Anti-choice researcher confirms that restrictions are designed to raise costs for women

A leading anti-choice researcher recently made some remarks at the Values Voters Summit (as if the rest of us don’t vote our values? but I digress!) that stray from the traditional anti-choice talking points, explicitly stating that increasing the cost of an abortion means that less women are able to get the procedure:

You can defund abortion by stopping Medicaid funding or by defunding Planned Parenthood. You can strengthen parental-involvement laws, by requiring both parents to be involved. You can strengthen informed-consent laws: Require the woman to see an ultrasound, or require two trips to the clinic. That raises the costs; that stops the abortion from happening.

Well, that is unfortunately true. Though generally the proponents of obstacles to abortion care – such as waiting periods, ultrasounds, etc. – frame these barriers in terms of giving women time to think, or “information,” or whatever they can muster that betrays their deep distrust of women to make informed decisions on their own, these revelatory remarks tell us that anti-choicers know exactly what they are doing: leaving access to abortion only for the wealthy.

Of course, reproductive justice advocates have known for a long time that the brunt of the weight of abortion restrictions falls on Latinas and other women of color, who are disproportionately poor. In fact, wealth has always facilitated access to abortion, even before Roe, when women who had the resources to do so flew to Sweden and Puerto Rico to get their procedures. The reality is today, and it always has been, that access to safe and legal abortion is an economic justice issue. Everything from waiting periods, to the added cost of an ultrasound, to the fact that federal Medicaid funds cannot go towards abortion hits low-income women and women of color the hardest. And the anti-choice movement knows exactly what they are doing.

Read Full Post »

Advancing Paycheck Fairness for Latinas means Advancing Immigrant and Reproductive Rights

Latina activists in New York recognize that passage of the DREAM Act advances both economic and reproductive justice.

As we join the call for Paycheck Fairness, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH) recognizes that in the fight to achieve economic justice for all women, we must recognize, elevate, and address the unique challenges faced by Latinas and immigrant women.

According to the White House Council on Women and Girls, women make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns through employment. Yet, for Latinas, this rate is 56 cents on the dollar, which represents the largest wage gap of any other group of working women.  What accounts for this widened disparity between men and Latinas, and between white women and Latinas? We know that although Latinas comprise the fastest growing community of color,  more than a third do not graduate high school. Latinas experience the highest level of poverty among women in the labor force at 12.1% and have the lowest employment-to-population ratio of women of all racial and ethnic groups. Furthermore, the recession hit Latinas particularly hard as unemployment rates more than doubled for Latinas in the years between 2007 and 2010.  Immigrant women and Latinas with limited English proficiency not only face systematic bars on their participation in the labor force, but also discrimination, prejudice, and bias from employers. Latina farmworkers face horrific levels of sexual violence, sexual harassment, and retaliation for reporting abuses from their employers. These factors account for the fact that Latinas are overly represented in low-wage sectors, working at jobs that provide few-to-no benefits like health insurance, paid vacation, and maternity or family leave.

We know that these pay inequities impact Latinas’ access to reproductive health care.  Latinas compose the ethnic/racial group with the highest level of health care un-insurance, as they are less likely to have employer-sponsored coverage or  to afford costly individual plans.  And despite the enormous gains under the Affordable Care Act, or health reform law, undocumented individuals will be barred from purchasing health plans on the state health insurance exchanges and remain ineligible for Medicaid. The federally-imposed 5-year bar on legal permanent residents from accessing benefits under Medicaid blocks Latinas’ access to reproductive and sexual health care, including contraception and important preventive care such as  Pap tests – and did we mention that Latinas have the highest incidence of cervical cancer of women of all racial/ethnic groups? On top of this, federal funding bans on abortion care make abortion just as inaccessible as if it were illegal for far too many Latinas.

And while NLIRH celebrates and supports the advances called for in the federal Paycheck Fairness Act, introduced to the House of Representatives by Representative Rosa DeLauro (CO-3) and in the Senate by Senator Barbara Mikulski (MD), we view this legislation as part of a comprehensive solution to economic justice for all women, including Latinas. Utilizing a comprehensive approach means addressing injustice in immigration, health care, education, and employment  to reverse the culture of devaluing Latina labor.  In recent years, a wave of political and policy developments in states are, instead of seeking to address the wage gap between Latinas and other groups, actively limiting Latinas’ opportunities for a quality education, optimum participation in the workforce, and the comprehensive, quality, and affordable reproductive health care needed to plan their families and their participation in the workforce.

