Common assumptions about mothers’ and caregivers’ responsibilities frequently affect their salary, raises, and job opportunities, and we are gratified that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, today in New Hampshire, made this and other work/life balance issues a central part of her campaign platform. According to many reports, some employers routinely make pay and promotion decisions about employees based on an assumption that caregiving responsibilities for children or elders will affect performance, even if that has not actually been the case. “These assumptions are deeply engrained in stereotypes about women as caregivers, and they affect the pay and employment status of millions of women, and some men as well,” said NOW President Kim Gandy. “This is discrimination, pure and simple, and it contributes to the enormous wage gap between mothers and non-mothers.” Clinton also committed to providing paid sick days for all workers, expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover an additional 13 million workers, and creating incentives for states to create paid leave programs. With specifics on how the cost of the programs would be covered, Clinton laid out a broad agenda that also included increased funding for child care and workplace flexibility initiatives. “NOW was the first organization to pass a resolution supporting ‘Homemaker’s Bill of Rights’ in 1978, and to this day we fight for caregivers’ rights, but no presidential candidate has ever made such an effort to put families first,” said Gandy.

The health and well-being of our children should be a national priority. Unfortunately, today President Bush once again showed our country and the world how little he values families and children with his veto of the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (H.R. 976). This bill, which would have reauthorized and improved the ten-year-old State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and provided more than 10 million low-income children with desperately needed health care, was vetoed by the president. The cruel message to millions of hardworking parents whose jobs don’t provide health insurance or wages that allow them to buy private insurance policies is this: if your children get sick or are injured, we really don’t care.

“Millions of families, especially single mothers with children, have once again been cast aside by George Bush,” says NOW President Kim Gandy. “This was his opportunity to welcome bipartisan legislation ensuring that 6.6 million low-income kids have ongoing health care, and allowing nearly 4 million more low-income children to become enrolled in the state-run programs. For single parents, pregnant women and low-income families just barely getting by, this program has literally been a life saver. No child should go without health care simply because her or his parents are employed in jobs without benefits and there isn’t enough money to pay both the rent and the doctor. George Bush’s priorities are out of line with the rest of the country; sadly, this is no surprise to those of us who work daily to improve the lives of women and their families.”

It is ironic that taxpayers have been assessed almost a trillion dollars on the Iraq invasion and occupation, but have no say about using a piddling amount by comparison to provide a modest $35-$50 billion to expand SCHIP to cover millions more kids. The truth is, for what we spend in a single week on the war, 800,000 children could get health care for a year. A bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress voted for our children’s health care, but the veto pen makes final passage an uphill battle, especially in the House of Representatives where the final tally was two dozen votes shy of the 290 needed for a veto override.

While the National Organization for Women applauds the tenacious bipartisan efforts in Congress, which voted to expand healthcare for millions of children, at the same time we are disappointed that the bill failed to support the inclusion of legal immigrant children and pregnant immigrant women. The National Coalition for Immigrant Women’s Rights (NCIWR), of which NOW is a member, sought but failed to get support for a final bill that removed the punitive and mandatory five-year waiting period for new legal immigrant children. Although the House bill included provisions from the Immigrant Children’s Health Improvement Act (ICHIA), giving states the option to provide immediate health coverage to lawfully residing low-income immigrant children and pregnant women through Medicaid and SCHIP, the Senate insisted that this provision be removed in the final bill.

“It is shameful that our president, who enjoys government-subsidized health care, vetoed the SCHIP renewal, but also that Congress dropped coverage for legal immigrant children in hopes of avoiding the veto pen,” says Gandy. “These are hard-working, low-income families, who are legally in this country but cannot afford to buy health care for their children. But they are being ignored and told to wait five years. Without adequate, essential health care, these children and pregnant women face an uncertain future,” said Gandy.

NOW will ask Congress to override the president’s veto, but we will also continue to fight for real health protection legislation that promotes basic health care for ALL low-income families, including documented and undocumented children, single parents and pregnant women. SCHIP is not perfect, but we believe it is a start.

