Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy

February 24, 2008

Note: This statement was issued at a Feb. 24 rally organized by Women’s Ski Jumping USA in Vancouver, Canada, the site of the 2010 Olympic Winter Games.

The next Winter Olympics will take place in 2010. Let me repeat, Two-Thousand and Ten. We are well into the 21st century, yet women ski jumpers still are not permitted to compete at their sport’s highest level.

The National Organization for Women calls on the International Olympic Committee to right this wrong immediately. The exclusion of women from this sport, which is open to men, is unwarranted and unfair. We reject outdated notions that ski jumping is not “appropriate” for women because it is disproportionately hazardous to their health. And we firmly disagree with claims that the current level of competition in women’s ski jumping does not justify its addition to the Olympic games.

Since 1998, women from 16 nations have participated in international ski jumping competitions, and the International Ski Federation finally added women’s ski jumping to the upcoming 2009 world championships. Throughout its 42 year history, NOW has promoted equality for women in all arenas, including sports. Exclusion of women and girls from athletic opportunities is discrimination, plain and simple, and it can have a profound impact on their health, well-being and future.

According to the Women’s Sports Foundation, girls and women who play sports have higher levels of confidence and self esteem, lower levels of depression, and higher states of psychological well-being than girls and women who do not play sports — and 80 percent of female executives at Fortune 500 companies reported having played sports.

But for right now, there are women around the globe who want to fly. NOW calls on the IOC to let Vancouver in 2010 be the place and the time for women ski jumpers to make their Olympic dreams come true.

Agenda Download it here (PDF).

For questions about the legislative agenda, or to get involved, contact us.

You can find information about these bills at the RI General Assembly website.

FACT: One-third of Nestle’s chocolate is from West Africa, where over 286,000 children are working in slave-like conditions on cocoa (chocolate) farms.

FACT: Dole is the largest distributor of cut-flowers in the world, the majority of which are imported from Columbia and Ecuador, where farmers and flower workers (often adolescent girls) are exposed to 127 different chemicals, including neurotoxins and carcinogens.

FACT: The three private owners of M&M/Mars Inc. are each “worth” $10.4 billion, while the West African farmers growing the cocoa for M&Ms chocolate are paid an average of $108 annually.

FACT: Despite record profits in 2006, Hershey’s has been accused of buying from contractors who utilize child labor and child slavery on cocoa farms on the Ivory Coast.

TAKE ACTION: Send a message to the chocolate and flower giants to stop child labor, illegal toxic chemical use, union busting, and to pay their farmers a living wage.

(Providence, RI) — Senator Lincoln Chafee’s vote against the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court is, quote, “a hollow vote,” according to the Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Women. Spokesperson Carolyn Mark complains that Chafee’s vote became meaningless when he decided not to support a filibuster to extend debate and ultimately block a vote. Donna Fishman of the Rhode Island Coalition for Affirmative Action accuses Chafee of a political ploy, and charges the moderate Republican has failed to protect the civil rights of women. And, Cathy Speer of the Rhode Island division of the American Association of University Women accuses Chafee of, quote, “trying to have it both ways.” She says his vote against confirmation doesn’t matter, but he would not support a filibuster where his vote might have mattered.

January 30, 2006

Providence – In the wake of Senator Chafee’s announcement that he will not support a filibuster but will vote against the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, several Rhode Island organizations had mixed reactions. Senator Chafee joins Senator Reed in opposing Judge Alito, but Senator Reed has indicated he will vote to sustain the filibuster..

The Rhode Island National Organization for Women (RI NOW) applauds Senator Reed for putting more than words into action to support the 500,000 plus women living in Rhode Island. Last week Senator Reed took a principled stand against the nomination of Samuel Alito by indicating his intent to vote no on the nomination. Senator Reed then put the full force of his office behind his words by signaling his intention to support the filibuster of a nominee who will most certainly be opposed to protecting the liberties that women have earned through centuries of struggle.

“This nominee is opposed to women’s rights on every count,” Carolyn Mark, RI NOW Vice President for Membership said. “His record is 20 years long. He was the architect of a plan to overturn Roe v. Wade. He has repeatedly ignored privacy rights. He made it infinitely harder to bring claims of sex discrimination and sexual harassment. Senator Chafee’s decision not to use every tool available to senators to extend debate and ultimately block the nomination of Samuel Alito makes his no vote a hollow vote. RI NOW is very clear on this - a no vote does nothing to protect our liberties and our rights, as women and as Rhode Islanders. The filibuster is our only option and it is every senator’s right to use it. Shrinking from a fight will only weaken us for the next one.”

