MOMocrats™

What’s a Woman To Do?

MOMocrats welcomes guest author Linda Tarr-Whelan's comments on the health insurance reform bill and the promise it holds for women and children. Please support the MomsRising campaign at the post's end!

Health care for women is in the news these days. But what does it all mean?  Having just researched for my new book what different decisions emerge when 30% women are at the table, I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if Congress were made up of 30% women, instead of 17%.  But more on that in future posts!

For today, I’m riveted by news stories that a “very prestigious independent medical panel” has recommended big changes in our health care routines.  As a colon cancer survivor and former nurse, it leaves me with more questions than answers. They talked about preventing deaths from breast cancer, but then told us to cut out several key steps we have learned to take.

We have walked, done relays, worn pink ribbons and educated ourselves to take practical steps:  do breast self-exams, have the mammograms we need after the age of 40 and regular doctors’ visits. Could these common-sense precautions really be unnecessary?  Really?

Why We Must Stand Up For the Right to Breastfeed -- By Senator Jeff Merkley

Right now in America, working mothers are being discriminated against solely because they breastfeed their children.  Last week the Ohio Supreme Court threw logic out the window when it ruled that a woman was rightfully fired for taking breaks at work to pump breast milk.  Apparently it would have been acceptable for Lanisa Allen to take a break to use the bathroom as long as she didn’t pump breast milk in the process.

The Court argued that Totes/Isotoner had the right to fire Allen because she made the choice to breastfeed her child, which apparently does not qualify as a condition related to pregnancy and, therefore, does not constitute gender discrimination. 

It is astounding that any court would come to a decision stating that breastfeeding is a condition unrelated to pregnancy.  That’s like saying the branches of a tree aren’t at all related to the roots below the ground.  All new mothers should have the opportunity to breastfeed their babies because it is integral to the health and long term well-being of the child.

There is significant scientific evidence showing that children who are breastfed have lower risks of disease and illnesses including asthma, diabetes, obesity, and certain cancers.  Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that breastfeeding has significant health benefits for mothers as well.  Yet, companies in America are allowed to fire working mothers for not only doing what’s best for the health of their child, but for themselves as well?  That’s just plain wrong.

In Oregon, I championed an effort to provide working mothers with flexible break times and privacy to pump breast milk.  We won that battle two years ago and now it’s time to expand Oregon’s effort nationwide.

In June, Representative Carolyn Maloney, who has been a long-standing champion of the right of women to breastfeed, and I introduced the Breastfeeding Promotion Act, a bill that would protect breastfeeding in the workplace by making it easier for nursing mothers to pump in private.  Additionally, I proposed an amendment to the health reform bill to help provide new mothers with flexible break times and privacy to pump breast milk.  The amendment garnered support from both sides of the aisle, was unanimously passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee and was included in the Affordable Health Choices Act. 

This ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court reaffirms why it’s important that Congress include this amendment in the health reform legislation.  We must enable all working mothers with the opportunity to nourish their newborn children.

Working mothers have so much on their plates when they give birth to a child; the last thing they should have to worry about is whether they’ll lose their jobs just because they want to do what’s best for their babies when they return to work.

We have to work together to make sure that the case in Ohio, where a woman was fired for taking breaks at work to pump breastmilk for her newborn, never happens again.

*****

The preceding post was written by Oregon's junior Senator, Jeff Merkley.  He is not only an advocate for women's health care, but he's a strong proponent for women's rights, too.  (A thing I'm both glad of and exceedingly grateful for.)  This entry cross-posted at Momsrising.org. 

If you would like to complain to the Totes/Isotoner Corporation for this outrageous act, they can be contacted here.

(Anybody up for a boycott?)

DADocrat Post: Sotomayor, Empathy, and Objectivity

As someone whose professional specialty is (in theory) the philosophy of law, listening to the news from the Sotomayor confirmation hearings so far has been a bit frustrating – not just the lines of questioning, mind you, but Judge Sotomayor's answers as well.  Among the many things on which Sotomayor has been questioned are her infamous “wise Latina” comments.  The judge herself has responded by backing away from the comments, saying that they were a poorly-executed rhetorical flourish.  What is frustrating is that she is doing this when her claim that there are cases in which a wise Latina might make better judgments than a white man is not only almost certainly true, but represents a much more sophisticated understanding of “objectivity” than that on display in the hearings. 