With a more women-friendly president and Congress after 2008, NOW anticipates - and will promote - major improvements in public financing of health care in our country.

Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy

January 24, 2007

NOW has worked since 1966 for economic justice, especially equal pay and fair wages for women, many of whom must work multiple jobs to support their children and families. Our members have lobbied hard, and we celebrated when 315 members of the House of Representatives recently voted to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.

Today the U.S. Senate took up the House-passed bill — a “clean” bill that was NOT held hostage by the business community, which is demanding almost $8 billion in tax giveaways. Fifty-four senators, including 5 Republicans, supported the straightforward House bill, and for that we salute them. Forty-three senators are intent on providing corporate welfare to their business cronies, and for that we will hold them accountable.

The minimum wage is a women’s issue. Women are twice as likely as men to be working at minimum wage, and that rate is even higher for women of color. Today over nine million women are at the bottom of the wage ladder, paid less than $7.25 per hour.

NOW has been hearing from our members. One, who is the director of a shelter for homeless youth and young adults, wrote: “I see daily the effects of having the minimum wage so low that people cannot support themselves. Our shelter is full of young adults who work full time at minimum wage jobs, but cannot afford housing, food and other necessities. In addition, we feed many other youth who are minimum wage earners and earn only enough for rent, but can’t afford food as well. Until the minimum wage is raised, there will continue to be increasing numbers of working homeless people.”

These aren’t statistics — they are people. The bottom line is that those working hard at today’s minimum wage (less than $11,000 a year for full-time work) still have no bottom line — except poverty.

It’s hard to imagine that a woman working full time, year round, at $5.15 per hour has to choose between paying the utility bill and taking her sick child to the doctor. And it’s a national disgrace that Republican leaders would essentially say to this woman: “Your family’s survival is less important to me than tax giveaways to wealthy people who see more money in a day than you are paid in a month, or even a year.”

A NOW member in Dallas wrote about the small business she owned with her husband in a shopping mall. She said: “…my starting pay for new employees was $8.00 per hour. Paying more than my competitors ensured employee loyalty. It’s hard to keep training new employees, so paying more at the start and offering incentives and bonuses for improvement was a good investment.”

Paying a living wage is an investment in the future of the United States. Good for hardworking families, good for business, and good for the country.

NOW applauds the new Democratic leadership for their determination to pass a clean bill raising the minimum wage, and to make it one of the first acts of the 110th Congress. We look forward to many more advances for women and their families.

“I literally couldn’t put this book down and read the entire thing…just this past Saturday. It’s a fascinating view of working hard(er than I’ve ever worked in my life) for almost nothing. I was left in awe of what one women took on and what millions of women all around the country endure every day.”
- Laura Costa, VP of Membership, RI NOW

Statement of National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy

Social Security is an essential social insurance program that keeps half of women over 65 out of poverty.Women depend more on Social Security than men do for three reasons: 1) Women are less likely to have private pensions from their employers � and even when they do, women’s average pensions are half as large. 2) Pay inequity � women still make only 76 to every man’s dollar. 3) Time out of the workforce for care giving reduces women’s employment years, and this, combined with lower wages, makes it more difficult to save an adequate amount of money for retirement. Protesters at anti-privatization rally Activists at an anti-privatization rally in Washington DC April 26th. An investment expert said yesterday about privatizing social security: “On Wall Street, the biggest mistake you can make is to risk what you can’t afford to lose. The President wants millions of Americans to take risks with their minimum retirement security.” It’s a foolish gamble � and women aren’t buying it!

NOW President Kim Gandy speaks at rally opposting privatization. A clip of Kim’s rally speech was on NBC Nightly News. (watch the clip)

Tuesday, April 26, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on Social Security, weighted with witnesses presenting misleading testimony about the merits of private retirement investment accounts.

