Connecticut Women's Education and Legal Fund

During the 2012 presidential election campaign, one of the biggest controversies concerning the Republican candidate Mitt Romney was the lack of diversity he represented and his outdated beliefs about women in the workplace, illustrated by his comment saying he went through “binders full of women” to find senior-level staff as governor of Massachusetts.

Because of this and because of Obama’s more progressive views on women, Obama greatly benefited from the gender gap during the election, getting the majority of the female vote in the United States.

Unfortunately, Obama is now putting together his second-term administration and so far his cabinet, which includes Vice President Joe Biden, is definitely a “boy’s club”. There are only two women, both holdovers, who are Janet Napolitano of Homeland Security and Kathleen Sebelius of Health and Human Services. This seems especially out of place for Obama, who could have definitely found more qualified women to fill positions for his cabinet.

It seemed like he was going to elect Susan Rice to fill Hillary Clinton’s prior role as secretary of state, but he went with Sen. John Kerry instead. He avoided a conflict with that, but decided to fight for Sen. Chuck Hagel for the Pentagon even though that choice was more likely to lead to an argument than Rice.

Obama can and should do better. Without equal representation, women and girls do not have a voice and as a country that makes it difficult to concentrate on women’s issues and forge ahead for equality. This is related to the Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF) and their work on being a voice for women and girls. CWEALF fights for women and girls to be represented concerning public policy by doing things like providing testimonies at the State Capitol, and getting involved in legal advocacy and coalitions. CWEALF also has Legal Education and Research & Evaluation programs.

Photo by Beverly & Pack, “Official Portrait of Barack Obama,” 1/13/09. Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

—

Written by Brittany Estes-Garcia. Brittany is a student at Arizona State University and is a volunteer with CWEALF.

A recent article discusses the recommendation that women between the ages of 14 and 46 should be screened for intimate partner violence (IPV) through a standard set of questions when at a doctor’s office or clinic.  This recommendation was made by a panel of medical experts after reviewing dozens of studies and interviews with over 30,000 people.  The task force only found evidence to address women of childbearing age, though screenings for other groups such as men, children, and older women should still be developed.  The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association have similar recommendations for screenings for domestic violence.  Planned Parenthood has been screening women for years and has found the practice to be helpful.

One-fourth of all women and one-thirteenth of all men in the United States experience domestic violence during their lives, according to the Office on Women’s Health.  This is 2.3 million people each year.  Domestic violence is a very complicated issue with just as complicated solutions.  The CDC suggests that prevention efforts would require “addressing change at all levels of the social ecology that influence IPV: individual, relationship, community, and society.” It is at least a positive sign that such task forces and screening recommendations are recognizing the importance of trying to find preventative measures.  Domestic violence affects so many people and it needs to be acknowledged and discussed before anything can be done to change it on a broader level.  The Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF) supports the right of everyone to feel safe in their own home.

— 

Written by Sarah Trench. Sarah is a student at NYU and volunteer blogger for the Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF).

Labels have, up until this point, played a pretty sizeable role in the abortion debate. Are you pro-choice? Pro-life? Anti-choice? Pro-abortion? Sometimes it felt like what you called yourself mattered more than what you said.

Abortion discussions also frequently cite Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal in the U.S. But a recent study, conducted by Pew Research Center in honor of Roe v. Wade’s monumental 40th anniversary, found that only 40% of those younger than 30 even know what the case was all about.

It’s no wonder some are intimidated by abortion debates, especially when people on both sides of the issue are so passionate about their views. But it’s a conversation that needs to happen, and it needs to move beyond the hard-edged pro-life/pro-choice sides.

At least that’s the stance Planned Parenthood has taken. The “pro-choice” organization recently announced it would remove the word “choice” from its language as part of its latest campaign, Not In Her Shoes. According to the short video they released, Planned Parenthood has said it hopes that moving beyond labels will help foster more meaningful conversations surrounding the issue.

“For many people, [abortion is] not a black and white issue,” the video says. “So why do people try to label it like it is? Pro-choice? Pro-life? The truth is these labels limit the conversation and simply don’t reflect how people actually feel about abortion.”

According to polling done on behalf of Planned Parenthood, the numbers support this idea. A 2012 poll showed that 35% of those who identified as pro-life did not want Roe v. Wade overturned. Further complicating the issue, a whopping 12% said they were both pro-choice AND pro-life, while another 12% argued they wouldn’t identify as either. (For the full polling results, visit NotInHerShoes.org.)

So are the pro-choice/pro-life monikers really working?

At a press briefing, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said, “It’s a complicated topic and one in which labels don’t reflect the complexity.”

Feminist and women’s rights outlets have also weighed in on the issue. Amanda Marcotte wrote a great piece about it for Slate.

