NLIRH applauds DADT repeal

Despite a devastating loss on the DREAM (the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health applauds the Senate’s 65-31 vote on Saturday to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT).  DADT is the law that forces LGBT military members to hide their sexuality at the risk of losing their careers.

Latinas have been devastated under DADT because women and racial minorities are particularly vulnerable under the law. Although women make up only 14% of the Army, for example, women received 46% of the Army’s DADT discharges in FY 2009. And while 20% of Air Force personnel are women, almost half of its discharges under the policy last year were women. These trends are similarly disproportionate for racial minorities.

We join activists in celebrating this bittersweet victory while continuing to work toward the day when human rights and justice will be within reach for all who call the U.S. home.

Read Full Post »

House and Senate pass Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Reauthorization Act

We’re happy to report that the The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment (CAPTA) Reauthorization Act of 2010 passed both the House and Senate last week. It is critical in the fight against child abuse and neglect.  This Act reauthorizes CAPTA through FY2015 and enacts important revisions that, as the White House stated, will “strengthen child protective services and continue life-saving programs for victims of domestic violence.”  Senator Harkin, a co-sponsor and champion of the bill, stated that “incidents of child abuse are on the rise… and this disturbing trend must be reversed immediately.”

The bill directs the Secretary to award grants for two national resource centers, at least seven special issue resource centers, a National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, and specialized services for abused parents and their children.

Other highlights of CAPTA reauthorization include:

• Reauthorization of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (which is the only federal funding source dedicated to domestic violence services and shelters), the Adoption Opportunities Act, and the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act;
• Emphasis on the need to develop the use of research-based strategies;
• Enhancement of the general child protective system;
• Provision of services to children that have been exposed to domestic violence; and
• Improved training on prevention of violence against children.

Read Full Post »

In-depth midterm election analysis for key states

The Policy team at NLIRH has prepared an in-depth analysis of the midterm election results for nine key states. Check out this analysis for the low-down on who won what races and what it will mean for Latinas and reproductive justice.

NLIRH looked at nine state election results in terms of what they mean for Latinas’ and immigrants’ health and rights: Arizona, Colorado, California, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas and Wisconsin. These nine states have at least a 10 percent Latino electorate or have an active NLIRH affiliate.

Read the full analysis here.

Read Full Post »

NLIRH in the News: Supporting NYC Legislation Requiring Crisis Pregnancy Centers to Come Clean

Photo Credit: New York Times

 

On Tuesday, October 12, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health announced its support for a piece of legislation in New York City that would require crisis pregnancy centers, or limited-service pregnancy centers, to disclose on all signage and advertising that they do not provide contraception or abortion services, or referrals to either.  The legislation would also require the centers to disclose if they do not have a licensed medical provider on site, and would hold them to the same confidentiality standards as licensed medical centers.

Crisis pregnancy centers are often innocuously labeled: “Pregnant?  Need Help?”  What many of these signs do not say is that these centers have an explicit anti-choice agenda, and often spread misinformation about abortion, such as the outdated and clinically-disproved claim that abortion increases risk of breast cancer.  The bill follows an investigation by NARAL Pro-Choice New York, who released a report documenting the tactics of these centers.

NLIRH’s own Senior Policy Analyst, Verónica Bayetti Flores, was interviewed in Spanish by Telemundo regarding this story. Read the story here, or watch here.

Read Full Post »

Sin opciones: Women in Mexico criminalized and endangered by illegal abortion

By Stephanie Rodriguez, Policy Intern

What happens when you are scared to go to the hospital?

This is the reality for thousands of women in Mexico where abortion is still outlawed in most states. Research from around the world has shown us that in places where abortion is illegal, it still happens, yet women are put at risk by underground procedures and the fear of persecution. This is the exact situation in Mexico.

A recent article in the New York Times highlighted this issue, discussing eight women who were jailed on homicide charges from supposed clandestine abortions. The process is shady at best, when evidence is difficult to find. Yolanda Martinez, one of the woman who was freed from jail after serving 7 years of her 25 year sentence stated; “They accuse you of crimes that you never committed.”

Women are afraid to go to hospitals whenever they are confronted with complications throughout their pregnancy because of these laws. It can be difficult to distinguish between miscarriage and complications from induced abortions, creating a culture of fear for women. From Guttmacher Institute:

Abortions in Mexico take place under unsafe conditions, resulting in serious health consequences for women. Seventeen percent of the Mexican women who obtained abortions in 2006 were treated in public hospitals for complications.

To make a bad situation worse, laws are being put in place to prevent even the idea of legalizing abortions. This is in response to the recent decision by Mexico City to legalize early abortions there.

