/home/wpurdemo/resistancesuffolk/wp-content/mu-pluginsFamily Planning – R&R – Reachout and Rebuild
https://resistancesuffolk.wp.urdemo.website
A collection of writings dealing with current US & Long Island politicsWed, 29 Apr 2026 10:12:09 +0000en-US
hourly
1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.410 REASONS WOMEN MUST #FlipThe1st!
https://resistancesuffolk.wp.urdemo.website/2018/10/26/10-reasons-women-must-flipthe1st/
https://resistancesuffolk.wp.urdemo.website/2018/10/26/10-reasons-women-must-flipthe1st/#commentsFri, 26 Oct 2018 14:25:08 +0000https://resistancesuffolk.wp.urdemo.website/2018/10/26/10-reasons-women-must-flipthe1st/Continue reading →]]>
Issue #2: August, 2018 by Jacquelyn Gavron and Amy Turner
Lee Zeldin repeatedly votes for laws that jeopardize the health and financial wellbeing of 55% of his constituents: the 310,000 females in New York’s 1st Congressional District. Women in NY01 deserve a representative who understands that when women succeed, families and communities do too. Here’s Zeldin’s voting record, which speaks for itself.
#1 “FEMALE” IS NOT A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION
Zeldin and the GOP-controlled house voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and replace it with the American Health Care Act (AHCA). Had it passed, 61,951 people in NY01 would have lost their health care (ACASignups.net). And insurance companies would be allowed to charge women more than men and refuse to cover:
Essential services—pregnancy, maternity and newborn care
Pre-existing conditions —pregnancy, C-sections, celiac disease, hysterectomies, eating disorders, and treatment for domestic violence and sexual assault
Preventive services—mammograms, screenings for cervical cancer, osteoporosis, anemia, gestational diabetes and preeclampsia; and breastfeeding support and supplies.
Did you know. . . Zeldin has received a whopping $267,975 in contributions from insurance companies since 2014. (OpenSecrets.org).
#2 WOMEN DESERVE EQUAL PAY
In Suffolk County, women earn $51,014 for a job that pays men $65,326—$14,312 less. (labor.ny.gov). Don’t expect Zeldin to help. He’s repeatedly undermined equal pay protection by:
Voting to block Congress from considering the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill to end the pay gap and protect workers from retaliation for sharing info on their wages. (H.R. 1619, 2015)
Voting to make it extremely difficult for women seeking equal pay to bring a class action lawsuit against their employers. (HR 1927, 2016).
#3 LET WOMEN CONTROL THEIR OWN BODIES
Zeldin voted for a bill to ban abortion at 20 weeks (directly challenging Roe v. Wade), which was opposed by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as a serious threat to women’s health and not based on sound science. Zeldin has supported:
Amending the constitution to ban abortion except to save life of mother
A nationwide ban on private insurance coverage of abortion
Federal legislation allowing parents to prevent their daughters from receiving abortions
Requiring rape victims to wait 48 hours before obtaining an abortion
Barring the government from distributing emergency contraceptives
#4 GUN VIOLENCE IS A WOMAN’S ISSUE
Zeldin co-sponsored the federally mandated concealed carry bill, which would override New York’s strict gun laws and let gun owners with a history of violence against women roam our neighborhoods with a hidden, loaded gun. Most people don’t know the hidden toll guns take on women:
50 women a month are shot to death by a current or former partner
4.5 million American women have been threatened with guns, often by intimate partners, so they live in fear for themselves and their children for days, months and even years.
U.S. women are 16x more likely to be killed with a gun than in other high-income countries.
#5 WE NEED PAID FAMILY LEAVE
Most workers are covered by the Family Medical Leave Act, which lets you take up to 12 weeks of leave a year to care for family members. But for most people, that leave is unpaid. The GOP solution? Take a “loan” from Social Security and delay receipt of your retirement income.
#6 SOCIAL SECURITY: ON THE CUTTING BLOCK
The GOP tax scam gives huge tax cuts to the wealthy and large corporations that add $2 trillion to the national debt. They’re using this as an excuse to slash Social Security—it’s especially important to women as they earn less, take more time out of the workforce, live longer, save less and get smaller pensions.
In NY01, 150,262 people receive Social Security. Zeldin said he’d “continue to support legislation that protects and supports Social Security and Medicare” (letter, 6/2017) but he:
Voted YES to a constitutional amendment that would allow Social Security to pay beneficiaries only if a federal budget surplus could offset them. (HJ Res.2, 4/12/18)
Voted to block the transfer of tax revenue to keep the Disability Insurance afloat—unless it was part of a larger plan to cut benefits or tax increases. (HRes 5, 1/6/15; Politico).
#7 GOP GUNNING FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID
In New York, nearly 2 million women rely on Medicare for their health insurance. Zeldin voted for a budget resolution (H.Con.Res 71, 10-15-17) that would pay for Trump’s huge tax cuts by:
Slashing Medicare by $487 billion
Increasing the age at which you can apply for Medicare from 65 to 67 nscpssm.org
More women than men are covered by Medicaid as they often work in lower paying jobs, and many work for small businesses that don’t offer health insurance. But Zeldin voted to take way the Medicaid option. And Trump recently gave the go-ahead for states to take away Medicaid from people who aren’t working a minimum number of hours a month. This disproportionally hurts women because they:
Often work in low-wage jobs with inconsistent hours that may not meet the requirements.
Typically care for children or other family members and aren’t in the paid workforce
#8 UN-AFFORDABLE CHILD CARE
Trump’s tax scam doubled the maximum child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000—“but the parents of about 29 million kids won’t get the credit because their families earn too little.” (TPC.org).
#9 PLANNED PARENTHOOD
Zeldin has repeatedly voted to defund Planned Parenthood. Perhaps he doesn’t understand that Planned Parenthood provides a wide range of health care services to 2.4 million clients, including, prenatal care, breast exams, PAP smears, vasectomies, HIV and STD testing and treatment, and sex education.