The RI division of the American Association of University Women was also critical of Senator Chafee. “It appears to the American Association of University Women that Senator Chafee is trying to have it both ways,” said Cathy Speer. “He is voting against confirmation when it is clear his vote won’t matter but will not support a filibuster when it might easily matter. With 56 senators already declaring their support for Judge Alito, what good is Senator Chafee’s opposition to Alito if he will not do what it takes to stop him?”

“This is a critical moment in American history, and Senator Chafee has failed us,” said Donna Fishman of the Rhode Island Coalition for Affirmative Action. “A seat on the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. The conservatives now have a lock on this institution, and we can look forward to years of decisions that erode the gains we’ve made on civil rights and social justice over the last three decades. We expected leadership from Senator Chafee. What we got was a political ploy.”

Replacing Sandra Day O’Connor with Samuel Alito would set women back decades. Alito’s vote would tip the Court’s balance on many issues and take us back to the days:

- when sexual harassment and sex discrimination were “all in a day’s work” for women;

-when women were routinely excluded from law schools, medical schools and elite colleges;

-when there were no female firefighters, and no women on the police force;

-when women could be fired for becoming pregnant, or getting married;

-when employment ads were divided into “Help Wanted - Male” and “Help Wanted - Female;”

-when illegal, unsafe abortions, were the norm, and reliable birth control was outlawed as well.

We are determined not to turn back the clock.

Join National NOW’s campaign to save the Court and women’s rights. Visit NOW’s Enraged and Engaged campaign for more information.

To read about what’s happening in Rhode Island, visit www.rifj.org
Providence Journal article
Pawtucket Times article

Chafee Criticized For Supporting Supreme Court Nominee

09-22-2005 3:46 AM

(Providence, RI) — The chairman of the Rhode Island Democratic party calls Senator Lincoln Chafee’s support of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Roberts, quote, “blind obedience to the Bush administration.” William Lynch alleges that Chafee’s decision to support Roberts is based on how the Republican party wants him to vote, and not whether he personally believes the nominee should be confirmed. Lynch charges that Chafee has, in his words, “sold his political soul” for a 500-thousand-dollar contribution from the Republican National Committee. Chafee faces a Republican primary challenge next year from Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey. Two Democrats, Secretary of State Matt Brown and former Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse, are also hoping to unseat the incumbent. The Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Women is also condemning Chafee for his support of Roberts, saying Chafee has made the wrong decision to support a man it characterizes as “anti-choice, anti-civil rights and anti-environment.”

RI NOW Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 29, 2005

Rhode Island NOW (RI NOW) joins activists across the country today in a nationwide day of action, demanding that emergency contraception (EC) be made available to all women, without a prescription.

“It is disappointing, to say the least, that after promising a decision on this matter by September 1, the FDA has yet again delayed its decision on broadening access to EC,” said Meaghan Lamarre, President of RI NOW, “and it is disturbing that any forthcoming decision to make EC available over-the-counter will exclude women under the age of 17. EC is a proven safe and effective method of preventing unplanned pregnancy, and should be available to all women without restrictions.”

“Given the recent incident of a pharmacist at a CVS in Coventry refusing to fill a prescription for Plan B,” continued Lamarre, “Rhode Islanders are especially concerned about women’s unrestricted access to emergency contraception. As we wait for a clarification of CVS’s policy on this issue, we are reminded of how important it is that the FDA allow EC to be sold over-the-counter.”

NOW’s actions on August 30 are part of the organization’s long term commitment to accessible, affordable and comprehensive women’s health care. Emergency contraception is safe and legal birth control. If taken within 24-72 hours after rape, unwanted sexual activity or birth control failure, women can dramatically reduce their odds of facing an abortion or unwanted pregnancy. NOW demands that the FDA promote and protect our health and safety, not the political whims of the White House, the pharmaceutical industry, or anti-women politicians.