Women’s safety should be our first priority–not driving them underground to unsafe procedures. We are not in a position where we can have women think twice before going to a hospital. We are not in a position to see more women die because they had no other option.

By Stephanie Rodriguez, Policy Intern

Read Full Post »

Mike Huckabee’s surprising support for the DREAM Act

On August 11^th, 2010, NPR’s On Point published its interview with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, where he was questioned about a bill he endorsed in 2005 that would have supplied undocumented immigrants who fulfilled certain criteria with state-sponsored scholarships.

Huckabee maintained his opinion and seemed to suggest that Congress should support the DREAM Act, which aims to provide young, undocumented immigrants who moved to the U.S. with their parents and have lived in the U.S. for the most of their lives with a means of legalization.  He reasoned that refusing intelligent, young undocumented immigrants access to higher education does more than misguidedly penalize children – it also negatively affects taxpayers and the entire nation:

HUCKABEE: When a kid comes to his country, and he’s four years old and he had no choice in it — his parents came illegally. He still, because he is in this state, it’s the state’s responsibility – in fact, it is the state’s legal mandate – to make sure that child is in school. So let’s say that kid goes to school. That kid is in our school from kindergarten through the 12th grade. He graduates as valedictorian because he’s a smart kid and he works his rear end off and he becomes the valedictorian of the school. The question is: Is he better off going to college and becoming a neurosurgeon or a banker or whatever he might become, and becoming a taxpayer, and in the process having to apply for and achieve citizenship, or should we make him pick tomatoes? I think it’s better if he goes to college and becomes a citizen.

For these reasons, Huckabee also insisted that he does not support repeal of the 14^th Amendment, which confers citizenship on all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.  Furthermore, he affirmed that all children of “illegal immigrants” should have a path to citizenship.

Huckabee’s interview responses are noteworthy in their differences from many other Republicans’ views on immigration; Senator John McCain (R-AZ), for example, purports to oppose the DREAM Act for “humanitarian reasons.”   That the ultra-conservative Huckabee breaks from traditional Republican ideology to support young, undocumented immigrants could indicate a way to find common ground with anti-immigrant legislators.  Although he calls for strengthened border security and refers to the parents of potential DREAM Act beneficiaries as “illegal,” Huckabee recognizes that the Act could help those who aren’t at fault for their immigration status, links their success with the general wellbeing of the nation, and identifies the 14^th Amendment debate as a ruse.  Perhaps this overlap between pro- and anti-immigrant viewpoints represents an opportunity to communicate with conservative legislators and advocate for progressive laws that would benefit our communities and the U.S. as a whole.

By Nicole Catá, Policy Intern

Read Full Post »

Nevada Republican tells pregnant rape survivors to make lemonade out of lemons

By Lucy Panza, DC Policy Intern

In a recent interview, Nevada Republican candidate for Senate Sharron Angle made a rather inconvenient blunder.  She dug herself into a pretty deep hole with her explanation of why pregnant survivors of rape and incest should not be able to access abortion.  As the Huffington Post reports:

[Interviewer Alan Stock]: What do you say then to a young girl, I am going to place it as [a previous interviewer] said it, when a young girl is raped by her father, let’s say, and she is pregnant. How do you explain this to her in terms of wanting her to go through the process of having the baby?

Angle: I think that two wrongs don’t make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade. Well one girl in particular moved in with the adoptive parents of her child, and they both were adopted. Both of them grew up, one graduated from high school, the other had parents that loved her and she also graduated from high school. And I’ll tell you the little girl who was born from that very poor situation came to me when she was 13 and said ‘I know what you did thank you for saving my life.’ So it is meaningful to me to err on the side of life.

Angle’s remarks are equally inflammatory and important.  They are important because, first, they demonstrate the candidate’s extreme views on abortion restrictions in a context where women and girls arguably need abortion care the most.  Second, these remarks are important for the lack of a Democratic response from incumbent Senator Harry Reid’s campaign.  Granted, Reid’s campaign website has a news page devoted to Angle’s radical opposition to women’s health.  But that does not lessen the significance of how Reid will respond this time around.  Despite Reid’s own conservative views on abortion rights, he and his advisers must come up with a statement that places him in stark contrast to Angle’s extremely insensitive and alarming position which, if she is elected, will jeopardize the health of women and girls.  This should not be a difficult or controversial task.

Read Full Post »

Highlights from President Obama’s immigration speech

By Susana Sanchez, Community Mobilization Intern

Yesterday President Obama gave a speech on immigration reform at American University in Washington, D.C.  President Obama promised that: “[the country] can create a pathway to legal status that is fair and works.” Here are some key highlights from the speech:

Undocumented immigrants:

President Obama on deportation:

“Not possible. Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive. Moreover, it would tear at the very fabric of this nation -–because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric.”