#10 WOMEN DESERVE A REP WHO VALUES WOMEN
In January 2017, thousands of Zeldin’s constituents showed up at women’s marches in D.C., NYC, Port Jeff, Sag Harbor and other places to advocate for women’s rights. But rather than acknowledge their concerns, Zeldin questioned their sanity, suggesting that some of his constituents might hold views that are “off the reservation” and using his 37th birthday two weeks later as an occasion to express his “love” for “even those Hillary supporters who have lost [their] beautiful minds since the election.”
]]>https://resistancesuffolk.wp.urdemo.website/2018/10/26/10-reasons-women-must-flipthe1st/feed/1A Cruel Joke — 13 men are in charge of healthcare for all American women.
https://resistancesuffolk.wp.urdemo.website/2017/06/28/a-cruel-joke-13-men-are-in-charge-of-healthcare-for-all-american-women/
Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:57:46 +0000https://resistancesuffolk.wp.urdemo.website/2017/06/28/a-cruel-joke-13-men-are-in-charge-of-healthcare-for-all-american-women/Continue reading →]]>
POSTED IN THE GUARDIAN
Lucia Graves
Wednesday 28 June 2017 11.34 EDT
Regressive gender politics are resurgent in 2017, as demonstrated by a Republican bill that would be devastating to women’s health
John Barrasso, Mitch McConnell, and John Cornyn: three of the men behind the Senate healthcare bill. Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/AP
A decade or two ago, the notion that 13 men would be plotting the fate of American women’s healthcare behind closed doors, that they would delight in defunding the women’s health organization Planned Parenthood and impeding healthcare access for millions of American women, would have felt like the politics of a bygone era.
The Democratic senator Kamala Harris told the Guardian the bill “is terrible for women”, while her New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand has described it as “a cruel joke” and a “blatantly partisan attack on women’s health”.
But for many, it’s more than the substance of the bill that rankles. Specifically, it feels like a return to a kind of regressive gender politics they hoped had passed in America: a politics in which men make the decisions about what happens to women’s bodies.
“It’s outrageous that the future of healthcare for millions of women lies in the hands of 13 men,” Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, said. “It’s clear they don’t care about our opinion or our lives – because if they had asked us what we thought, we’d all be in a very different position right now.”
The Senate healthcare bill would increase the number of uninsured people in the US by 22 million, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, and is opposed by the American Medical Association on the grounds that it violates the Hippocratic oath.
It would also be particularly devastating to women’s health, in a number of ways. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate’s health committee, called it “nothing less than an attack on women’s health and rights”.
Harris said: “It blocks millions of women on Medicaid from getting care at Planned Parenthood. It allows states to stop requiring insurance companies to cover essential health benefits – like maternity care and birth control. Women in this country will not be silenced on this issue. We will only get louder.”
Under the Republican bill, women could pay as much as $1,000 more per month for maternity care, Murray told reporters in a conference call on Friday, and millions would lose access to even the most basic preventive care services at Planned Parenthood.
As Dana Singiser of Planned Parenthood put it on the call: “If we listed all the cruel things this bill would do we’d be here all day.”
Often the men who tout defunding Planned Parenthood seem to have no idea what the organization actually does.
Donald Trump signs the global ‘gag rule’, surrounded by men. Photograph: Ron Sachs / Pool/EPA
“Frankly, I am sick of coming down to the Senate floor to explain to Republicans what Planned Parenthood does,” Elizabeth Warren said in a recent statement posted to her Facebook page. “I am sick of explaining that it provides millions of women with birth control, cancer screenings, and STI tests every year. I am sick of pointing out again and again that federal dollars do not fund abortion services at Planned Parenthood or anywhere else.”
Because of the Hyde amendment, federal funding does not actually go toward abortion services, but to the other basic healthcare services Warren outlined, including life-saving cancer screenings and treatments.
It isn’t the first time in recent years she has had to explain to the men in charge of women’s healthcare how the largest US provider of reproductive healthcare operates. When the GOP mounted another effort to defund Planned Parenthood back in August 2015, she made a similar speech.
“Do you have any idea what year it is?” Warren asked at the time. “Did you fall down, hit your head, and think you woke up in the 1950s or the 1890s? Should we call for a doctor? Because I simply cannot believe that in the year 2015, the United States Senate would be spending its time trying to defund women’s healthcare centers.”
Perhaps she shouldn’t have been that surprised. For years, Republicans have worked to strip away women’s rights to make choices about their own bodies and more often than not, the efforts have been led by men. When Donald Trump signed the global “gag rule”, pulling US funding from any global organizations that so much as mention the word “abortion”, he did it flanked exclusively by white men in suits. A photo of President George W Bush signing a ban on a rare abortion procedure reveals yet another group of grinning, self-congratulatory men.
As Jill Filipovic, writing in the New York Times, has noted, in a way, men controlling women’s bodies is an election promise delivered. “At some point, we have to ask: Is this really a pattern of errors?” she writes. “Maybe these aren’t tone-deaf mistakes at all, but intentional messages to rightwing supporters.”
Warren seems to agree, at least with the notion that the bill is all about political messaging.
“Women come to the floor, we explain, we cite facts. But Republicans would rather base healthcare policy on politics than on facts,” she said recently, after the House speaker, Paul Ryan, called the bill “pro-life”. “Calling something pro-life won’t keep women from dying in back alley abortions; it won’t help women pay for the cancer screenings that could save their lives; it won’t help them take care of their families, have safe sex or afford their medical bills.”
Murray was even more sweeping in her assessment. “The moment we’re in right now is truly a pivotal one for women and women’s rights,” she told reporters Friday, adding that for every woman and everyone who cares about their access to healthcare, now is the time to fight back.
“Those 13 men cutting backroom deals about your healthcare access clearly didn’t want to hear from you, so make sure they do now,” she said.
]]>What I’m Doing to Keep Birth Control Free in the Face of Trump’s and the GOP’s Health Care Rollback
https://resistancesuffolk.wp.urdemo.website/2017/06/20/what-im-doing-to-keep-birth-control-free-in-the-face-of-trumps-and-the-gops-health-care-rollback/
Tue, 20 Jun 2017 19:37:56 +0000https://resistancesuffolk.wp.urdemo.website/2017/06/20/what-im-doing-to-keep-birth-control-free-in-the-face-of-trumps-and-the-gops-health-care-rollback/Continue reading →]]>Op-Ed in Teen Vogue
By Eric Schneiderman
The summer after I graduated high school, I worked in an abortion clinic in Washington, D.C.