Alabama Governor Robert Bentley signs bill which adds more immigration restrictions on top of HB 56.

Let’s briefly look at two states-  Arizona and Alabama –  where the wage rate for Latinas is 53 cents and 41 cents, respectively, for every dollar a white man earns working full-time year-round. Instead of working to elevate the economic status of Latino families, the political classes in Arizona and Alabama have embarked on a radical anti-immigrant agenda aimed directly at limiting the employment and educational opportunities of immigrant and Latino families.  HB56, enacted in Alabama in 2011, requires public school boards to attain the immigration status of newly enrolling children and their parents. Section 8 of this  law forbids undocumented students from attending public universities and colleges and from receiving financial assistance. And despite the recent special legislative session called by Governor Robert Bentley to address concerns in HB 56, the changes actually tack on more dangerous provisions.  Both HB56 and Arizona’s SB1070 forbid employers from hiring undocumented workers, and both work to create a culture of fear and discrimination against those without papers.

At the same  time, the two states in our case study here, Arizona and Alabama, have embarked on a dangerous anti-abortion and anti-family planning agenda. In both Arizona and Alabama, 20-week abortion bans disproportionately impact low-income women, including Latinas, who face numerous barriers to full information about their pregnancies, and for whom financial, geographic, and other challenges delay the process of attaining abortion care. Arizona has also put in place a race- and sex-selective abortion ban which appropriates the language of civil rights and gender equity to target the reproductive freedom of women of color. Oh yeah, and in Arizona, you are apparently pregnant two weeks before conception,  so this combined with the 20-week abortion ban puts abortion care out of reach for even more Latinas.

Beyond abortion, we are seeing attacks on access to contraception and family planning programs. In Arizona, Governor Jan Brewer signed into law a bill that permits “religiously-affiliated” employers to refuse to include contraception in employee health plans, a form of discrimination that intersects directly with reproductive and economic justice.  And this only scratches the surface in terms of the amount roll-backs to reproductive health care access we are seeing in these and other states.

Here at the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, we view the attacks on immigrant families and reproductive health as working hand-in-hand to diminish Latina opportunity. Because the question begs being asked, how can Latinas achieve their economic potential when they cannot attend university or work legally? How can Latinas fully participate in the labor force and provide for their families without the ability to space and plan their pregnancies? How can Latinas acheive equality of opportunity in the United States without equal access to health care?

Members of NLIRH’s Latina Advocacy Network in Texas fight for reproductive justice.

Despite the enormous challenges, Latinas across the country are mobilizing for reproductive justice. Our Latina Advocacy Network in Texas is fighting against dramatic cuts to the Texas Women’s Health Program, a program which has been central to their ability access needed breast and cervical cancer screenings. Our Latina Advocacy Network in Miami is mobilizing to build broad coalitions bridging reproductive justice to other social justice work. Our Latina Advocacy Network in New York recognizes that passage of the DREAM Act, and the ability for undocumented immigrants to attain higher education, is central to the fight for reproductive justice. NLIRH is also an advisory board member of We Belong Together, a coalition united for children and families, which participated in a delegation to Alabama to bear witness to the impact of HB 56 on the lives of Alabama’s families. And through  ¡Soy Poderosa!/ I am Powerful!, NLIRH’s civic engagement campaign, we will ignite the political power of all Latinas to advance health, dignity, and reproductive justice.

Together, we can make inroads in the fight for economic and paycheck fairness. However, this work must be intersectional, comprehensive, and take into account the lived experiences of all women, including Latinas. As we work to pass the important Paycheck Fairness Act, let’s also mobilize communities for immigrant rights, reduce barriers to quality and affordable health care, expand opportunities for education and job training, and last, but certainly not least, ensure that all women, including Latinas, have access to quality and affordable reproductive health care.

Read Full Post »

Unemployment benefits extension included restriction on welfare payments

The extension on unemployment benefits passed on February 17th was generally seen as a positive development for struggling and low-income families – Congress passed a year-long extension of the benefits, which are crucial to making ends meet for folks who are looking for work. Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. Hidden in the bill was a provision to restrict where TANF recipients (i.e. recipients of cash assistance, also known as welfare) can get money out.