Take Action:

• Call the FDA, general comment line: 1-888-463-6332
• Call the office of FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford 301-827-2410
• Call the Office of Women’s Health 301-827-0350

Call or Email the New England Regional Office of the FDA

• Joseph Raulinaitis (508) 793-0422, Joseph.Raulinaitis@fda.hhs.gov
• Susan Small (781) 596-7779, Susan.Small@fda.hhs.gov
• Mary B. Yebba (781) 596-7779, Mary.Yebba@fda.hhs.gov

Read more in the following statement from Kim Gandy:

Statement of National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy

The National Organization for Women calls on women’s health advocates to join in a National Day of Action on Tuesday, August 30, protesting the decision by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding emergency contraception (EC).

Today’s announcement by the FDA, on Women’s Equality Day no less, is insulting on so many levels that I hardly know where to begin.

First, FDA commissioner Lester Crawford lied to the United States Senate to achieve his confirmation to this post. Senators Patty Murray and Hillary Clinton had put a hold on his nomination, and released their hold (thus enabling his confirmation) after his absolute assurance that the FDA would finally make a decision on non-prescription availability of emergency contraception by September 1.

Second, despite years of study, despite strong support from the FDA’s professional staff, despite extensive public hearings and commentary, and despite the near-unanimous recommendations of not one but two FDA advisory panels, this newly appointed Commissioner has again delayed women’s access to emergency contraception (EC) — and with the lame excuse that they need more time for “public comment.”

Third, the one thing that was made clear in today’s announcement is that women under 17 will be left out altogether, and this time the excuse is even more ridiculous: that the “target” users will not be able to understand the directions. Since Plan B consists only of two small white pills, and the directions are to take one pill after unprotected intercourse (within 5 days) and to take the second pill 12 hours after the first one, it is apparent that any teenager with 6th grade reading ability could follow these directions. My 12-year-old daughter could follow those directions easily. And even if the directions weren’t followed properly, EC is extremely safe — so there would be no adverse health consequences to justify extreme measures to keep it out of the hands of young women.

So the FDA’s “reason” is merely an excuse to deny young women access to the means to prevent pregnancy, and at a time in their lives when an unwanted pregnancy would wreak havoc on their young lives and limit their future. And if a young woman can’t understand such a simple label, do we honestly think that the alternative should be motherhood?

Finally, the FDA says it is not making EC available without prescription to women 17 and over because they can’t figure out how to prevent access to those under 17. C’mon — as if they haven’t seen drugstores deal with alcohol, cigarettes, and the nicotine patch for years. This is just another in a long line of decisions that make women’s health secondary to right-wing politics. This administration is determined to turn the FDA into an arm of the Republican Party - carrying out the fondest desires of Bush allies who oppose women’s use of contraception.

Over-the-Counter Emergency Contraception

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) promises a decision on over the counter Emergency Contraception by September 1.

After more than two years of foot dragging during negotiations with the makers of the “morning after pill,” the FDA once again is promising to issue a decision about emergency contraception (EC). NOW activists and others who support the health and safety of girls and women, have been demanding that the FDA allow the sale of EC without a prescription. We must remind them one more time that their job is to promote and protect our health and safety, not the political whims of their patrons, be they the pharmaceutical industry or the politicians controlling the White House and Congress.

Read more.

NOW Calls for FDA Probe, Questions Integrity of Panel’s Recommendation on Breast Implants

Today we call on the United States Congress to step in and fully investigate the entire circumstances surrounding the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decision to send an approvable letter regarding dangerous silicone gel breast implants — from the allegations of fraud and deception made under oath by managers of the company that makes these implants, to the role of a senior manager at the FDA who acted more like a representative of the manufacturer than a person carrying out a public trust.

Read more.

CVS Pharmacist in Coventry refuses to fill woman’s prescription for Plan-B. From the projo:

Pharmacist refuses to fill prescription

A Planned Parenthood spokeswoman decries the delay in a customer’s ability to get her “morning-after pill” contraceptive, but CVS and a state official defend a pharmacist’s right to act on moral beliefs.

01:00 AM EDT on Thursday, August 11, 2005

BY BARBARA POLICHETTI
Journal Staff Writer

CVS pharmacists, acting on their religious or moral beliefs, can refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions as long as they make sure the customer can get the medication when another pharmacist is on duty or at another CVS store, company officials said yesterday.

“Our policy is to fill prescriptions for all customers in a timely manner and to make sure their needs are met and that they are satisfied,” Eileen Howard Dunn, vice president of corporate communications and community relations for CVS, said yesterday. “As an employer, however, we must also accommodate a sincerely held religious conviction that may prevent a pharmacist from dispensing a certain prescription.”