This was a year before Roe v. Wade, and abortion was still outlawed in states throughout the country. Many women still had to travel far from home for safe, legal reproductive health care.
I used to drive our patients from the airport to the clinic and back again. I still remember the fear in the eyes of many women as they tried to leave the recovery room too early because they wanted to get home as quickly as possible. Their parents or husbands or bosses had no idea they were there. Abortion was still something that was whispered about — and anti-women laws made it far more dangerous than it should have been.
After Roe v. Wade, I remember thinking, Well, at least we’ll never see that kind of inhumane treatment of women in America ever again.
But unless Americans — especially young Americans — rise up to stop President Trump and his allies in Congress, I’m afraid we could be heading back to those bad old days.
We’re already seeing the Trump administration take some big steps to limit the rights of women to control their own bodies.
The new House health care bill, which passed this spring, aims to defund Planned Parenthood and the vital health care it provides. I’ve made clear that if Trump signs the bill into law, I will challenge it in court.
And right now, Trump’s team is considering a new rule that would allow any company to drop coverage for birth control — a cruel and unnecessary rollback of common sense policy. I don’t need to tell you that access to affordable birth control is not a trivial issue. The pill can cost up to around $1,200 per year. If you’re earning minimum wage in New York, that’s about the equivalent of a full month’s pay.
So it’s no surprise that before the Affordable Care Act’s free contraception mandate, more than half of women under age 34 had been through times when they couldn’t afford birth control. Before the Affordable Care Act’s contraception rules went into effect, about 20% of women paid out of pocket for oral contraceptives. Now less than 4% do, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Thanks to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, the National Women’s Law Center reported that American women now save roughly $1.4 billion per year on oral contraceptives — and more women now have the financial freedom to choose the birth control that’s right for them, like an IUD.
If you care about women’s autonomy, if you care about preventing unplanned pregnancies, protecting cost-free access to birth control is a no-brainer.
I won’t sugarcoat it — these rights are under attack. But we can fight back.
In my state of New York, I’ve introduced a bill that would require all health plans to provide cost-free contraceptive coverage — no matter what Washington does. It would also mandate that health plans cover emergency contraception and male contraception.
States have the power to make a real difference, and New York isn’t alone. A number of states have taken similar action.
So get on the phone. Call your state senator. Call your governor. Call your state attorney general. Tell them to ensure anti-choice leaders in Washington can never take away your access to affordable contraception. States have the power to protect you, even if the federal government won’t. Demand that they stand with you and fight for your rights.
There are many people in Washington who want to take us back to the pre-Roe days. But there are allies in every state ready and eager to fight. Find them. Join them. And together, we can protect the rights of all women to the reproductive health care they need.
Thank you for taking the time to read my op-ed. Together we will ensure that all New Yorkers have access to cost-free contraception.
All my best,
Eric Schneiderman
]]>
Trump Rebrands “Abstinence Only” as “sexual risk avoidance”
https://resistancesuffolk.wp.urdemo.website/2017/06/13/trump-rebrands-abstinence-only-as-sexual-risk-avoidance/
https://resistancesuffolk.wp.urdemo.website/2017/06/13/trump-rebrands-abstinence-only-as-sexual-risk-avoidance/#commentsTue, 13 Jun 2017 13:07:24 +0000https://resistancesuffolk.wp.urdemo.website/2017/06/13/trump-rebrands-abstinence-only-as-sexual-risk-avoidance/Continue reading →]]>Under a clinical-sounding label, the shame-and-ignorance approach of the Bush era makes a comeback under Trump
Thrice-married libertine Donald Trump got himself elected president by rallying the religious right vote behind him. The devil’s bargain that Christian conservatives made with Trump is easy enough to understand: They ignore his history of sexual incontinence, including rumors of a literal “pee tape,” and he gives them more power over the sex lives of private individuals, especially young people and women. In office, President Trump has done just that, launching a multitude of attackson legal abortion and contraception access.
Now it seems as if a third front is opening in the Trumpian war on other people’s sex lives: The return of abstinence-only education, which many Americans believe had died off after President George W. Bush left office. Well, abstinence-only ed is coming back, but this time around, its proponents hope that voters, especially parents, don’t notice the return to the classroom of religious anti-sex propaganda.
The first sign that the Trump administration hoped to ease into the classroom more just-say-no-to-sex messages came in late May, when the White House proposed a budget that would slash nearly every government expenditure but would increase by $277 million spending on abstinence-until-marriage programs. Last week news surfaced that Valerie Huber, the head of a pro-abstinence organization called Ascend, will join the Department of Health and Human Services as chief of staff to the assistant secretary for adolescent health; the position will allow her to push for more support for abstinence-until-marriage programs in schools.
To be clear, abstinence-only ed was never completely dead. The Obama administration mounted many efforts to get rid of federal funding for abstinence-focused programs, and some were successful. But congressional Republicans managed to preserve at least some abstinence-centered funding, and since sex education curricula are mostly controlled by local school boards, abstinence programs have continued to flourish in many school districts. Religious conservatives have continued to push them onto schools under the noses of parents who might otherwise revolt at hearing that their kids are being subject to programs that shame the 95 percent of Americans who have premarital sex and that have repeatedly been linked to higher rates of teen pregnancy.
Part of what kept abstinence-only approaches alive is that the religious right has rebranded it as “sexual risk avoidance,” as if it were a public health initiative instead of religion-tinged sexual shaming.
“Over the years they got very smart,” explained Debra Hauser, the president of Advocates for Youth, in a phone conversation. “When we were like, ‘science over ideology,’ they turned around and produced their own journals and their own science.”
She added, “When we said, ‘This is a just-say-no program that didn’t work for drugs under Nancy Reagan and isn’t gonna work here,’ they said, ‘No, this isn’t abstinence until marriage; it just stresses abstinence.’ They turned around and went to this language about ‘sexual risk avoidance,’ which completely obfuscates what they’re actually doing.”
With Huber’s appointment, this rebranding and Republican control of all three branches of government, there’s good reason to fear a renewed push for schools to terrorize kids about sex, rather than providing true sex education.
Mary Anne Mosack, who replaced Valerie Huber as the head of Ascend (formerly called the National Abstinence Education Association), took issue during a phone interview with the implication that “sexual risk avoidance” is the just-say-no style of education that critics like Hauser say it is.
“We teach that [marriage] is the best context for sexual activity,” Mosack said, repeatedly insisting that this doesn’t mean that her organization’s approach is an abstinence-until-marriage program.
My conversation with Mosack, which lasted nearly a half hour, was maddeningly elliptical about what exactly the goals of the program are. I repeatedly pointed out that the average U.S. age of first marriage is 28 years old — a full 11 years after the average age for first having sexual intercourse — and asked if it’s unrealistic, and quite possibly unhealthy, to expect young people to wait that long to have sex. Mosack sidestepped the question, trying to redirect the conversation away from younger adults to teenagers. She said Ascend’s main goal was to “normalize . . . sexual delay” for teenagers, adding, “We’re talking about middle school and high school.”
But when I then asked her if the point of the programs was to have younger people wait until, say, college before engaging in sexual activity, she said that, no, Ascend believes that virginity until marriage is the “best outcome.” And then around we went again.
Mosack’s position, if I’m being generous, seemed to be that if you tell young people to wait 15 years, maybe you can hope they wait five years — or three. To me that sounds less like education and more like setting up kids for failure. It certainly didn’t seem like a good way to frame human sexuality, which should ultimately be about pleasure and human connection, not described in terms that strongly resemble the Christian idea of sin. And it also doesn’t seem like a good way to impart health information that young people will need when they do inevitably start having sex.
“Make no mistake, there is still an underlying theme of shame, fear and the use of traditional gender stereotypes and roles” in these rebranded programs, Hauser said.
Mosack disagreed with Hauser’s position, insisting that the programs take a “holistic approach” to sex education.
I asked Mosack for some examples of curricula that her organization endorses, so I could see it for myself. At this point she got cagey. While her organization has certified hundreds of programs, she said, she wouldn’t give me any names or contact information, instead she said would pass my number along so that representatives of those programs could contact me. (No one has.)
It didn’t take much digging, however, to find a 2016 Ascend document that featured an extensive list of programs the organization had deemed successful “sexual risk avoidance” examples; many of the programs continue to use the “abstinence” language in their titles.
It just so happens that many of the Ascend-recommended programs were reviewed in 2016 by the Texas Freedom Network, which advocates for the separation of church and state and resists religion-tinged and anti-sex propaganda being pushed as “education” in schools.
Texas Freedom Network found that reframing abstinence-only programs as “sexual risk avoidance” led to a few minor improvements over the Bush-era programs. The amount of outright misinformation about contraception has declined and the programs have thankfully started to incorporate important information about consent. But the review still found that the programs demonize contraception. Much of the shaming and sexist messaging that gave abstinence-only education a bad name in the first place is still a major feature of the programs.
For instance, two Ascend-recommended programs — REAL Essentials and Choosing the Best — continue to teach that having sex makes a person dirty and incapable of falling in love.
“REAL Essentials explains that glue (i.e., sex) is a bonding agent that works best on a surface that is ‘clean and dry’ (i.e., virgins),” the Texas Freedom Network report read. “Choosing the Best includes a similar exercise using adhesive tape. The exercise involves placing tape on a student’s skin, then removing it to show what has transferred from the skin to the tape. What remains on the tape is supposed to represent the emotional baggage resulting from sex.”
The idea of the exercise, of course, is to suggest that people who have sex become dirty and incapable of “sticking” to new partners.
The reviewers also found sexist stereotypes in Ascend-recommended programs like Scott and White Wellness and Sexual Health (formerly called Worth the Wait) and REAL Essentials. Their curricula framed men as sexual and women as romantic, treating marriage as a tense exchange whereby a woman provides access to her body in exchange for a man’s pledge of love.
In reality, of course, people of all genders experience both sexual desire and romantic yearnings — and the two are not experienced in opposition, for most people.
With the deceitful rebranding of abstinence-only programs and the Republican domination of government, there’s more than enough reason for parents to worry that these misleading, shaming programs will return to public school curricula. In many cases they’ve been there all along, despite the Obama administration’s efforts to kill off abstinence-only programs.
That doesn’t mean parents are powerless in this regard. In fact, Hauser argued, fighting for real sex education is a good avenue for people looking for opportunities to resist the Trump agenda.
“At the school-district level is where sex education is determined, both in policy and in practice,” Hauser explained. That means that as few as five or six parents, can often be enough to convince a superintendent to reject federal pressure or funding to replace real sex education with abstinence-only, she said.
The kids themselves can be the resistance’s best ally. They can be warned that schools may bring in activists from crisis pregnancy centers and other religious right organizations. Or students can cautioned to be on the lookout for anti-sex lectures that feature things like the tape stunt or similar ones involving chewing gum or cups of spit. The list of Ascend-approved curricula can serve as a cheat sheet for parents: If your kid comes home with abstinence-only books, it’s time to call the school and raise hell.
]]>https://resistancesuffolk.wp.urdemo.website/2017/06/13/trump-rebrands-abstinence-only-as-sexual-risk-avoidance/feed/1Is This the End of Free Birth Control?
https://resistancesuffolk.wp.urdemo.website/2017/06/08/is-this-the-end-of-free-birth-control/
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 21:37:02 +0000https://resistancesuffolk.wp.urdemo.website/2017/06/08/is-this-the-end-of-free-birth-control/Continue reading →]]>
According to a draft regulation leaked to Voxthis week, all of the IUD preppersmight have been onto something. After the election, liberal women took to the internet in droves to warn each other to get the long-acting contraceptive devices, free under Obamacare but pricey otherwise, implanted while they still could. If the draft federal rule is implemented, that option could be going away for some women soon: Their employers would soon be allowed to stop covering birth control entirely.
The Affordable Care Act made it so that all contraceptive methods had to be covered without a copay by all employers except houses of worship. After a series of court cases and rule changes under the Obama administration, some other religious institutions and “closely held” companies—such as the crafts retailer Hobby Lobby—were also exempted. They could file some paperwork with the federal government, and a third-party company would then directly cover birth control for their employees, without any involvement from the religious employer.
But some religious organizations, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, say that even filling out that paperwork is a step too far. It makes them complicit in providing birth control, they argue, an infringement on their beliefs.
The new draft rule would change that, granting not just religious groups like the Little Sisters but all types of employers an exemption from the birth-control mandate. And the companies would not have to find some other way to provide the coverage, like through a third party. “That would leave women with no option,” says Andrea Flynn, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute who focuses on reproductive policy.
The Trump administration hasn’t confirmed the legitimacy of the leaked draft. But The New York Timesseparately reported this week that the administration was considering rolling back the rule.
Under the new rule, if implemented as-is, religiously affiliated universities, tiny start-ups, and even publicly traded companies could claim to have a moral issue with birth control and simply change their benefits to stop covering it. This might be less of a blow for women who take relatively inexpensive, generic birth-control pills, but those seeking IUDs—which typically run in the hundreds of dollars—would definitely feel the impact. Just in the first few years after the Obamacare birth-control mandate was implemented, women saved more than a billion dollars on out-of-pocket contraceptive costs.
The new rule doesn’t apply to women on Medicaid, though that program will face cuts if the House Obamacare replacement bill passes, which would potentially affect birth-control access. And that same bill, the American Health Care Act, would allow states to change the “essential health benefits” they cover, so women who buy insurance on the individual market might lose access to free birth control in that way.
Conceivably, women could seek publicly funded sources of birth control, but the administration and Congress are currently attempting to slice away funding for Planned Parenthood, a major source of family-planning services.
The larger question about this rule, specifically, is: Will companies stop covering birth control?
Before the Affordable Care Act, 28 states required insurance plans to cover contraceptives, and 85 percent of large firms—whose plans don’t tend to be regulated by states—covered prescription contraceptives. However, many of those plans still required women to pay copays and deductibles.
At least 122 companies are currently suing the federal government over the requirement to provide birth control, so at least that many might leap at the opportunity to stop covering it. In 2014, Mother Jones profiled some of these groups, which include a military contractor that stamps Bible verses on its rifles and a car dealership owned by a born-again Christian. And though they are less vocal about the birth-control mandate, many big companies, including Tyson Foods and Chick-fil-A, have religious roots or founders.
According to the National Women’s Law Center’s Gretchen Borchelt, if you include nonprofits that have objected to the mandate, “tens of thousands of women” will be affected. About 10 percent of large nonprofits—those with more than 1,000 workers—have applied for the Obama-era exemption to the mandate, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Alina Salganicoff. But only some of them have sued, saying they would have a moral issue with it, so it’s not clear that they would opt to cut off their employees from a basic preventive health resource entirely.
One hope for women might be that after companies start providing a benefit, “you let the toothpaste out of the tube,” as Chatrane Birbal, a senior advisor of government relations at the Society for Human Resource Management, put it to me. Employees get used to perks, and if you snatch them away, they might find other jobs. That would be especially true of companies that have a more tenuous moral case against birth control, or whose employees don’t subscribe to the same strict religious code that the proprietors do.
What’s more, for employers, it’s less expensive if employees avoid having babies than if they have lots of them by accident. “There are consequences to not providing access to contraception: childbirth, abortion, and indirect costs, such as more employee absenteeism and maternity leave,” Birbal said.
And there may come another check on corporate whims: The outrage of half the workforce. “Employers are going to be hesitant to pick benefits that will help one gender over another,” Birbal said. “That’s an HR nightmare that would reduce morale.”
]]>What Ivanka Trump doesn’t know will hurt us all
https://resistancesuffolk.wp.urdemo.website/2017/05/06/what-ivanka-trump-doesnt-know-will-hurt-us-all/
Sat, 06 May 2017 23:58:47 +0000https://resistancesuffolk.wp.urdemo.website/2017/05/06/what-ivanka-trump-doesnt-know-will-hurt-us-all/Continue reading →]]>Posted on Salon.com
SATURDAY, MAY 6, 2017 05:00 PM EDT
I read “Women Who Work” so you don’t have to. Ivanka’s “successful businesswoman” reputation is kind of a sham
Ivanka Trump’s new book “Women Who Work” is not, as you may have already guessed or read, particularly useful, even compared to other bland corporate tactical manuals. If you are a woman who works — or know one with a graduation or a promotion or a birthday coming up — save your money. The Trump family’s rapacious worldview is in its full glory in this clip job of a so-called monograph; Ivanka (or whoever “architected” this sugar-, fat- and gluten-free life manual) takes the subhead, “Rewriting the Rules for Success,” to an absurdly literal level. The book is not written so much as it is aggregated, borrowed so heavily from certain individual sources that she ought to owe royalties to Sheryl Sandberg and the estate of Stephen Covey, not that they’re any more likely to collect now that her office is in the West Wing instead of Trump Tower. What else is the intellectual work of others but “content” for “Ivanka” to “curate” (“wordsmith,” even!) for her own profit?
Ivanka is not an original thinker; this is not news. So it comes as little surprise that she is not a gifted — or even passably average for her genre — writer, either. In her NPR review, Annalisa Quinn aptly likens reading the book to “eating scented cotton balls,” and I would thank the American culture to immediately stop placing any automatic, unqualified premium value on prestigious prep school and Ivy League educations, as every podunk public school graduate I know has a better grasp of Toni Morrison and Charlotte Perkins Gilman than Ivanka Trump does, despite her expensive degrees.
A more fitting label for this perfect-bound Pinterest board would be “Women Who Work for Me, Ivanka Trump,” as they appear to be the only relevant audience. The focus is mainly on what has worked for her in her career, which is as idiosyncratic as her personal life has been, and what kinds of people she is drawn to when she builds a team. So if you work for Ivanka Trump but still don’t understand her alien ways, or some day want to sell some harmless clutches to whichever mid-range department store will still do business with you, this book is likely quite useful. Spout back all of the platitudes about building a “one-life corporate culture,” show up with “DREAM and DO” doodled on your file folder, and you’re in.
But for all of her nonsense about the “quiet, deliberate, and essential” so-called “workplace revolution” she claims to be launching, Ivanka is not up-ending what she calls “the old-fashioned ‘work warrior’ mentality” that demands long hours at the office as the only proof that employees are sufficiently dedicated to making money for their corporate overlords. What she’s advocating — Millennial Pinkified, self-actualized personal contentment wrapped around a tireless pitbull level of commitment to achieving corporate goals — is even more sinister. In her world, #WomenWhoWork and depart the office at 6 p.m. are still “leaving early” — the so-called Trump administration advocate for working parents obviously has no idea what time many daycares close — and they’re also expected to be back on at night and on the weekends, grinding away after they fulfill their Ivanka-modeled 20 scheduled minutes of quality time with their children or partners at home.
Ivanka’s obliviousness at her own privilege, despite lip service to acknowledging her many blessings, continues to dazzle. She holds up her Shabbat time with her family — sundown Friday to sundown Saturday — as an example of aspirational restorative time, and no doubt it is. Show me a couple that works the kinds of hours Ivanka and Jared do — even those without kids — that doesn’t have to use some of their non-working hours to run necessary errands or tidy up or get caught up on something other than leisure time, and I’ll show you a family wealthy enough to pay a full-time domestic staff to handle everything for them that isn’t personal exercise, family fun time and mandatory biweekly date nights. (Bullet journal note to self: An app to disrupt mandatory biweekly date nights? Siri but for sex?)
In Ivanka’s world, you can either “[turn] on ‘Real Housewives’ and [sit] in front of the TV eating a giant bowl of pasta with a glass of wine” — counterproductive! — or “meditate, soak in the tub, exercise, or take a long walk” at the end of a day to unwind. There’s a third option, too: “I simply turn off my devices, go into my kids’ room, and just watch them sleep.” Only a person who has never wondered if she could get her clean laundry put away before it cycled through to dirty again could offer only these options with a straight face.
Despite her heavy focus on working mothers in this book (though she is careful to always include those who are not parents yet and those who have chosen not to be, because you never leave a potential customer out!), it’s not until page 154 that the words “my nanny” appear, despite the many passages devoted to balancing motherhood with a demanding job. I don’t believe I saw it again until the acknowledgments, in which she thanks not only the nannies, Bridget and Dorothy, who helped raise her and her brothers as her own mother Ivana worked, but also “Liza and Xixi, who are helping me raise my own children, thank you for being a part of our extended family and enabling me to do what I do.” Employing two nannies has to be a cornerstone of the Ivanka Method; burying the full acknowledgment of that literally in the acknowledgments section is beyond disingenuous.
So Ivanka Trump is wealthy and privileged and shameless about pretending her hard work has been the key secret to her success; this is not news. But what this book does highlight is that her “successful businesswoman” image is also a hollow sham.
After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business in 2004, she worked briefly for another real estate development company, Forest City Enterprises. She nods to this in an anecdote about turning down a job at Vogue, which Anna Wintour offered her personally, because she just loves real estate so much. In 2005, she went to work for her father at the Trump Organization. She stayed with the family business even as she founded her own fashion and lifestyle company, and now she has followed the family business right into the White House. Ivanka glosses over quite deftly in her book that she has spent all of one year, tops, working for someone who is not herself or her father, and it shows.
Take these nuggets of advice about how to “bond with your boss”:
Take a cue from those around you. When your boss shares something that was pivotal early in her career, that’s an opportunity for you to respond in kind.
* * *
Ask questions. Inquire about her previous career history; ask her how she got to where she is today.
* * *
Think you deserve a promotion? Hoping for more than a cost-of-living raise? Broaching these topics in a setting that’s warmer and more casual than her office will take the pressure off you both; continuing the dialogue in a more formal way at review time will alleviate the need to try to cover everything in one sitting.
In Ivanka’s experience, the boss is either her — this is how to get on her good side — or Donald Trump, her own father, in which case flattering him with questions about his early successes and finding opportunities to remind him of how good she is at her job are the pathways to impressing him.
“Broaching these topics in a setting that’s warmer and more casual than her office will take the pressure off you both” is great advice if your boss is a woman with whom you are also chummy but it is potentially fraught and even lousy advice if a Woman Who Work’s boss is a man, as statistics tell us he is quite likely to be.
Ivanka has clearly never personally weighed the pros and cons of the optics of asking for a promotion or a raise from a man she is not related to “in a setting that’s warmer and more casual” than the office. She certainly didn’t “curate” any wisdom from Ellen Pao, who might have something to say about how corporate bonding can put women at a professional disadvantage. The clear advantage of working for daddy is that nobody is going to accuse you of sleeping with the boss, or trying to, in order to land a promotion or a raise — and you would have no reason to suspect that the boss has any sketchy motives for wanting to hang out “in a setting that’s warmer and more casual than the office” when you’re related to him.
This is not to say male bosses and female subordinates can’t break Mike Pence’s retrograde rules with no fear of harassment or gossip — of course they can and do. I personally have been friends with male bosses with no weirdness, innuendo, or actionable offenses, and surely many readers have as well. But to not even connect her advice to the realities of sexism and harassment women continue to face in the workplace and how to deal with them if or when they arise in a book aimed at working women, especially when your father has Fox News blaring in the background 24-7 as a reminder, is laughably naïve. In Ivanka’s world, you just “prove your worth,” and automatically you are paid as much as your male counterparts, or actually you deserve to make more than Eric because you’re two years older, Daddy, and it’s only fair.
“While I believe every woman should thoughtfully architect a life she’ll love and actively work toward achieving her goals,” the book states, “we must also be flexible, adaptable, and realistic about the fact that our passions, interests, priorities, and relationships shift.” Nowhere in the book does Ivanka address, for example, what happens when access to affordable health coverage for self-employed female entrepreneurs with pre-existing conditions “shifts” after it proves “flexible” in the eyes of Republican leaders, or how to negotiate a raise or higher project rates to off-set the costs if your insurer decides your pregnancy is a pre-existing condition. (Yes, this book was wordsmithed before the House voted last week to replace the Affordable Care Act, but Ivanka was a key strategist of her father’s campaign, which ran on the promise of doing just that.) Of course, forget about advice on how to discreetly schedule several days out of the office for an out-of-town abortion when the only appointment you can get within the legal timeframe is in another state that mandates a counseling appointment and a waiting period, and it’s November and you’ve already used up your vacation days for the year.
I amtired ofwriting aboutIvankaTrump. You may well be tired of reading about her, too. If her father had not won the election with her help, and if Ivanka had then not taken a federal job as an adviser to the president, “Women Who Work” would be just another forgettable remainder table staple a month after graduation season ends. But she is supposed to be the advocate for workplace issues facing women in an administration that has already proven itself to be friendly to forces hostile to us. What Ivanka doesn’t know could hurt us all — and this book reveals just how extensive her lack of knowledge and context truly is.
Erin Keane is Salon’s managing editor.
]]>An Empty Promise: The Working Families Flexibility Act Would Give Workers Less Flexibility and Less Pay
https://resistancesuffolk.wp.urdemo.website/2017/05/03/an-empty-promise-the-working-families-flexibility-act-would-give-workers-less-flexibility-and-less-pay/
Wed, 03 May 2017 13:36:30 +0000https://resistancesuffolk.wp.urdemo.website/2017/05/03/an-empty-promise-the-working-families-flexibility-act-would-give-workers-less-flexibility-and-less-pay/Continue reading →]]>
By National Partnership for Women & Families
APRIL 2017
The Working Families Flexibility Act sets up a dangerous false choice between time and money, when working families urgently need both. The bill does not promote family friendly or flexible workplaces. Instead, it would erode hourly workers’ ability to make ends meet, plan for family time, and have predictability, stability and true flexibility at work.
Truly family friendly policies are common sense solutions that are available to all workers. Lawmakers should focus on updating and expanding our public policies to help ensure that workers have both fair wages and time to care for themselves and their families.
Background
The Working Families Flexibility Act (H.R. 1180), introduced by Representative Martha Roby (R – Ala.), claims to give hourly workers more time with their families by allowing them, through an agreement with their employers, to choose paid time off as compensation for working more than 40 hours in one week (“comp time”). The Working Families Flexibility Act would:
Allow employers to offer comp time in lieu of time-and-a-half pay to non-supervisory (“non- exempt”) workers who work more than 40 hours in a week.
Allow a worker to bank up to 160 hours of comp time, but without the guaranteed right to use that time when they need it, even in the case of a personal or family emergency. There would be no remedy for a worker whose request to use comp time is denied other than requesting a cash-out for the unused time.
Allow employers to unilaterally decide to pay workers for any earned comp time that has been banked beyond 80 hours, jeopardizing a worker’s careful planning for time off for a parental leave or a major health event such as surgery.
Allow workers to request that their banked comp time be paid out in cash rather than time off, but give employers up to 30 days to comply.
Provide workers the right to sue if they are intimidated, threatened or coerced into requesting or not requesting a comp time agreement, but would not permit a worker to use more cost-effective administrative remedies through the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).
Provide no additional funding to DOL for investigation, enforcement or education, despite adding significant complexities to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
FACT SHEET
Forced Choices, False Promises Lead to Less Pay, Less Time
The Working Families Flexibility Act would erode the basic guarantees of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): fair pay for overtime work and time off from work.
Nearly 80 years ago, the FLSA created the guarantee of basic wage and hour protections. The FLSA created the norm of a 40-hour workweek and the right for certain workers to be paid at one-and-a-half times their regular rate when their workplaces demand longer hours.
The FLSA’s overtime pay requirement created a disincentive for employers to overwork employees, and an incentive to hire additional workers and create additional jobs.The misnamed Working Families Flexibility Act would mean a pay cut for workers without any guaranteed flexibility or time off. If the proposal were adopted, workers would have less time, less money and less flexibility.
Employers would have significant financial incentives to assign overtime hours to workers who agree to accept comp time instead of overtime wages. This would make workers’ schedules less predictable and mandatory overtime hours more common – neither of which are family friendly outcomes. It would also create financial turmoil for workers who depend on overtime pay to make ends meet.
Workers who accrue comp time would not be guaranteed the opportunity to use it when they need it. This means that hardworking people who have banked comp time still wouldn’t have the right to use it if their employers say “no” – even if they needed the time to attend a parent-teacher conference, help an aging parent relocate to a nursing home, care for a new baby, or recover from their own serious illness.The proposal includes few worker protections in cases of employer misconduct or bankruptcy.
Employers would supposedly be prohibited from coercing, intimidating or threatening workers for the purpose of interfering with their right to request or decline to request comp time, but the only remedy provided – the right to sue in court – would be too costly, protracted and risky for a typical employee to pursue.
Employees would have no remedy for denied comp time requests other than asking to have the value of the time cashed out. Even then, employers would have 30 days to cash out the value of the wages earned through overtime work, despite workers’ more immediate needs.
Workers whose employers go out of business or bankrupt would have no recourse to recover the value of banked time. For a typical hourly worker, 160 hours of lost comp time (the maximum allowed) would mean a loss of nearly $2,400. 1
Real Solutions Provide Workers Fair Pay and More Time
Truly family friendly policies must be available to all workers and reflect the needs of working people today, including by protecting workers’ financial stability and enabling them to care for children, older relatives and other family members while being productive, responsible employees. These policies include:
Guaranteeing paid sick days – The Healthy Families Act (H.R. 1516/S. 636) would allow workers to earn up to seven paid sick days each year to recover from short-term illness, to care for a sick family member or attend a child’s health- or disability-related school meeting, to seek routine medical care or to obtain assistance related to domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.
Rather than forced choices and false promises, people need public policies that provide them with time to care for their own health and their families, wages that are fair and schedules that are predictable.
Creating a paid family and medical leave insurance program – The Family And Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act (H.R. 947/S. 337) would create a national paid leave insurance program, modeled on successful programs in California, New Jersey, Rhode Island and, soon, New York. It would allow workers to earn a portion of their pay while they take time away from work to care for a new child; care for a seriously ill family member; address their own serious health condition; or manage certain military caregiving responsibilities.
Expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act – The 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act’s (FMLA) guarantee of job protection should be made available to workers in smaller businesses and those who work part time. FMLA leave should be available to workers who need to care for grandparents, grandchildren, siblings, in-laws and domestic partners. And the law should cover time for bereavement, for parents to meet with a child’s teachers or school administrators, and for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.
Raising the minimum wage – Workers, including tipped workers, badly need an increase in the federal minimum wage to $15 over time. Studies show the current minimum wage is not livable, and the tipped minimum wage has not been raised in more than 20 years.
Promoting fair pay – The Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 1619/S. 862 in the 114th Congress) would help women challenge and eliminate discriminatory pay practices in the workplace, limit the use of salary history in hiring and compensation decisions, help train women and girls to negotiate salaries, support government collection of critical wage data and reward employers that have good pay practice.
Ensuring fair scheduling practices – The Schedules That Work Act (H.R. 3071/S. 1772 in the 114th Congress) would give workers more control over their schedules and offer workers predictability and stability in shifts and work hours, consistent with FLSA protections.
____________________________________
1. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016, November). Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2015. Retrieved 30 March 2017, from https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens- earnings/2015/home.htm (calculation is based on a median hourly wage of $14.91 for full-time and part-time workers aged 25 or older in a sole or principal job who are paid hourly rates)
The National Partnership for Women & Families, 1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW | Suite 650 | Washington, DC 20009 202.986.2600 | http://www.NationalPartnership.org, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy group dedicated to promoting fairness in the workplace, access to quality health care and policies that help women and men meet the dual demands of work and family. More information is available at NationalPartnership.org.
]]>Trump set to hand key family planning role to anti-contraception advocate
https://resistancesuffolk.wp.urdemo.website/2017/05/02/trump-set-to-hand-key-family-planning-role-to-anti-contraception-advocate/
Tue, 02 May 2017 19:04:38 +0000https://resistancesuffolk.wp.urdemo.website/2017/05/02/trump-set-to-hand-key-family-planning-role-to-anti-contraception-advocate/Continue reading →]]>
Law professor Teresa Manning once claimed ‘contraception doesn’t work’
Planned Parenthood says Manning ‘promotes myths about birth control’
Teresa Manning’s appointment would give her oversight of Title X, a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar federal program that provides contraceptive services to low-income and uninsured women and men. Photograph: David Goldman/AP
Molly Redden @mtredden
The Guardian 1 May 2017 12.56 EDT Last modified on 1 May 2017 13.22 EDT
Donald Trump has reportedly appointed to a position overseeing the US’s family planning safety net a law professor who once stated that “contraception doesn’t work” and “family planning is something that occurs between a husband and a wife and God, and it doesn’t really involve the federal government.”
The prospect of Teresa Manning becoming deputy assistant secretary for population affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services, first reported byPoliticoPro, has led reproductive rights activists to demand that Trump withdraw the appointment, saying his choice could jeopardize the federal program responsible for preventing millions of unplanned pregnancies, and by extension, abortions.
Manning’s appointment would give her oversight of Title X, a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar federal program that provides contraceptive services to low-income and uninsured women and men, and a hand in guiding the federal government’s policy toward teen pregnancy, family planning, and pregnancy prevention.
“Teresa Manning’s appointment is unacceptable,” said Dawn Laguens, Planned Parenthood’s executive vice-president. “This is the fox guarding the hen house, and women with low incomes will pay the price. We are at the lowest rate of unintended pregnancy in 30 years and a historic low for teen pregnancy because of access to birth control. Someone who promotes myths about birth control and reproductive care should not be in charge of the office that is responsible for family planning at HHS.”
Manning is an adjunct law professor teaching legal research and writing at George Mason University. She previously worked with the National Right to Life Committee, an anti-abortion group, and the Family Research Council, an arch-conservative lobbying group known for its virulent opposition to LGBT rights.
Manning once sued the University of Iowa law school for passing her over for a professorship, claiming the dean of the law school had discriminated on the basis of her political views. (The school claimed that Manning didn’t offer to fulfill all of the job’s requirements.)
The administration has not publicly confirmed Manning’s appointment, but PoliticoPro reports that she already appears in the agency’s directory.
Manning made her comments on contraception and family planning during a 2003 media tour to promote a book she had edited about the future of the anti-abortion movement.
“I always shake my head,” she told C-Span, explaining her views on family planning. “You know, family planning is something that occurs between a husband and a wife and God, and it doesn’t really involve the federal government, much less the United Nations, where we hear about family planning all the time. What are they doing in that business?”
In an interview with Boston’s NPR affiliate, Manning, who at the time went by Teresa Wagner, claimed that “contraception doesn’t work”.
“Its efficacy is very low,” she said, “especially when you consider over years – which, a lot of contraception health advocates want to start women in their adolescent years, when they’re extremely fertile, incidentally, and continue for 10, 20, 30 years. The prospect that contraception would always prevent the conception of a child is preposterous.”
In fact, many types of contraception, particularly IUDs and other implants designed to stay in the body for long periods of time, have a nearly 100% success rate at preventing pregnancy.
The federal family planning program which Manning will oversee has provided thousands of such devices to US women.
In 2014, Title X provided contraceptive drugs, devices, and counseling for nearly 4 million women who rely on the public safety net for their family planning needs. The same year, the program prevented nearly 1 million unintended pregnancies and more than 300,000 abortions.
Earlier this year, in a move that could weaken the network of family planning clinics that use Title X funds, Trump signed legislation encouraging states to divert Title X funding away from Planned Parenthood.
Manning is not the first opponent of reproductive rights to receive a high-level appointment in the Trump administration.
Tom Price, the head of the HHS, opposes the Obama-era requirement that health insurance plans cover contraception with no co-pay and once challenging a reporter to “bring me one woman” who struggled to afford contraception on her own.
In February, Trump named a health policy aide to the White House Domestic Policy Council, Katy Talento, who believes that taking birth control before pregnancy can lead to miscarriages and infertility, assertions unsupported by any medical evidence.
And on Friday, the administration named Charmaine Yoest, the former president of Americans United for Life, to head the health department’s public communications strategy. Yoest is a longtime foe of abortion rights who dismisses the notion that contraception has a role to play in reducing abortions as a “red herring”.