These days, folks who get cash assistance get a card that works as an ATM card, and are able to go to any ATM to remove available funds. Well, that is until now – Congress’s restriction bans recipients from using ATMs in liquor stores, casinos, and strip clubs. This measure is paternalistic, insulting, and absurd in so many ways. First, this provision ignores the fact that although it might be difficult to find something as run of the mill as a grocery store in low-income neighborhoods, there are actually significantly more liquor stores there than in wealthier neighborhoods. Did the legislators that proposed this measure stop to think that perhaps the closest ATM to many recipients of cash assistance might actually be in one of these establishments? Or that they may be the closest ATMs with low fees?

Further, we need to address the wackness of trying to restrict poor folks’ purchases. Often ignored in conversations about welfare are is that TANF recipients actually required to work – 35 hours a week in “training” programs that don’t really train anyone to do anything that’s going to get them out of poverty or even a job that pays above minimum wage, but that’s a conversation for another day. The point is that TANF recipients work, and do so for small amounts of cash assistance which, if you do the math, represents just a fraction of the minimum wage. So here we’ve got folks that are basically working for below-minimum-wage pay, and Congress wants to restrict where they’re able to get that money out based on a racialized idea of lazy welfare queens drinking their days away. Would Congress ever think to try to restrict the purchases of other workers?

Latinas and women of color are disproportionately poor, and this affects women of color and our families most of all. This is not only absurd, it is racist, and it is unnecessarily intrusive into the lives of low-income folks. If Congress is truly concerned with addiction among poor folks, can we see them invest in quality rehabilitation programs? Can we see them invest in the lives of women? Can we see them address the painful social and economic conditions that addicts are trying to numb? Economic justice is reproductive justice – all women deserve to live their lives with dignidad, salud, y justicia.

Read Full Post »

Take Action Against Congress’ Proposal To Threaten a Lifeline for Latino Families!

Do you remember all that talk right before the holidays about Congress thinking about NOT extending unemployment benefits during this time of recession?

Well, Congress did strike a deal that extended both unemployment insurance benefits and the payroll tax cut, a benefit that allows workers to keep about $40.00 per paycheck. That deal is set to expire February 29, and Congress is renegotiating — most of the debate now is how to pay for these benefits.

The House of Representatives are proposing pay for the payroll tax extension by limiting eligibility for a program that helps low-income taxpaying families care for their children- and 80% of the the families who benefit from this program are Latino!  Seriously, Congress?!

The Child Tax Credit reduces taxes by $1,000.00 per child for taxpaying parents so that they can buy food, school supplies, and other necessities for their children. Parents who benefit from this law are taxpayers, so they pay into this program- again a program that serves as  a tax refund to assist lower-income families. The program is credited with helping 1.3 million children from falling into poverty in 2009.

Under current law, taxpayers who do not have a Social Security Number can apply to this benefit using Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). This number is issued by the Internal Revenue Service to allow those without Social Security Numbers, like immigrants, pay taxes.

House of Representatives are proposing to limit eligibility for this program to only those with Social Security Numbers.

As National Council of La Raza explains, this proposal would disproportionately impact Latinos who are taxpayers and have very low incomes. By denying this benefit to ITIN tax-payers, 4.4 MILLION Latino children in mixed-status families would lose this benefit, affecting 1 in4 Latino children. This would be unfair to the taxpayers who pay into this program and would destabilize the health, well-being and prosperity of our most vulnerable children.

Why Congress is proposing to pay for one assistance program by cutting one that impacts poor children is beyond logic, reason and human compassion.  Low-income children are the ones who will suffer most.

We need to do better for our children. In 2007, the United States ranked 20th out of 21 countries in a UN survey of child welfare in rich nations. The Annie E. Casey Foundation has found that child poverty has increased in 38 states over the past decade with 20% of our youth now living in poverty.

And Latino children disproportionately live in poverty and are food-insecure.The Pew Research Center found that in 2010, more Latino children lived in poverty than children of any other group. NCLR’s research also shows that Latinos face the highest level of food insecurity among all racial and ethnic groups.

Unfortunately, this is not the only policy aimed at generating revenue by  destabilizing the health and well-being of poor Latino children. States like Kansas have either proposed or enacted laws that limit food stamp eligibility for the children of undocumented immigrants.

Latin@s, please show your Congressperson that you are PODEROSA and you will not stand for this attack on Latino children in this country!

Call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 to reach your Representatives in Congress.

The National Council of La Raza recommends the below script:

“My name is ____.  I am a constituent calling from ____.  I urge you to oppose any changes in eligibility for the Child Tax Credit.  Children in low-income families should not be a source of revenue for the payroll tax cut.  No compromises!”