To counter this biased presentation and George W. Bush’s well-financed propaganda campaign, a broad coalition of progressive organizations, including NOW, joined Americans United to Protect Social Security on the same date for a “National Day of Unity to Protect Social Security and Stop Privatization.” Activists in 38 cities across the country united to demonstrate their opposition of the GOP’s plan to privatize Social Security.

NOW President Kim Gandy spoke at the rally in Washington, D.C., near the Capitol, along with other progressive leaders and members of the House and Senate voicing our joint opposition to privatization.

“The fact is simple and unacceptable - forty-two years after the Equal Pay Act was passed women working full-time, year round, are only making 76 cents to every dollar a man earns,” said NOW President Kim Gandy. “This kind of discrimination has an economically devastating impact on women and their families.”

The wage gap between men and women stubbornly remains despite passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963. Why do more women than men live in poverty? Because many of them are working minimum or sub-minimum wage jobs and because they still are not receiving equal pay for equal work.

“Disparity in pay limits women’s buying power, affects their ability to pay for quality childcare, prevents them from saving for retirement, and hinders them from receiving livable Social Security benefits based on their wages,” Gandy said. “Pay discrimination not only affects women, but it also puts their families at a disadvantage.”

If women’s wages continue to increase at this sluggish pace, they will not achieve parity until 2042. Currently, women have to work more than three additional months into the next year to receive the wages that a man is paid in just a year.

“The consequences of deliberate pay discrimination for women and their families are profound,” Gandy said. “The workplace pay gap means that both single mothers and two-income families have less money to raise their children, less ability to afford health care and lesser savings to meet emergencies — we can’t let families suffer any longer.”

Eradicating the current wage gap that exists between the sexes is part of NOW’s longstanding commitment to women’s equality.

“We encourage women and supporter’s of equal pay to contact their legislators and demand the enactment of a Paycheck Fairness Act and Fair Pay Act,” Gandy said. “With your help, we can finally level the playing field for working women and their families.”

Join members of Rhode Islanders for Social and Economic Security (RISES) as we visit door-to-door to enlist Rhode Islanders in the fight to defend Social Security.

What: Canvassing to protect Social Security

When: Saturday, April 16, 10:00 – 1:00

Where: Meet at Slater Grove Memorial Park, Narragansett Parkway, Warwick (Drive south on Broad Street, through Cranston. Broad becomes Narragansett Parkway at the Warwick City line.)

There will be a brief training in the park, then we’ll set off in teams of two or three to talk with neighbors in Warwick’s Lakewood neighborhood about our efforts to protect Social Security for our elderly, our disabled and our families who have lost a loved one.

Call Ivette Luna at Ocean State Action at 463-5368 for more information.

Family child care providers across Rhode Island are forming a union to protect and improve our child care system. Providers, parents and child care advocates are supporting legislation that will allow child care providers to form a union without being state employees. This is a win-win situation for everyone: providers win a voice in the child care system and no new state employees will be created. Please support the historic struggle of providers for justice and dignity on the job.

Take action here.

Action Needed:

The United States Senate will begin floor discussions of the Budget
Resolution today, Monday, March 14. Please urge your Senators to
oppose plans by George W. Bush and the Republican leadership in
Congress to cut funding for Medicaid:
http://www.now.org/congress/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=7206976

Medicaid is the single largest health care program in the U.S. and is
the only source of reproductive health care for millions of poor and
low income women. Women comprise 71% of adult Medicaid beneficiaries.
Bush claims that programs such as Medicaid need to be cut in order to
control spending and reduce the federal deficit—a deficit that he and
right wing Republicans created through their huge tax cuts for the
wealthy combined with the costs of the war in Iraq.

The Senate will be voting on the budget this week and an amendment
will be offered on the Senate floor by Senators Gordon Smith (R-Ore.)
and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) to strike the Medicaid cuts from the Senate
budget resolution. This amendment has a good chance of passing,
especially if we let our Senators know that we value this important
and often life-saving health care program. Several moderate
Republicans have indicated that they think the cuts to Medicaid would
hurt vulnerable constituents and shift the cost burden to
budget-stressed states—and they especially need to hear from you
today.

