the time is now." Dave Valk, a student coordinator for the march, also told the New York Times that "There are a lot of people getting involved not just because it's a gay rights movement but because it's a generational movement. People feel like they're part of a shift, that this is important."

Prior to the march, President Obama spoke at a Human Rights Campaign black-tie gala, where he reiterated his commitment to reverse the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits openly gay individuals from serving in the military and his support of abolishing the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal acknowledgement of same-sex marriages. Joe Salmonese, president of The Human Rights Campaign, in a statement following Obama's speech on Saturday night wrote "This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States. It's simply unprecedented." The Human Rights Campaign gala and the march were two separate events.

However, the march also demonstrated a split in the gay rights movement and received variable support from activist organizations and government officials. Openly gay democratic Representative Barney Frank (MA-4) told the New York Times that "The only thing [marchers are] going to put pressure on is the grass," not the Obama administration.

Source: Feminist Daily News Wire

Federal LGBTQ Liaison Here to Help

While a majority of the country is happy with the job that Obama is doing, the gay and lesbian community is not a part of that majority. Many feel the Obama administration is not effective and timely in handling issues that are important to their community. To quell this dissatisfaction, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division has hired veteran Senate staffer Matt Nosanchuk as a senior counselor and liaison to the gay and lesbian community.

The Civil Rights Divison released a statement explaining what Nosanchuk's primary duties will be including

"managing the Division's Criminal Section and pursuing key policy priorities, representing the Division in many capacities, including work with Congress and the LGBTQ community."

This event is another attempt by the Obama administration to mend their relationship with the LGBTQ community. Monday, Obama's lawyers stated that Obama thinks the Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against gays and should be repealed. Along similar lines, Obama extended some benefits to federal employees with same-sex partners earlier this summer. And two weeks ago, the Census Bureau announced that for the first time, it will publicly release data on the number of same-sex marriages reported.

What do I think this will accomplish? Not sure, but it does show that the Obama administration does see the need and importance of focusing on the LGBTQ community and their issues after years of being left behind. Hopefully with this new position in place, instead of saying what is best for the members of this community, the Obama administration will listen to what these people are saying and really make some positive change for them.

Photo courtesy of JUSO Schweiz on flikr.com

New Legalized Gender Discrimination in Afghanistan

Yesterday Human Rights Watch learned that the revised Marital Rape law in Afghanistan was passed and published in the official Gazette on July 27. Although the amended legislation promised by the Afghan government no longer includes marital rape, it includes equally oppressive laws against women. Most notable, the law allows Shia men to deny wives of food if they refuse to perform thier husbands' sexual demands. Aditionally, the law states that guardianship of children belongs exclusively to fathers and grandfathers, and allows rapists to avoid prosecution if they pay "blood money" to make up for any injuries caused to thier rape victim.

Not only is does this legislation strip women of some of thier most basic human rights, it is also unconstitutional according to the Article 22 of the Afghan constitution which states that men and women have "equal rights and duties before the law". Additionally, this legislation defies the international convention CEDAW, which Afghanistan has signed to end discrimination against women. Although President Hamid Karzai promised to amend the previous marital rape law, it has been speculated by many feminist groups that the president supported this pathetic alteration in order to garner support from religious conservatives for the upcoming election on August 20.

It is completely unacceptable for women, or for any human being to be so horribly discriminated against under the law. The dignity and quality of life of the women of Afghanistan is being tossed around by male political and religious leaders more interested in power than in equality, safety, and the well being of the Afghan society as a whole. This legislation cannot be ignored by the international community, or by feminists around the world. Let President Obama know that it is important to you that he pressure the next Afghan President to repeal this legislation and guarantee the Afghan women the fundamental rights that they deserve. Call your representative today!

The Feminist Majority Foundation is committed to achieving full political, social and economic freedom and equality for the women and girls of Afghanistan, through the Campaign for Afghan Women and Girls and the Feminist Campus Afghan Women's Health Initiative.

Happy birthday Ms. Thomas and Mr. President!

Barack Obama is celebrating his first birthday as president today, but he came into the White House briefing room to present cupcakes to Helen Thomas. The veteran reporter, who turns 89(!) today, has covered every president since John F. Kennedy. Thomas is a feminist trailblazer. She was the only female reporter to travel with President Nixon to China, the first woman officer of the National Press Club and the White House Correspondents Association, and the first female member and president of the Gridiron Club. At 89 she still asks the most pointed questions of anyone in the press corps.

The video is adorable:

Regina Benjamin is Not Too Fat to Serve

Dear readers, I am concerned about the message Tom Vilsack is sending to Americans. He is in charge of our farming, general agriculture and food policies. His department is supposed to try and not only end hunger in America, but ensure that the youth (who are, after all, our future) are learning how to provide healthy food for themselves and their families. And I can tell just by looking at him that he is at least 60 pounds overweight. I know that if I were a teenager about to cook dinner for my family, I would take one look at Tom Vilsack and think “Well, if the person in charge of the food policy for the entire United States can eat chicken fried steak for dinner…”

That’s ridiculous, right? I have never, and will never, hear that kind of criticism about Tom Vilsack. Or C. Everret Koop. Or any of the overweight male senators or congressmen who shape our food and health policy. I have, however, heard that about Surgeon General nominee Dr. Regina Benjamin. Critics on the internet, and now in the mainstream media, are claiming that Dr. Benjamin’s weight sends a bad example to Americans, and that someone overweight is therefore unfit to serve as Surgeon General.