National Council of La Raza (NCLR) has excellent resources on this topic and the impact on Latinos.

Read Full Post »

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) “work first” paradigm requires Latinas to postpone dignity and security…indefinitely

Since welfare “reform” in 1996, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) has presented a variety of challenges to economically marginalized communities, including communities of color and single mother-led households. Rather than serve as a safety net to help catch those who are in danger of falling into poverty, TANF’s harsh work requirements, increasingly strict time limits, and punitive treatment of childbearing have contributed to pushing people in marginalized communities over the edge. Many of the program’s shortcomings were apparent from the outset, but the economic downturn has caused federal and state budgets to contract and demand for safety net programs to rise—combined with shrinking political will, the economic situation over past few years has created a perfect storm for showcasing TANF’s structural problems. And while TANF reform—not just reauthorization or extension—is pretty much off-the-table for 2011, it is on our wish list for 2012.

As it currently stands, TANF has not been reauthorized since the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which was signed in February 2006 and funded the TANF block grant through September 2010. The program was extended through September 2011 without the TANF Emergency Fund; then it was extended through the end of 2011, this time without funding for the program’s supplemental grants. The loss of the supplemental grants has been devastating for many Latinas. TANF is funded through a block grant, which means that states receive a fixed sum of money for the program, rather than an amount of money that changes based on demand. The supplemental grants provided additional funding to states with quick population growth and historically low welfare payments. Texas, for instance, has had the highest population growth of any state over the past decade, and Latinos account for about two-thirds of this growth and now make up almost 40% of the state’s population. Meanwhile, the state’s TANF benefits for a single-parent family of three while the supplemental grants still existed were only sufficient to bring the family to between 10 and 20% of the federal poverty level (FPL); TANF and SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, often called food stamps) together brought the same family to just over 50% of FPL. With the loss of the supplemental assistance grant, Texas stands to lose approximately $50 million per year, reducing its ability to provide benefits to needy Texans, at a time when need is high and assistance levels are already inadequate.

Read Full Post »

Latinas call on Congress to extend unemployment insurance set to expire on Dec 31

The economic recession has hit Latinas particularly hard. Even this simple, yet true, statement does nothing to paint the picture of what a disproportionate amount of Latinas face every day: unemployment, under-employment and employment without medical benefits and with economic insecurity, poverty, food insecurity, and lack of access to health care.

Despite these challenges, Latinas continue to contribute to our vitality and diversity of this country. We will not stand for the unjust treatment we have faced in the 112^th Congress.  This dysfunctional Congress has persisted in its assault on the rights of Latinas to make important decisions about their reproductive care, yet they fail to take action on improving the U.S. economy, which has caused great displacement and widened the income inequality among our nation’s ethnic and racial groups.

Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that while the unemployment rate for Latinas has dropped from 11.5% to 10.6%, the rate for whites continues to be lower at about 7.6%. Even for those Latinas fortunate to have work, they continue to face high income insecurity. A report from Wider Opportunities for Women shows that 66% of Latino households have total incomes that do not allow economic security and 85%of Latina single mothers do not earn economic security wages, despite working full time. This may be due to the fact that Latinas disproportionately work in sectors that are low-wage, part-time, do not offer benefits and are not unionized.

To add to this grim picture, a study from the Pew Research Center shows that the median wealth of white households is 18 times (!!!) that of Latino households. During the Great Recession, while the median net worth of white households dipped 16%, that of Latino household fell by a whopping 66% from $18,369.00 to $6,325.00.

Read Full Post »

Alabama’s New Immigration Law Says: We Don’t Want Immigrants to Live in Dignity…And We’ll Lay Our Economy on the Line to Prove It?

Given the current anti-immigrant climate in the U.S., it comes as no surprise that an Alabama federal judge upheld many provisions of that state’s new immigration legislation, which takes Arizona’s SB 1070 and raises it a few rights-limiting provisions. And while much of the abhorrent legislation was allowed to stand, it is hard to tell for now whether the judge’s reservation of judgment on numerous provisions—and reservation of implementation in the interim—is a good or bad sign for immigrants. What does seem clear, though, is that on the state and federal level alike, there is confusion not about the state of the economy (after all, who could be confused about that?), but about what immigrants’ contribution has been, is, and should be. A close look reveals that Alabama’s economy depends on the work of immigrants, and that the state’s new legislation will have high dollar costs to the state as well as high human costs to the immigrant population.

There appears to be general consensus that the U.S. needs to shift its economic focus in order to try to regain the economic might of a bygone era—in other words, skilled is the name of the game. But Alabama’s approach has looked backward instead of forward, cutting off immigrants’ access to many educational opportunities, effectively blocking the growth of a skilled workforce, and arguably placing a huge roadblock in the road to economic recovery and growth.

Read Full Post »

Living on a prayer? Latinas need jobs and the ability to live with dignity

Economic security has been a major concern for everyone, but perhaps especially so for Latinas. Studies indicate that Latinas had an 11.4% unemployment rate in August 2011, compared to about 9% overall. And when they work, Latinas earn, on average, less than sixty cents for every dollar earned by a white male. That’s why the jobs bill the President introduced to Congress last week is so important for Latinas. The bill includes provisions that will extend unemployment insurance that will benefit 1.1 million Latinos who have been out of work for six months or more and increase the paychecks for 25 million Latino workers through reduced payroll taxes.

Much of the hard work that Latinas do involves low wages and minimal worker protections. In addition, even working Latinas are uninsured at a high rate. In 2008, the median income for Latinas was $16,417, compared to a median income of $20,867 for women of all races, $24,003 for Latinos, and $33,161 for men of all races. Given this disparity, and the expense of healthcare, it is not surprising that 38% of Latinas were uninsured in 2008—the highest rate of all groups of women.

Jobs are a huge piece of establishing economic security for Latinas and for all Americans. But they are not enough. In these tough economic times, it is necessary to keep a broader perspective: one that recognizes that work is not what makes one a person worthy of living in dignity and that public programs have an important role to play in improving the lives of all of America’s people.

Read Full Post »

Recession fuels discriminatory lending practices against pregnant women

By Rita Martinez, Development and Communications Intern

The repercussions of this devastating economic downturn have decidedly proven the significance of wealth. While those privileged enough to have such wealth remained relatively unscathed by the recession, most people will agree that its effects on the working class were debilitating. Many families struggled to pay their mortgages in a timely fashion, thereby accumulating large debts and ultimately finding themselves in a situation of economic dependence.

The existence of a wealth gap is not new- but I would like to demonstrate its magnitude I will briefly refer to Lifting As We Climb, a report which depicts the wealth gap for women of color. It reveals disturbing statistics, i.e. the median wealth of single Latina women is $120, as opposed to $41,500 for single White women. When you consider this data in times of current economic upheaval, it becomes clear why women of color are so disproportionally impacted. Their economic security is built on such shaky foundations and so losing a job or getting sick severely impacts their ability to make ends meet. Their lack of protection from such a topsy-turvy economy troubles me- and it is why I am concerned about the implications of stricter loan regulations.

I understand the need for stricter lending requirements after our current economic downturn. However, I have a problem with the way some lenders are interpreting eligibility for a loan. Most lenders require proof of income and verification of continued income for the next three years before they can approve a home loan. This is not unreasonable, but some lenders are considering maternity leave as a complete stop of income. This interpretation will deny pregnant women the ability to purchase a home and therefore accumulate wealth.

Read Full Post »

Including Domestic Workers in the Reproductive Rights Struggle

By Susana Sánchez, Community Mobilization Intern

In a historic decision on June 1^st the New York Senate signed into law a Domestic Worker Bill of Rights (Senate bill 2311-D) becoming the first state in the country to enact a law granting labor rights to domestic workers. The law guarantees basic worker rights: an eight hour day, overtime, one day off a week, paid holidays, paid vacation and sick days, the right to collectively organize, and requires employers to give 14 day termination notice to employees. In addition, employers who violate the law might receive a civil penalty from the state commissioner.

The law is a significant gain for the labor and women’s rights movement. It has been well documented that most employers do not even see themselves as employers and their domestic workers as employees. The law begins to change that dynamic; it clearly defines domestic workers as employees under the definition of New York minimum wage law. However, one has to dig deep into the legislation to understand the extent to which this law affects women of color, particularly, undocumented immigrant women.

Domestic work, in its broad definition, has being historically performed by women of color.  Currently, more than 90 percent of domestic workers are women of color. In New York, one percent or less of domestic workers was born in the U.S. Across the country Latina, Caribbean and African immigrants (mostly undocumented) have taken over the sector because many of them are undocumented and/or lack the language skills to work in other industries.

Read Full Post »