Nonetheless, the President did not call for putting an end to deportation raids, an extremely pressing issue in our community.

He did recognize that undocumented workers are often exploited due to their legal status. He acknowledged that many get paid below the minimum wage, work at jobs where employers violate safety rules, and some do not report crimes due to fear of deportation. He also said that having an undocumented community hurts the economy because “billions in tax revenue are lost” because they are “paid under the table.” Nevertheless, the President mentioned at least twice in his speech that the country welcomes the “best and brightest” immigrants, which seemed a criticism of the many undocumented immigrants who don’t have high education levels and work primarily blue collar jobs.

Although in his speech the President affirmed his support for immigration reform, he said that undocumented immigrants should be held accountable for breaking the law. For their “eventual inclusion” in immigration reform, immigrants:

“Must get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship— not just because it is fair, not just because it will make clear to those who might wish to come to America they must do so inside the bounds of the law, but because this is how we demonstrate that being — what being an American means.”

President Obama elaborated on this concept of “getting in line” by talking about paying fines. This obviously poses issues for low-income immigrants, who already pay huge fees to get to the United States and earn less than other workers.

Read Full Post »

Supreme Court Justice Nominee Elena Kagan wraps up testimony in confirmation hearings

This is the first in a series of blog posts reporting on the confirmation hearings for Solicitor General Elena Kagan. Check back for posts throughout the hearings!

By Lucy Panza, DC Policy Intern

Solicitor General Elena Kagan completed her testimony in the Supreme Court nomination hearings yesterday.  She answered many questions with entertaining wit and humor, something not commonly seen in these types of proceedings, but without much substance on any issue that could conceivably come before the Court during her future tenure there.  As The New York Times reported:

Elena Kagan deflected questions about her own views on gun rights and abortion during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings on Tuesday, instead describing Supreme Court precedents. She declined to say whether terrorism suspects must be warned of the right to remain silent, saying the issue was “quite likely to get to the courts.”

The main attack narrative leveled at the nominee was that she is a lifelong political lawyer who would be unable to “take off [her] political hat,” as Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) said at one point, to become a Supreme Court Justice.  The attacks came from two angles: most of the Republican Senators reviled Kagan’s past reluctance to allow military recruiters onto the campus of Harvard Law School while she was Dean because of her objection to the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy; and expressed a lot of concern about Kagan’s clerkship with former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall because of Marshall’s supposedly “activist agenda.”  Having answered the same question dozens of times, Kagan finally told Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), “I love Justice Marshall.  He did an enormous amount for me, but if you confirm me to this position, you’ll get Justice Kagan, you won’t get Justice Marshall. And that’s an important thing.”

Read Full Post »

Abortion restrictions gain momentum while funding for family support is slashed

By Sheila Reynoso, Research Intern

A recent report released by the Center for American Progress, Abortion Bills by the Numbers, written by Jessica Arons and Alex Cawthorne, caught my attention this week. It highlights the increase in state laws restricting access to abortion.

The health care reform bill and President Obama’s Executive Order are making it possible for states to “opt-out” of abortion coverage and pass laws that will prohibit insurance companies from providing abortion coverage in the exchange market.  Three states to this date have passed such laws, with 14 states following suit introducing laws that will either ban, limit, or a combination of both for abortions.

The report also mentions how states have passed laws that place all sorts of absurd restrictions on abortions, including (but not limited to) banning abortions based on the gender or race of the fetus; mandatory ultrasounds; and time frame limitations.  Finally, this article also comments on how much time and effort is spent lobbying for these abortion restrictions while other important legislation and programs are underfunded or cut altogether. Arons and Cawthorne highlight the irony in this:

While state legislators have been busy making abortion almost impossible to obtain for an untold number of women, they have done little to provide women with the support they need to carry their pregnancies to term, have childbirth options available to them, and raise the children they have. States are facing a budget shortfall of about $260 billion over the next two fiscal years, leading to unprecedented cuts to a variety of critical programs for vulnerable families and children, including public health programs and early childhood and K-12 education.

We need better public health programs that will provide education on contraceptive use, public health programs that will support a woman if she chooses to raise her child, and programs that will prevent unintended pregnancies.  I urge legislators to put themselves in a woman’s shoes and look at the reality of the position that these women are in, stop passing abortion laws that prohibit a woman’s right and instead move in a direction that will give women and families better reproductive health options.

By Sheila Reynoso, Research Intern

Read Full Post »