The charge against Sotomayor is that, if she thinks there are cases in which a Latina would make a better legal judgment than a white man (let's assume they are otherwise equally wise), she must be an identity-politics warrior who believes that latinas are morally and/or intellectually superior to white men (and she probably thinks that Che Guevara should replace Shakespeare in high school English classrooms, too).  But this is an unwarranted inference.  A Latina might make a better judgment because she can see the issue from a different perspective than a white man – which helps her objectivity, rather than competing with it.

MOMocrats Guest Post from Lezzymom: Obama’s Bread Crumbs to Gays – Benefits for Federal Employees

Kathy from Lezzymom.com is an LGBT rights activist in Arizona where she lives with her partner and two children. She is a Board of Governors member for the Human Rights Campaign and helped start the first Gay-Straight Alliance in Arizona. Her political commentary appeared on C-Span and C-Span.com.

Here are her thoughts on the Obama administration's recent treatment of gay and lesbian rights, including the recently released controversial Department of Justice Defense of Marriage brief, Obama's inaction on Don't Ask Don't Tell, and today's planned presidential memorandum extending certain benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

Today President Obama is going to sign a memorandum extending some benefits to federal employees. In a statement from the White House, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and the Secretary of State have identified a number of benefits that can be extended to same-sex partners of federal employees:

For civil service employees, domestic partners of federal employees can be added to the long-term care insurance program; supervisors can also be required to allow employees to use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and non-biological, non-adopted children.  For foreign service employees, a number of benefits were identified, including the use of medical facilities at posts abroad, medical evacuation from posts abroad, and inclusion in family size for housing allocations.

The Presidential Memorandum to be signed today will request that the Director of OPM and the Secretary of State act to extend to same-sex partners of federal employees the benefits they have identified.  The Memorandum will also request the heads of all other executive branch departments and agencies to conduct internal reviews to determine whether other benefits they administer might be similarly extended, and to report the results of those reviews to the Director of OPM.

Guest MOMocrats Post by Miguelina: Calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist? Make sure you have the facts first.

The MOMocrats welcome guest poster Miguelina who has a few things to say about the nasty tactics the GOP is using to try to smear Sonia Sotomayor.  Playing the racist card? You better come correct.

To Understand Takes Time and Effort, Something that Not All People Are Willing To Give

I'm not even going to pretend that this a political blog (or I should more accurately say, a judicial watch blog) but the constant exposure to Sonia Sotomayor's "wise Latina" quote, taken out of context is -- to put it mildly -- disappointing to me.

Dirty GOP politics is nothing new, but that the mainstream media keeps repeating the quote out of context thus doing the GOP's dirty work for them is pretty scary.

Sigh.

Why such a sophomoric smear campaign? In Sotomayor's own words,

To understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give.

You could argue that those words are proven right by the storm brewing around her right now, but I'll let you decide on your own. I trust that my fellow Americans are capable to form an opinion based on facts, something that talk radio seems to think is impossible.

I'm not even going to pretend that this a political blog (or I should more accurately say, a judicial watch blog) but the constant exposure to Sonia Sotomayor's "wise Latina" quote, taken out of context is -- to put it mildly -- disappointing to me.

Dirty GOP politics is nothing new, but that the mainstream media keeps repeating the quote out of context thus doing the GOP's dirty work for them is pretty scary.

Sigh.

Why such a sophomoric smear campaign? In Sotomayor's own words,

To understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give.

You could argue that those words are proven right by the storm brewing around her right now, but I'll let you decide on your own. I trust that my fellow Americans are capable to form an opinion based on facts, something that talk radio seems to think is impossible.

Mother's Day Every Day Post Roundup

Happy Mother's Day, MOMocrats readers!

Many thanks to everyone who participated in our Mother's Day event to promote the Mother's Day Every Day initiative on behalf of The White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood. Here is a list of posts from bloggers (and politicians!) who participated to help raise awareness about maternal mortality, and save mothers' lives. If we've missed or forgotten you, please add your post in the comments below and we will add you to the list in this post.

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner

Houston's First Lady Andrea White

Women with Big Dogs and Infertility by Julie Pippert

Once Upon a Time, When You Were a Little Baby by Cynematic

How I Became a Mother by Glennia

Mother's Day Every Day: My Story by Jaelithe

Birth: A Love Story by Catherine Connors

Birthing Babies by Robin

Birth Story by Joie

Peeper's Birth Story by Whozat

Geekery and Pregnancy by Nicole

And we would also like to thank Morra Aarons Mele of MomsRising for promoting our event in her BlogHer post, Three Great and Good Ways to Celebrate Mother’s Day Online.

Jennifer Brunner, Ohio Secretary of State and Senate candidate, supports women, children, health care

Intro: I don't live in Ohio so I didn't know Jennifer Brunner until her campaign manager contacted me. At MOMocrats, we're always interested in progressive women candidates---especially moms---so I did a little due diligence digging before replying. A reformer, I found, a straight shooter, appears to be quite intelligent, and judicious in her approach to issues. Not surprising, since she used to be a judge. I was intrigued, and I replied.

As with any kind of pitch, the "pitcher" needs to sell the person, product or idea to me first, and David Dettman, her campaign manager, did a good job of that.

We agreed to an interview, but then I thought about what this week is dedicated to at MOMocrats---Mother's Day Every Day---so I suggested that instead, this week, Jennifer Brunner might speak about health care for pregnant and post-partum women and babies.

They agreed. I waited for the piece to arrive, and when it did, I read it with increasing admiration. By the end, I checked, and yes, my socks? Were knocked off.

Take a minute and read what Jennifer Brunner, Ohio Secretary of State and Senatorial candidate has to say on this issue. It's well worth your time. . .

By the time you finish reading this post, another woman somewhere in the world will have died during pregnancy and childbirth. It happens every minute. And what makes things worse is that the very children who lose their mothers are the ones most likely to suffer from illness, malnutrition or poverty, or all of them. That is why women need to speak up – to raise awareness, spread the word, and motivate more people to push for adequate health care for pregnant women and newborns.

 

Some say because mothers do so much—so many small, but important everyday tasks, that a mother’s job is thankless.  Any mother knows that is not so—tiring, yes, but thankless, no.  I am the mother of three children, and I believe that any mother who has looked into the face of her smiling child knows she is appreciated.  The sense of satisfaction she finds when she helps her child (no matter the age) solve a problem or overcome obstacles is beyond compare.  It creates hope for that child’s future and what his or her potential will be to the rest of the world.

 

Motherhood is never an easy road, especially the physical challenges of prenatal care, giving birth to a healthy newborn and recovering quickly for this hugely dependent new being.  Twenty-five years ago I gave birth to a 10 lb 4 oz baby girl and experienced hemorrhaging that took my blood pressure all the way down to 80 over 12.  Thankfully, I gave birth in the hospital and was able to receive immediate medical emergency attention.  My father, a ten pound baby himself, had been born in the house he grew up in, and luckily, he and his mother survived the experience with aplomb.  My mother-in-law, however, had not been so fortunate. Living in rural Ohio near a small town hospital, she lost a child, and nearly her life, to toxemia – all because of poor prenatal care.  The trauma and physical changes that came with that event she discusses even today at age 78.  And the loss of that child has affected her for more than half a century.

Andrea White, Houston's First Lady, takes her hat off to single mothers in support of Every Day is Mother's Day

Andrea White is Houston's First Lady. But above and beyond that, she is an inspirational person. An award winning writer with a law degree, Mrs. White is also active in the community as a philanthropist and education activist. I've had the pleasure of getting to know her, and if you asked me to find four adjectives that described her who rather than just her what, I'd have to use "gracious," and "intelligent," and "interesting," and "comfortable." She truly cares, as demonstrated in her post here in support of White Ribbon Alliance's Every Day is Mother's Day campaign. You can read more about her at her blog Passionate Supporter (also a soon to be released book!) where she writes about life, literature, and supporting her husband Bill's role as Mayor of Houston and his Senate campaign.

From Andrea:

White Ribbon Alliance asked for a post regarding Mother’s Day.

When my kids were younger, I thought about single mothers every day.

Whenever I was surprised by memos regarding heavy duty craft assignments due in two days.

Whenever I filled out three sets of forms at the doctor’s offices.

Whenever I was so proud I was about to burst.

Each time I got sick with the flu.

Each time one of my kids lost his winter coat.

Each time I had something priceless to share.

So hat’s off to all those mothers who may have to remind their kids that it’s Mother’s Day, then, clean up after the breakfast lovingly prepared by small hands, and ooh and ahh at the handmade heart prepared at school without any other adult around who understands how fragile it is.

Views on Taxation from a Fiscally Conservative DADocrat

After reading several of the MOMocrat posts and comments surrounding the Teabagging (giggle), loyal reader and DADocrat, T., asked if he could weigh in. Please be kind to him.  This is his first blog post ever.

I like most of the suggestions I have seen on MOMocrats here regarding the "positive side" of why we as U.S. Citizens pay our Federal Taxes.  I am, as the MOMocrats will verify, a fiscal conservative, although I am best described as Independent politically.

A couple of points for this tax time musing I would like to make.

First, lets compare apples to apples.  There are many different taxes we pay, some pay more, less, or none at all, given the disparities in the various sales, usage, property, personal property, sin, and income taxes across the 50 states.  So lets focus on Federal Income Tax.

Yes, it pays for all of the good things that we in this Nation have come to enjoy, in many cases take for granted, or have no idea we are even paying for it.  Our leaders, chosen by us, have instituted a relatively progressive system of collecting federal income tax.  A system that is, lets all admit, less than perfect given all of the deductions and loopholes that exist, but it is nonetheless what we have to work with.

I am not going to argue that taxes or what they pay for are inherently good, bad or indifferent.  I would like to comment on how what we pay affects the overall health and function of our capitalist economy.  Yes I said capitalist.  Our system of free enterprise is what makes our Nation great, and in the long run pulls us through rough times, and allows us to prosper in good times.

To that end, I would like to point out some middle ground regarding Federal Income Tax, and how its application fluctuates given the economic situation.  There are many theories;  Keynesian economics, Supply Side economics and even the good old Laffer Curve to help us understand the effects of taxes.  But in the end it is all a matter of what rates on which income brackets are best suited to a given economic situation.  

Assuming that a 0% tax and a 100% tax would certainly result in the same thing, Zero federal revenue and chaos in the economy, the answer lies somewhere in between.  Sometimes the market needs help and sometimes it needs to be left alone.  The tricky part, and the part many will never see eye to eye on, is to what degree does the government intervene or not intervene.  In this case the intervention stands on how we as a nation decide what our present fiscal policy should be regarding taxation and intervention into free enterprise.  I contend that for this precise moment in time our government should run a deficit, should intervene in the market, and should keep "everyone's" taxes on the low end of the spectrum.  That is not to say those factors should not change when the economic situation changes.  They will always fluctuate, indeed should fluctuate, and the crazies on both ends of the dogmatic/ideological spectrum are just going to have to live with that fact.

What we do not want to occur, and I firmly believe no one blue, red or purple would ever advocate for, is a system of taxation and intervention that results in the old Soviet maxim, "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us"

T is a dad of two young boys, a fiscal conservative, and he voted for GWB.  Twice.  Try not to throw rotten tomatoes at him.  He's seen the error of his ways.  T is not a blogger, but he plays one on TV. We're also pretty sure that the last line is an attempt to get flamed by liberal whack jobs who take themselves too seriously and not a reflection of T's actual views.

Equal Pay Passed Without You, but Women Won't Forget....

Please welcome Progressive Gal, a dear friend of mine who blogs at The Liberal Life of a Navy Wife. She's been my political partner in crime since she cyber-stalked me and we met for the first time in July of 2008 and discovered we both live in the same Virginia suburb.

Although you probably wouldn't know this from reading my political posts at MOMocrats, Glenn Nye is not really my congressman.  My actual congressman, Randy Forbes, is a right wing Republican.  He was also running against a Democratic candidate in 2008 who didn't have a bat's chance in hell or two nickels to rub together.  So PG and I threw our efforts into the congressional race in the 2nd District between Thelma Drake and Glenn Nye.  Sometimes we like to pretend that we live in Nye's district but, alas, we do not.

When PG wrote our actual congressman about his vote regarding the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, he wrote back an email that pissed us both off. We had to reply, and so we wrote this response together. 

Snark by PG, wonk by me.

***************************************************

With the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act by both the House and Senate, we wanted to take the time to share the rationale of one Congressman who voted against it. Congressman Randy Forbes (R-Va.) is one of the 171 Congressmen who voted against equal pay for women. Here is an excerpt from his (or apparently a less able staffer's) lackluster rationale to defend his vote against women along with our critique of his arguments. The short version is: I really care about fair pay, really I do. I just don't want to take any measures that actually ensure any regulation. You'll just clog up the court system when they need to be concentrating on other things like ensuring my rights to use taxpayers' time and money to host Congressional Prayer Caucuses. It's all about family values, dontcha know?

Here is his response:

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, by a vote of 247 - 171 without my support. This bill would allow employees to file charges of alleged employment discrimination within 180 days of the last paycheck received that is affected by alleged discrimination. By permitting such claims to be brought within 180 days - not of a discriminatory pay decision, but of a paycheck affected by that decision - the measure would effectively eliminate the statute of limitations on such cases. While this bill's stated intention was to improve pay equity, this ill-advised provision would almost certainly encourage the filing of claims that are not timely, and thus add to the already considerable burden on the courts. There is no evidence to suggest that the current statute of limitations has resulted in any demonstrable prejudice against claims by employees for pay discrimination.

Well, Congressman Forbes, let's talk about your "problems" with the bill.