Contact your Senators today:
http://www.now.org/congress/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=7206976

Background:

Medicaid is a critically important program which guarantees coverage
to all eligible adults and children. It is funded by both federal and
state governments and provides the only source of health care coverage
for 53 million poor and low-income people, including 38 million
low-income children and their parents along with 15 million seniors
and people with disabilities. Under Medicaid, some 16 million
low-income women are provided basic health care, reproductive health
services and coverage for long-term care. Women are 71% of all adult
beneficiaries of Medicaid.

Total Medicaid spending, including both federal and state outlays, is
projected to be $329 billion in 2005, accounting for 17 % of all U.S.
health care expenditures (2003), and a slightly larger amount than the
federal government pays for seniors’ Medicare program. From 2000 -
2003, because of the downturn in the economy and job losses, nine
million more people became eligible for Medicaid and costs accelerated
at double-digit rates.

However, Medicaid is quite efficient compared to private health
coverage, holding down per capita growth and maintaining
administration costs that are four to six percent of claims paid
compared to commercial health insurers’ costs of 15 to 20 percent of
claims paid, according to a study prepared for the National Governors’
Association.

Despite this great record of success and our still huge uninsured
population, leaders in Congress plan to cut federal funding for
Medicaid by an even larger amount that the President’s proposed $45
billion over the next ten years. These cuts also suggest structural
changes for Medicaid that would likely involve spending caps (without
regard to need) and a possible block-granting of funds to states so
that states will bear future cost increases. The effect of such
changes would be to shift more funding responsibilities to the
states—something that many fiscally-strapped states would have
difficulty managing. As a result, states would begin to eliminate
benefits or raise eligibility standards in order to throw thousands
off the rolls. The already huge number of uninsured—some 45
million—would undoubtedly begin to grow. Elderly disabled women who
depend upon Medicaid coverage to help pay for long term care services
may end up with no care. Many reproductive health care services could
be curtailed.

Medicaid covers a range of reproductive health care services
including: family planning, pap smears and other preventative
screening, pregnancy related care (prenatal, childbirth, postpartum),
and STD testing and treatment.

Send your message to Senators today:
http://www.now.org/congress/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=7206976

Resources:

Medicaid Under Attack: Women May Lose Vital Source of Health Care
Coverage
http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/031405medicaid.html

National Women’s Law Center’s analysis of the impact of the
President’s proposed budget on state Medicaid programs
http://www.nwlc.org/details.cfm?id=2171&section=health

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis of the Senate Budget
Committees proposal
http://www.cbpp.org/3-10-05bud.htm

Abortion roils Senate contest, Providence Journal, March 6, 2005

Langevin’s fundraiser marked by abortion rights protesters, Providence Journal, March 1, 2005

Women’s Issues: A Discussion, Waterbury, CT Radio (details to follow when I get the tape with the station call letters), February 19, 2005

Defending the rights of American women, Providence Journal, February 3, 2005

Gender Politics: Undecided voters seek meaningful campaign, Providence Phoenix, October 15, 2004

Women’s Issues in the Presidents Campaign, NBC 10 News Conference, Providence, August 8, 2004

March for Women’s Lives, Rhode Island Soapbox, Cox Communication, Channel 18, March 25, 2004

RI NOW response to sexist billboard campaign, NBC Channel 10, Providence, August 2003

Opponents hold Mass, vigil at clinics, Providence Journal, January 23, 2003

On the Roe v Wade Anniversary, freedom still needs protection, Newport Daily News, January 21, 2003

RI NOW meeting Saturday for first time in four years, Providence Journal, February 2, 2002

Why NOW? Rhode Island Chapter of the National Organization hadn’t met in years, Providence Journal, February 24, 2002

It’s daughters day at work today; sons welcome next year, Providence Journal, April 25, 2002

Are you Pro-Choice? You are Not Alone, Rhode Island Soapbox, Cox Communication Channel 18, April 25, 2002

Fighting for Equality, Newport Daily News, April 10, 2002