“I can see why Planned Parenthood might want to shed the term in order to get these conflicted people to realize they are on Planned Parenthood’s side. But I’m afraid that the desire to go label-free is doomed to fail,” Marcotte wrote. “Labels are simply part of language, and shorthand rhetoric is part of the political debate. As long as abortion is a contested issue, there’s no opting out of that.”

Over at RH Reality Check (which also has a fantastic article about Roe v. Wade) Tracy Weitz tackled the issue, too. She wrote, “Pro-choice is a political label and has nothing to do with the real stories and lives of women who have abortions.” However, Weitz also brought up the point that simply backing away from polarizing labels isn’t enough. “What’s next?” she asked.

It’s a brilliant question, and hopefully one that reproductive rights panels – like the one CWEALF attended on Jan. 17 – can delve into further. At that panel, Lt. Governor, AG George Jepsen, SOTS Denise Merrill, and Treasurer Denise Nappier all spoke candidly about what Roe v. Wade has meant not only for them personally, but for women’s rights as a whole. On Jan. 30, Planned Parenthood and CWEALF will host another discussion about abortion at Hartford’s Charter Oak Cultural Center, 5:30 p.m.

Whether you support Planned Parenthood’s decision or not, we likely can all agree that its announcement, coupled with the chatter surrounding Roe v. Wade’s anniversary, has sparked a crucial discussion. Now it’s up to us to keep the conversation going. 

—

Written by Crystal Maldonado. Crystal is a content developer and professional blogger by day, and a dog-mom and super-feminist by night. Follow her @crysmaldonado.

It takes a village to silence street harassment

Great article on street harassment over at Feministing.com.

Sexual harassment is a topic that the Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF) provides information on. If you or someone you know feel that you are being sexually harassed, please contact CWEALF’s Information and Referral (I&R) line for information on how to deal with your situation. You can call 1-800-479-2979 or simply submit your questions online.

The United States is the only industrialized nation that hasn’t ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, a treaty that was drafted in 1979 to help end international discrimination. There are actually only six others in the United Nations that haven’t approved it and they are Iran, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, and two Pacific islands.

Women around the world still don’t have the same educational and economic opportunities as men, and don’t have the same access to health care. The treaty affirms that women’s rights are human rights. This is badly needed considering that the United States is 22^nd in the world when it comes to gender equality, with pay discrimination and domestic violence being major issues, as well as the United States being the last industrialized nation for maternal health.

Over 100 organizations signed a letter asking the Senate to ratify the treaty during the 113^th Congress. There needs to be no more partisan politics, as the country needs to work together to stand up for women’s rights. President Obama has already endorsed and made the treaty a priority.

In response to the discrimination that women face all over the United States and the world, the Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF) does anti-discrimination work. CWEALF has an Information and Referral service (l&R) that can explain your rights and options to you when it comes to discrimination. They can be contacted online or toll-free at 1-800-479-2949. In the Greater Hartford Area, the number is 860-524-0601. The line is available from 9 AM to 2 PM Monday-Thursday and 9 AM to 1 PM on Fridays. To meet in person in the New Haven or Greater Hartford Area, the number is 860-247-6090. CWEALF also publishes educational booklets regarding these issues – to receive one, call the l&R line or download them on the website.

Photo by Mike Hendren, “American Flag sm,” 2/4/09. Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic License.

—

Written by Brittany Estes-Garcia. Brittany is a student at Arizona State University and is a volunteer with CWEALF. 

http://urbantimes.co/2013/01/gender-inequity-an-unironic-21stcenturyproblem/

Keely Byron over at Urban Times wrote a great article on gender inequity. How do you think we can solve these issues?

It’s a victory that this Senate is the first ever to have 20 female senators – and hopefully this is just the beginning, what with the first all-female delegation in New Hampshire, comprised of Congresswomen Shea-Porter and Ann Kuster, Democrats, with Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte and Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen.

Tammy Baldwin, Democrat from Wisconsin, is the first openly gay senator, and Kyrsten Sinema, Arizona Democrat, is the first openly bisexual member of Congress. Will that translate into a bigger push in support of same-sex marriage, and maybe even other LBGTI rights? After all, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington have already legalized gay marriage, as well as the District of Columbia and two Native American tribes. Rhode Island recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, while California allowed gay marriage in 2008 (and recognizes them currently on a conditional basis).

Other countries, like Sweden, Argentina, Denmark, Canada, and Spain, already legally perform same-sex marriages nationwide – and maybe eventually the U.S.? It could happen, especially when we consider that current Vice President Joe Biden and President Barack Obama both openly endorse same-sex marriage. Back in October, Biden even said transgender discrimination is “the civil rights issue of our time.”