Dunn’s remarks came in response to media reports of a woman who was temporarily denied the “morning-after” contraceptive pill at the CVS pharmacy on Tiogue Avenue in Coventry last Friday.

Dunn, who declined to identify either the patron or the pharmacist, said that the customer pulled up to the store’s drive-up window at about 10 p.m. The pharmacist on duty at the 24-hour store refused to fill the prescription because it conflicted with his or her personal beliefs, Dunn said.

Instead, Dunn said, the customer was given the option of either returning to the store the next morning or having CVS send the prescription to another 24-hour store, in Warwick, where it could be filled immediately.

She said that the customer opted to return to the Coventry store on Saturday and picked up her prescription at about 8 a.m.

Dunn said that situation was handled in compliance with corporate policy and that the customer did not complain to the store or to company headquarters.

The incident has angered leaders of Planned Parenthood of Rhode Island, who called CVS’ actions “criminal.”

“Why are we placing undue obstacles on a woman?” Kathy Kushnir, vice president of external affairs for Planned Parenthood, said. “If a woman presents a legal prescription, it must be filled at that time — period, end of story.

“And even if this is just one case, it’s a major case because we have a woman going from pharmacy to pharmacy trying to fill a valid prescription,” Kushnir said. “That is criminal.”

RECENTLY, the so-called “morning after pill,” sold under the name Plan B, has been the focal point of a national debate over whether pharmacists’ religious or moral concerns take precedence over consumers’ right to fill a prescription.

It is also wrapped up in the debate over abortion, as there is argument over exactly how the pill works. According to the Web site posted by Plan B manufacturer Duramed Pharmaceuticals, the pill contains a hormone found in most birth-control pills and can work in three ways — it may stop the release of an egg from the ovary, it may prevent the uniting of sperm with an egg, and it may also prevent an egg from attaching to the uterus.

Catherine Cordy, executive director of the state Board of Pharmacy, said that there is nothing in Rhode Island law that “clearly spells out when a pharmacist can or cannot” fill a prescription.

Instead, she said, there are standards of practice that give pharmacists the latitude to refuse to dispense a drug based on their “moral, ethical or professional medical judgment.”

“We believe this is appropriate as long as [the prescription] is made reasonably available to the patient through another pharmacist at the same store or the prescription is transferred to another store,” she said.

Similar standards, she said, have been codified by the American Medical Association and the American Pharmacists Association.

Cordy said that although no complaint has been filed regarding last week’s incident at the Coventry CVS, the state board will investigate the matter.

Kushnir said that the delay in filling the woman’s prescription in Coventry last week is particularly egregious because the morning-after pill is time sensitive and must be taken between 72 and 120 hours after unprotected sex.

“The sooner you take it, the more effective it is,” Kushnir said, adding that a pharmacist who refuses to fill the prescription has no way of knowing what the customer’s time constraints are unless they engage in an inappropriate conversation.

“They don’t know when a woman might have unprotected sex or if she had sex against her will,” Kushnir said. “A woman with a valid, legal prescription should not have to have that conversation with her pharmacist . . . and she should not be sitting there in the store doing the math.”

Dunn said that CVS wants its customers to be satisfied, and that pharmacists are strictly prohibited from discussing their personal views with customers.

“We just want to make sure that people know that we are sensitive to this issue and that we are in the business of filling prescriptions for our customers and that is our number-one goal,” she said.

She said that is why the company makes sure a customer gets the medication at another time or location if a pharmacist will not fill a prescription for personal reasons.

Kushnir countered that, “Going from Coventry to Warwick may seem innocuous enough, but given the realities of everyday life, it could be a dangerous burden.”

“My presumption,” she said, “is that if I have a valid prescription, I can walk into any pharmacy and get it filled.”

RI NOW Responds

We believe that any woman should be able to walk into her pharmacy with a valid prescription for emergency contraception (or any contraceptive), and have it filled with no questions asked. Decisions about birth control should be left up to a woman and her doctor and no pharmacist has the right to insert himself or herself into a woman’s private healthcare decisions. Referral to another pharmacist or pharmacy is not a satisfactory remedy because these place an additional burden on the woman seeking the prescription, a burden that is not imposed on any other type of prescription, especially not one that must be taken in a timely manner.

Meaghan Lamarre, Action VP, was interviewed by and appeared on WPRI in response to this issue on August 11. Stay tuned for more response and/or possible action on this issue.