Really? That’s your argument against a woman who has an M.D. and an M.B.A., who ran a clinic in rural Alabama that withstood two hurricanes, and who recently won a MacArthur Genius grant? I shouldn’t be shocked that when a woman with impeccable credentials is nominated to anything, the next best thing to complain about is her looks. Even women with less than stellar credentials are judged based on appearance.

Dr. Regina Benjamin is more than qualified for the position of Surgeon General. Anyone who would look at our Surgeon General and decide that his or her weight was license to overeat clearly wasn’t all that dedicated to a healthy lifestyle either way. And critics like Michael Karolchyk, former owner of a gym that advertised itself as a place to prepare for sex, and who wore a “No Chubbies” shirt on Fox News to talk about Benjamin’s weight, should not be the experts we expect to keep us well-informed about health.

Photo Courtesy of flickr.com/barackobamadotcom

Michelle Obama - should she be more active in the White House?

I think Michelle Obama is an interesting case. Not only is she the wife of the first African American President, but she is also a Princeton grad, a fashionista, and a mother of two children. Clearly, Mrs. Obama has a lot on her shoulders, but I constantly wonder why she is not motivated to be more active in the White House.

At the University of California Merced, Michelle spoke to the graduating class and urged them to be bold and embrace challenges. Her words are wise, and she continues to successfuly caputre the nation with her friendly aura. Students at the university were very happy to have Michelle there, and one student commented on the role Michelle Obama plays.

"I think she's just a new modern type of role model for women. She's incredibly intelligent, well spoken, and she's just interesting," she said.

"It's very good to see the White House pushing people to help others. That's what my university's always done too." (Piya Radia, BBC Newsbeat)

I agree with Piya, Mrs. Obama is a role model. But still, I long for a woman in the White House, not just a Mom-in-Chief, which I think is great, but a Woman-in-Chief. During the Clinton Presidency, we all know that Hillary was very active, and she was able to make positive changes. Now, I hope, Michelle will realize the power of her position and maybe take on some more polticially charged tasks. Of course, she's already been around the world and is helping, I just want to see more! I have high hopes for both President Barack Obama and Michelle.

Anti-choice supporters target Hispanics and African Americans

Recently I attended an anti-choice rally labeled “Building a culture of life during the Obama presidency.” Here I got to witness the anti-choice marketing plan.

I heard how the pastors involved made themselves seem as God’s modern day apostles. The pastors literally used phrases such as, “God came to me and told me…” to emphasize their statements.

I listened to twisted facts, deceptive statements, and manipulated statistics. I held myself back as speaker after speaker depicted abortion as nothing less than a crime. They made late term abortions seem always the result of someone’s delayed decision and painted women and doctors as murderers.

I talked to a camp anti-choice leader who mentioned they prefer to target high schools and low-income areas because the people there are more responsive. They also target the Spanish-speaking community and even have short term trips to Mexico and South America.

I watched one of their Spanish propaganda videos. Their marketing scheme includes the handsome and popular actor Eduardo Verastegui (above) as the spokesman, an emotional story, graphic visuals, and a well-known Spanish anti-abortion song. The lyrics of the song are from the perspective of a happy fetus that lives in the womb and then goes through an abortion.

As the anti-abortion song played, they exhibited gruesome inflammatory visuals of “post-abortion” fetuses and even a clip of an actual abortion taking place. The origin of the images were left out. Were they from still births? Were they from abortions where the woman’s life is in danger?

When I recognized the song, I got sad. Not because of the song’s message, but because I realized they are preying on the sensibility of people like my aunt and cousin. When my aunt and cousin from Jalisco, Mexico first made me listen to this song, their eyes got watery and after the song they asked, “Isn’t it horrible?”

This video also includes dishonest and twisted messages. In the video, Verasteguie makes the outrageous claim that Hispanics are the most targeted by the abortion providers and goes as far as to say racist individuals use abortion as a medium to eliminate Hispanics because we are a threat to democracy. In the same rally, Walter Hoye, a keynote speaker, made similar statements as Verasteguie, saying that African Americans are the most targeted community by women’s health care providers.

This is terrible! How can they make such ridiculous accusations and completely dismiss that women’s heath clinics don’t only provide abortions but also provide women with breast cancer screenings, pap-tests, HPV tests, access to contraceptives, etc.

It is mind boggling why in the name of their beliefs they want to stop women from communities like mine from the only access to health care we have. They want to close these clinics. It is ironic they accuse women’s health clinics as targeting African Americans and Hispanics when they are clearly going to great lengths to manipulate us.

I mean, as soon as one of their members from the rally realized I spoke Spanish I was urged to take more pamphlets and DVDs from the bundle I already carried and encouraged I show my family and friends that horrible video.

In the video they also target Barack Obama with incendiary accusations. Verasteguie states with missionary-like zeal, “As a legislator, Obama voted several times against an appeal that tried to protect babies who survived an abortion and are born alive.”

It is amazing how much energy and resources anti-choice supporters can muster. Just think about what we could do if we were able to harness that energy and money to work towards universal health care, including access to comprehensive reproductive health care, especially contraception. Wouldn’t this be a better method for the anti-abortion supporters to reduce the number of abortions?

Most of the grassroots followers are well intentioned, and it is remarkable how they believe in the validity of their convictions. However, I wish they would see that pro-choice does not mean anti-life. Rather, it just means that we want to preserve the constitutional and moral right of every woman to choose for herself.