Newly-inducted Hawaiian Democrats Mazie Hirono and Tulsi Gabbard are the first Buddhists and Hindu members of Congress, respectively. And why not? According to 2007 research by Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, while 78.4 percent of U.S. Americans identify as some version of Christian (Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, Orthodox included), those who are unaffiliated or unsure make up the next largest group with 16.1 percent. Atheists make up 1.6 percent; 2.4 percent are Agnostic; .8 percent are unsure; and a whopping 12.1 percent are “nothing in particular.” Meanwhile, 4.7 percent identify as an “other” religion, including 1.7 who are Jewish, .7 who are Buddhist, .6 who are Muslin, and .4 who are Hindu. Despite the legal separation of church and state, religious beliefs have crept into political campaigns recently, so it’s only fair that religious representation is as diverse in office as it is across the country.

Then there’s the first female combat veterans elected to Congress – Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat from Illinois and Tulsi Gabbard (yep, the same Democrat from Hawaii!). Hopefully that might lead to some changes in legislation for female soldiers. Within the last few weeks, several news items surrounding women in the military have surfaced. A study by Department of Veterans Affairs found that sexual assault of military women while in a war zone is common, with nearly 50 percent of women deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan reporting sexual harassed, and one-quarter saying they were sexually assaulted.

Meanwhile, four servicewomen are suing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in an effort to end the policy that excludes women from serving in direct combat. It comes after 28-year-old Army Staff Sgt. Jennifer Hunt was dropped into a raid with teams she hadn’t trained with previously, just so she could search any women and girls the group came across in their missions. She was good enough to be used on a mission, but not to train with the soldiers she was working with.

On a positive note, President Obama just signed a military budget bill that contained a small, but crucial, provision that lifted a ban on giving female military members insurance coverage for abortions in cases of rape and incest. Will Duckworth and Gabbard be able to push for bills like those to expand provisions for military women? Let’s hope so!

What types of things are you interested in seeing the new Congress members cover?

Photo by Kevin H., “U.S. Capitol Building,” 8/17/08. Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic License

—

Written by Crystal Maldonado. Crystal is a content developer and professional blogger by day, and a dog-mom and super-feminist by night. Follow her on Twitter @crysmaldonado. 

Malala Yousafzai, a 15-year-old Pakistani schoolgirl, was shot in the head by the Taliban for fighting for her – and every woman and girl’s – right to an education. The Taliban is still vowing to kill her. Released from the hospital that has been treating her since October 16^th, she has become a symbol for this important right.

She began her activist career as an 11-year-old when she started writing an anonymous blog for the BBC Urdu service, talking about her life under the Taliban and writing about education. She shares this strong interest with her father, Ziauddin Yousafzai, who is both a teacher and an activist as well.

Malala is well known for her 2008 speech called “How Dare the Taliban Take Away My Basic Right to Education?”.  The Taliban’s response to her outspokenness and fighter spirit has only made her voice louder than anyone thought possible.

Education is literally power, and opens the door for so many opportunities and ways of seeing the world. Putting up barriers for women and girls in any way – but especially for education – only harms society.

The Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF) is dedicated to fighting for equal education for girls and women, channeling the spirit of Malala Yousafzai. CWEALF’s l&R service can help one understand their rights and options. One can contact this service online or by calling toll-free at 1-800-479-2949 or in the Greater Hartford Area at 860-524-0601.

—

Written by Brittany Estes-Garcia. Brittany is a student at Arizona State University and is a volunteer with CWEALF.

            A recent article details a report from by the National School Boards Association (NSBA) that ranks the United States as fifth in the world for adults holding two- to four- year college degrees.  This rank falls to eighteenth, though, when looking only at two-year degrees.  College retention rates are also not great in the U.S.  While a promising two-thirds of high school graduates immediately enter college, only about half earn degrees.  Failure to follow through on degrees is especially significant at community colleges.  This could be partly due to the focus on four-year colleges in the U.S.  Other countries put more resources into their two-year programs.  This report does not analyze the quality of two-year degrees being earned in other countries, but it is still true that four-year schools are given more focus and funding in the United States.

            More institutional attention should be given to community colleges in the U.S., especially now that mid-skill jobs (those requiring more education than a high school diploma but less than a four-year degree) are on the rise after having taken a dive during the recession. Millions of these jobs are available now and many are on the east coast, according to a study by Georgetown University.  Most required certificates for mid-skill jobs can be achieved through community colleges or trade schools. Students should be exposed to all of the possibilities of mid-skill jobs and two year degrees. The Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF) encourages Connecticut residents to train for mid-skill jobs through the Campaign for a Working Connecticut (CWCT).

—

Written by Sarah Trench. Sarah is a volunteer blogger for the Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF).