CIVIL LIBERTIES

Marital rights and sexual preference are not the responsibility of politicians.
ALL citizens, regardless of gender or sexual preference, deserve equal rights.
(LGBTQ Rights) https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/gender-sexuality-identity/
We all have the right to be treated equally. Governments have a moral and legal obligation to protect people from discrimination or violence based on who they are.
http://www.debate.org/opinions/gay-rights-should-gays-have-equal-rights-as-other-citizens
“All human beings are meant to be treated as equals. This is regardless of class, gender, race, or sexual orientation. The real question is whether or not the government gives these rights or not. The answer is no, the government does not give rights, it is in place to protect rights that are naturally occurring for all human beings. If the rights of homosexuals are threatened, it is the government's duty to protect those rights.”
https://diversity.harvard.edu/pages/statement-equal-opportunity-laws-and-policies
“Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended, and Executive Order 11246, as amended, prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
http://www.highgroundalliance.eu/the-issues/
“All people, regardless of their sexual orientation, or gender identity and sex characteristics, should be able to fully enjoy their human rights. LGBTI people are not asking for special rights, but want to live free of discrimination and achieve full equality and be able to enjoy human rights without discrimination.”
“The principle of non-discrimination is firmly inscribed in international human rights law, the European Human Rights Convention and the EU treaties. The treaty bodies, as well as the European Human Rights Court and the European Court of Justice have repeatedly affirmed that all human rights are universal and that sexual orientation and gender identity are grounds protected from discrimination under international law.”
Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation undermines our most basic values.
(LGBTQ Rights)
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/studyguides/sexualorientation.html
Sexual orientation is a relatively recent notion in human rights law and practice and one of the controversial ones in politics. Prejudices, negative stereotypes and discrimination are deeply imbedded in our value system and patterns of behaviour. For many public officials and opinion-makers the expression of homophobic prejudice remains both legitimate and respectable - in a manner that would be unacceptable for any other minority.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/01/11/discrimination-inequality-and-poverty-human-rights-perspective
“Human rights law prohibits discrimination on the basis of a wide range of prohibited grounds. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or ‘other status.’”
https://nwlc.org/resources/womens-community-sends-statement-of-values-letter-to-president-trump/
“Our priorities reflect the importance of effective policies serving women across their lifespans and regardless of income, identity or background. These priorities put the needs of women of color, immigrant women, LGBTQ people, women with disabilities, and women with low incomes front and center – recognizing that too often their experiences have been at the
margins. When the needs of women and girls – particularly those needs most important to communities of color and immigrant communities – are an afterthought, justice is denied and the ability to create effective change is undermined.”
“As we build the America of today and tomorrow, our economy, families and communities will be strengthened only if we incorporate principles of fairness, equality and inclusiveness that enable women of every race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, immigration status, family status, disability status, sexual orientation and gender expression to prosper.”
http://www.apa.org/international/pi/2012/06/un-matters.aspx
“…he (UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon) identified homophobic bullying as a form of violence endangering the human rights of LGBT persons and encouraged Member Nations to protect their citizens from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Mr. Ban articulated the profound psychological suffering that ensues from bullying, including depression and suicide.
He also underscored the responsibility of local communities — including individual citizens, community leaders, teachers, religious and public figures — to share in the challenge of ending violence against LGBT persons and protecting their own neighbors from persecution.”
If God declares a child be born gay, it's not up to me to judge them.
It’s a birthright to be born gay.

Women's Rights

It is immoral to deny females the same rights as males.
(Women's Rights)
SOURCE: ERA REDUCATION PROJECT
Women won the right to vote in 1920. The next step was supposed to be full equality for women under the Constitution. Almost a century later, that still has not happened. The United States Constitution still does not provide women with the same rights as men. Ratifying the ERA would secure a woman’s rights and provide her with legal equality in the United States of America.
Not only has the United States not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment it is the only developed nation that has not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Countries who ratify the CEDAW are required to enshrine gender equality into their domestic legislation, repeal all discriminatory provisions in their laws, and enact new provisions to guard against discrimination against women. The only countries in the United Nations who haven’t ratified CEDAW are: Iran, Palau, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Tonga, and the United States.
Comprising a majority of the population both in the United States and worldwide, women presently bear the brunt of economic injustice, violence, poverty and hunger. Studies show that improving the condition of women raises the standard of living for the community as a whole.
If the ERA were ratified, there would no longer be a reason for the United States not to ratify CEDAW. The impact on the women worldwide, if the U.S. ratified CEDAW, would be profound and life changing for tens of millions of women and girls. The enforcement of CEDAW worldwide depends on the United States commitment to women – for this commitment to be real, we need full legal equality for women here at home first.
Freedom requires unconstrained personal choice regarding one’s body.
(Women's Rights)
http://theconversation.com/the-contraceptive-pill-was-a-revolution-for-women-and-men-37193
Birth control innovations have had a remarkable impact on modern societies in the past five decades. They enhanced women’s opportunities to control childbearing and their careers, allowed them the freedom to choose contraception and plan fertility independently of their partner or spouse, increased female human capital accumulation, job market options and earnings.
The dramatic increase in women’s education, college and professional degrees, and participation in the job market since the 1960s can also be partly explained by birth control innovations.
SOURCE: https://www.lectlaw.com/files/con17.htm
The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution guarantees individuals the right to personal autonomy, which means that a person's decisions regarding his or her personal life are none of the government's business. That right, which is part of the right to privacy, encompasses decisions about parenthood, including a woman's right to decide for herself whether to complete or terminate a pregnancy, as well as the right to use contraception, freedom from forced sterilization and freedom from employment discrimination based on childbearing capacity.
As early as 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protects personal decisions regarding marriage and the family from governmental intrusion. In 1965, the Court ruled that a state cannot prohibit a married couple from practicing contraception. In 1972, it extended the right to use birth control to all people, married or single. And in its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, the Court held that the Constitution's protections of privacy as a fundamental right encompass a woman's decision to have an abortion.
The Roe decision, which legalized abortion nationwide, led to a dramatic improvement in the lives and health of women. Before Roe, women experiencing unwanted or crisis pregnancies faced the perils and indignities of self-induced abortion, back-alley abortion, or forced childbirth. Today, Roe protects the right of women to make life choices in keeping with their conscience or religious beliefs, consistent with American tradition. And by relieving American women of the burden of unwanted pregnancies, Roe has permitted them to pursue economic opportunities on a more equal basis with men.
The movement to newly restrict reproductive choice is, therefore, not only an attack on personal autonomy but also on the principle of equality for women, and it is a grave threat to all Americans' cherished right to privacy, bodily integrity and religious liberty.
Here are the American Civil Liberties Union's answers to questions frequently asked by the public about reproductive freedom and the Constitution.
How does the Constitution protect our right to privacy, including reproductive freedom, if that right isn't explicitly named in the Constitution?
Even though a right to privacy is not named, the Ninth Amendment states that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not mean that other, unnamed rights are not "retained by the people." The Supreme Court has long held that the Bill of Rights protects certain liberties that, though unspecified, are "fundamental to an individual's ability to function in society." These include the right to privacy, the right to travel, the right to vote and the right to marry. The Court has articulated various constitutional bases for these liberties, including the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. And in recent years, the Court has viewed the privacy right as an essential part of liberty, specifically protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Court has also held that the government may not restrict fundamental rights without a compelling reason, and it has repeatedly struck down various state restrictions on birth control and abortion as being unjustified by a compelling reason.
Is reproductive choice protected by constitutional principles other than the right to privacy?
Although the Supreme Court has not so held, ACLU believes that reproductive choice is not only protected by the right to privacy, but by several other constitutional principles, including the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" and the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion.
Laws that force women to bear children not only rob women of their bodily integrity but make women, as a class, involuntary servants to fetuses.
Since only women can become pregnant, only women are affected by laws that dictate whether and under what conditions childbearing should occur. By limiting only women's right to make personal decisions, laws that prohibit or restrict abortion discriminate on the basis of sex in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
All of the world's major religions regard abortion as a theological issue, although their doctrines on the issue differ. Some religions teach that abortion is a sin; others, that it is a woman's duty if a pregnancy imperils her life or health. Bans on abortion force all citizens to conform to particular religious beliefs. Thus, the ACLU believes that such laws violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, which prohibits governmental encroachment on an individual's right to act according to her own beliefs or conscience. Abortion bans that establish, as a matter of law, that a fetus is a person violate the First Amendment's stricture against "an establishment of religion."
Have restrictions on abortion always existed?
No. Abortion was legal under common law -- except in late pregnancy -- for hundreds of years, including the period when our Constitution was written.
Not until the late 1800s did a movement seeking to curtail women's reproductive choices arise in the United States, spearheaded by two groups: protestant nativists and medical doctors. The nativists opposed abortion out of fear that permitting limits on childbearing would cause the nation's white Protestant population to be "overrun" by ignorant Catholics, who had been entering the U.S. in great numbers since the 1830s and '40s. Doctors opposed it partly because they wanted to exclude midwives and traditional practitioners from performing abortions or any other medical practice, and partly because abortion in those days raised legitimate health concerns.
Societal changes also spurred opposition to abortion. The average size of families was shrinking, and the movement for women's suffrage and equality that had emerged in the 1840s was growing. These developments fueled fears of an imminent breakdown in women's purely domestic roles.
All of these factors prompted the passage of anti-abortion laws. But only in the late 20th century have anti-choice forces based their support for such laws on the concept of protecting the fetus as a person.
Shouldn't the abortion question be left to state legislatures, or voted on by the people in referenda?
No. The Bill of Rights guarantees that fundamental rights cannot be abrogated by the will of the majority. For example, even if the majority of a state's citizens wanted to ban the practice of Catholicism, the constitutional right to free exercise of religion would forbid the legislature from enacting such a ban. Similarly, the privacy right that encompasses reproductive freedom, including the choices of abortion and contraception, cannot be overruled by referenda or legislation.
Moreover, we learned during the years before Roe v. Wade how women suffered in states where abortion was illegal. Affluent women were able to obtain safe abortions by traveling to states where they were legal, while poor, rural and young women -- a disproportionate number of them women of color -- were left to dangerous, back-alley abortions or forced childbirth. Such discriminatory conditions are unacceptable.
Do abortion bans also outlaw birth control?
Sometimes. Criminal abortion laws that define a fertilized egg as a "person" outlaw birth control methods that sometimes act to prevent pregnancy after fertilization, such as the intrauterine device (IUD), Norplant and the most popular birth control pill.
In addition, because abortion bans are criminal statutes that provide for long jail terms, when implemented they have a chilling effect on contraceptive research and other reproductive technologies, such as in vitro fertilization.
Why are poor women and women of color especially hurt by anti-choice laws?
In 1972, before Roe v. Wade, 64 percent of the women who died from illegal abortion were women of color. Middle-class and white women could more readily travel to obtain a legal abortion, pay a private physician to perform it, or convince typically all-white hospital committees that the procedure was necessary to preserve their mental health (one of the claims under which some states allowed abortion before Roe). Poor and nonwhite women would once again suffer, die or bear unwanted children in disproportionate numbers if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe.
In addition, it is low-income women and, therefore, a disproportionate number of nonwhite women, who suffer the most when the government prohibits the use of public funds for abortion and abortion information, or otherwise blocks women's access to abortion. Indeed, the restrictive laws that govern public funding of medical care in effect coerce poor women to "choose" childbirth over abortion.
Why shouldn't the government be able to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term for the sake of a fetus?
Our courts have always held that the government cannot compel an individual to use his or her body as an instrument for preserving people who are already born, much less for preserving a fetus in the womb. For example, the government cannot force a relative of a child afflicted with cancer to donate bone marrow or an organ to the child, even if the child is sure to die without the donation.
Obviously, if the state cannot force someone to undergo a bone marrow or organ transplant for a person already born, it cannot force a woman to continue a pregnancy that might entail great health risks for the sake of a fetus. As the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stated in a 1989 decision, "surely a fetus cannot have rights superior to those of a person who has already been born."
Enforcement of the idea that a fetus has legal rights superseding those of the woman who carries it would make pregnant women second-class citizens with fewer rights, and more obligations, than others. Moreover, application of the "fetal rights" concept has already had devastating effects on women's right to bodily integrity. For example, cancer patient Angela Carder, forced by the District of Columbia Superior Court to undergo a caesarean delivery of her 26-week-old fetus, died prematurely as a result. Under the banner of "fetal rights," pregnant women have been prosecuted for failing to follow medical advice, and even for failing to get to a hospital quickly enough after the onset of labor. The concept also inspired industrial employers to adopt "fetal protection" policies, whereby the capacity to become pregnant, and pregnancy itself, became the bases for closing off certain jobs to all women of childbearing age who refused to be sterilized. Fortunately, the Supreme Court struck down this discriminatory practice in a 1991 decision.
Shouldn't pregnant women who drink or use other drugs be prosecuted for "child abuse"?
Absolutely not, for several reasons. Prosecutions of women for their behavior during pregnancy threaten all women's rights because, again, they are based on the "fetal rights" concept. Acceptance of that concept in law could bring about government spying and restrictions on a wide range of private behavior, in the name of "fetal protection." Having one's privacy invaded would become the price of pregnancy.
"One's right to life, liberty.... free speech.... freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." -- (1943 Supreme Court decision in West Virginia State Board of Elections v. Barnette)
Prosecutions of pregnant women for allegedly harming their fetuses through drug use contribute nothing to solving the problem of drug abuse. Instead, they create a climate of fear that deters pregnant women from seeking prenatal care and from informing doctors about their drug use. The waste of taxpayers' money on these prosecutions is especially cynical, given the scarcity of prenatal care services for poor women.
Although 85 percent of the people who use drugs are white, 80 percent of the women criminally prosecuted for drug use during pregnancy are women of color. At least one study showed that African American women are ten times more likely than white women to be reported to civil authorities for allegedly harming a fetus by using drugs.
What would really help pregnant women, and help them deliver healthy babies, is access to affordable drug treatment programs. Pregnant women are often excluded from the few such programs that exist.
Why do laws that require parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision infringe upon fundamental rights?
The Constitution protects all of us but especially those who are powerless to protect themselves. A minor who has good reasons for not wanting her parents to know she is pregnant is just such a powerless person.
Laws that require young women to inform their parents before obtaining an abortion are, at best, unnecessary since most young women automatically turn to their parents without prodding from the law. At worst, such laws are tragically misguided. Consider the plight of the underaged who become pregnant through incest (a 1970s study showed that, of girls 12 years old and younger seeking abortions, 65 percent were victims of incest).
Confidentiality in such cases can be a life or death matter: In 1989, the day before she was scheduled to obtain an abortion, 13-year-old Spring Adams was shot to death by her father. Family members claimed he had been feeling guilty about impregnating his daughter.
Pregnant minors who cannot turn to their parents need extra legal protection that ensures their access to safe, confidential abortions, rather than laws that limit such access, since minors already face greater economic and privacy barriers to medical care than adult women do. (For more information about parental notification/consent laws, see ACLU Briefing Paper #7, "Reproductive Freedom: The Rights of Minors.")
In what ways have the opponents of choice attacked the right to choose abortion and birth control?
The right to choose has been under attack ever since contraception and abortion were first legalized. But the attacks have become more common and more extreme in recent years, in part because our last two presidents have supported them. They have taken the following forms:
Opponents of choice have tried to limit the ability of federal or state health care programs to deliver abortion information and services to low- income women. First, in the late 1970s, Congress prohibited Medicaid coverage of abortion even though Medicaid fully funds all other health care, including childbirth. In 1980, the Supreme Court fund this discriminatory policy to constitutional. Since then, the federal government and many states have limited access to abortion and abortion information in a wide range of public programs. In 1991, the Supreme Court upheld federal regulations forbidding the staffs of family planning clinics that receive federal funds under Title X of the Public Health Service Act from providing their patients with accurate information about, or referrals for, abortion. States have erected such obstacles as mandatory waiting periods, restrictions on late abortions, parental notification/consent laws and laws that force doctors to give anti-abortion lectures, or that require married women to involve their husbands in their abortion choice. These laws directly restrict women's right to choose, and by increasing medical costs and physicians' liability, make access to abortion more difficult.
Some states (Louisiana and Utah, for example) have enacted laws that criminalize nearly all abortions. These laws literally turn back the clock to the days before Roe when physicians, and sometimes patients, faced jail for performing and seeking abortions.
HEALTHCARE:???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
The ACA, which extends affordable preventive health care to women, including no-cost contraception, and prohibits discrimination in health care based on gender.
Reproductive health is core to women’s, men’s, and young people’s health, well being, and freedom. And this includes fully funding Planned Parenthood.
I will work to expand Planned Parenthood which provides vital healthcare services for millions of women, who rely on its clinics every year for affordable, quality health care services including cancer prevention, STI and HIV testing and general primary health care services. This will decrease costs to taxpayers for optional healthcare providers and support of unplanned children.
Many of Planned Parenthood’s patients have no other accessible health care options. If Planned Parenthood health centers can’t provide care for them, nobody will. In fact, in more than 20% of the counties where Planned Parenthood health centers operate, there are no other health care providers who serve patients who rely on safety-net providers.
Closing Planned Parenthood health centers will leave many women with NO healthcare provider. Even in areas where other providers exist, those providers won’t be able to take up the slack. Per year, Planned Parenthood health centers provide birth control for nearly 2 million people, as well as over 4.2 million STD tests and treatments; over 320,000 breast exams; and nearly 295,000 Pap tests. It’s no wonder the American Public Health Association says it’s “ludicrous” for politicians to claim that other providers could simply absorb Planned Parenthood’s patients.
Meanwhile, more than two thirds of states already report difficulty ensuring enough providers for Medicaid, the nation’s largest publicly funded health care program. Providers of ob-gyn care who accept Medicaid, such as Planned Parenthood, are in particularly short supply. In addition, Planned Parenthood health centers are more likely than other safety-net family planning providers to provide the full range of birth control (including IUDs and implants) on-site and more likely to offer rapid-result HIV testing. For many women in America, Planned Parenthood is the only place where they are able to get this needed quality care.
If extreme politicians shut down Planned Parenthood, 2.4 million patients would lose access to care.
Here’s the breakdown: Approximately 60% of Planned Parenthood’s patients access health care at its health centers through publicly funded programs like Medicaid or Title X. Legislation that “defunds” Planned Parenthood immediately blocks those people from accessing care at Planned Parenthood health centers. In addition, we know that politicians real goal is to shut down Planned Parenthood health centers across the country. If these politicians succeed, it will be a national health disaster and devastate care.
When patients can no longer turn to Planned Parenthood for care, there are devastating results. We’ve already seen them firsthand at the state level.
In Texas, one study found that pregnancy-related deaths doubled after the state stopped reimbursing Planned Parenthood and imposed stringent funding cuts for women’s health — and 54% fewer patients in the state received care. In Wisconsin, fewer women could access lifesaving cancer screenings following the closure of Planned Parenthood health centers.
We also know that people will be hurt if Planned Parenthood health centers are forced to close their doors because so many people depend on Planned Parenthood for health care. Think about it: An estimated one in five American women visits Planned Parenthood health centers during her lifetime. Without Planned Parenthood’s over 600 health centers across the country, many patients would not have timely access to basic preventive health care services
Bottom line: Denying health care and education to millions of teens and adults will not make our country great. Denying care will only risk people’s lives and well-being, and limit their choices — all in service of an extreme agenda that Americans overwhelmingly reject. Politicians like Vice President Mike Pence, who’s led the charge to attack care at Planned Parenthood, would hurt those who already face significant barriers to accessing health care, and as such are some of our most vulnerable people. I stand with Planned Parenthood in doing everything in my power to stop them.
Statistics from Planned Parenthood - Missouri
Planned Parenthood affiliates in Missouri serve more than 50,000 women, men, and young people annually
Over 4,600 Pap tests, detecting and preventing possible cancers.
More than 6,100 breast exams.
Education programs to 7,600 people.
In Missouri, every $1 spent on family planning services saves $7.09 in taxpayer-funded health care.
Over 55% of Planned Parenthood affiliate patients in Missouri are at or below 150% of the federal poverty level.
Of the 684,360 Missourians in need of contraceptive care, 393,170 need publicly funded family planning services.
Planned Parenthood in Missouri has over 350,000 supporters and volunteers.
(Planned Parenthood affiliates in Missouri also have health centers in Kansas and Illinois. While some of those patients are included in these numbers, Missourians make up the majority of patients.)
Statistics from Planned Parenthood - Nationwide
An estimated one in five women in the U.S. has visited a Planned Parenthood health center.
Helps women prevent an estimated 560,000 unintended pregnancies in a single year.
Planned Parenthood websites, including Planned Parenthood en Espanol, receive an estimated 68 million visits in a single year.
Seventy-five percent of Planned Parenthood healthcare patients live with incomes of 150 percent of the federal poverty level or less, the equivalent of $36,900 a year for a family of four in 2017.
SOURCE: PLANNED PARENTHOOD
Statewide:
Planned Parenthood affiliates in Missouri serve more than 50,000 women, men, and young people annually
Over 4,600 Pap tests, detecting and preventing possible cancers.
More than 6,100 breast exams.
Education programs to 7,600 people.
In Missouri, every $1 spent on family planning services saves $7.09 in taxpayer-funded health care. (Guttmacher Institute, 2014)
Over 55% of Planned Parenthood affiliate patients in Missouri are at or below 150% of the federal poverty level.
Of the 684,360 Missourians in need of contraceptive care, 393,170 need publicly funded family planning services. (Guttmacher Institute, 2015)
Planned Parenthood in Missouri has over 350,000 supporters and volunteers.
(Planned Parenthood affiliates in Missouri also have health centers in Kansas and Illinois. While some of those patients are included in these numbers, Missourians make up the majority of patients.)
Nationwide:
An estimated one in five women in the U.S. has visited a Planned Parenthood health center.
Helps women prevent an estimated 560,000 unintended pregnancies in a single year.
PP websites, including PP en Espanol, receive an estimated 68 million visits in a single year.
Seventy-five percent of PP hc patients live with incomes of 150 percent of the federal poverty level or less, the equivalent of $36,900 a year for a family of four in 2017.
American women deserve equal pay for equal work.
(Women's Rights)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/01/2017-womens-history-month/98247518/
According to the non-profit Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR). Women earn 80 cents for every dollar earned by men, according to the National Partnership for Women & Families and black women earn 63 cents and Latinas only 54 cents. Female doctors are paid about $20,000 less a year than male doctors.
SOURCE: https://now.org/resource/women-deserve-equal-pay-factsheet/d. American productivity will be weakened until women are treated as equal partners.
For full-time, year-round workers, women are paid on average only 77 percent of what men are paid; for women of color, the gap is significantly wider. These wage gaps stubbornly remain despite the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, and a variety of other legislation prohibiting employment discrimination.
Women still are not receiving equal pay for equal work, let alone equal pay for work of equal value. This disparity not only affects women’s spending power, it penalizes their retirement security by creating gaps in Social Security and pensions.
Facts About Pay Equity
-   According to the Shriver Report released in 2014, women’s average annual paychecks reflected only 77 cents for every $1.00 earned by men. Specifically, for women of color, the gap is even wider: In comparison to a white, non-Hispanic man’s dollar, African American women earn only 64 cents and Latinas just 55 cents.
-   Pay equity varies by location. In Washington, DC, women average 90 cents to every man’s dollar, partly due to transparency in government wages. Ironically, the “Equality State” is the worst, with women in Wyoming earning just 64 percent of what their male counterparts make.
-   In 1963, when the Equal Pay Act was passed, full-time working women were paid 59 cents on average for every dollar paid to men. This means it took 44 years for the wage gap to close just 18 cents — a rate of less than half a penny a year. This narrowing of the gap has slowed substantially since the turn of the century.
-   Women’s median pay was only equal in personal care and service work as of 2009. According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics study from 2009, construction was the industry closest to gender pay equity. Even men working in the 20 most common occupations for women earn more than women working in those same occupations.
-   According to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR), if equal pay for women were instituted immediately, across the board, it would result in an annual $447.6 billion gain nationally for women and their families. Over fifteen years, a typical woman loses $499,101 due to pay inequity.
-   When The WAGE Project looked exclusively at full-time workers, they estimated that women with a high school diploma lose as much as $700,000 over a lifetime of work, women with a college degree lose $1.2 million and professional school graduates may lose up to $2 million. Not only are these inequities enormously detrimental to women and their families, wage inequities follow women into their retirement years, reducing their Social Security benefits, pensions, savings and other financial resources.
-   A study by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) examined how the wage gap affects college graduates. Wage disparities kick in shortly after college graduation, when women and men should, absent discrimination, be on a level playing field. One year after graduating college, women are paid on average only 82 percent of their male counterparts’ wages, and during the next 10 years, women’s wages fall even further behind, dropping to only 69 percent of men’s earnings ten years after college. According to the AAUW report, “even after researchers controlled for age, education, hours worked beyond full time, industry sector, marital status, and presence of children in the household, female managers still earned just 81 percent of what male managers did, leaving an unexplained 19 percent pay gap,” and later observed, “women continue to earn less than men do, even when they make the same choices.”
-   Women still are segregated into “pink-collar” jobs that affect their wages, according to an AAUW report. Based on their analysis of Department of Education data, 40 percent of women work in historically female occupations like social work, teaching and nursing, but only five percent of men were employed in these fields as of 2013. Even women studying in STEM fields are relegated to the typing pool. Female science and business majors are twice as likely as men in the same fields to find jobs in clerical work. Men get into management instead.
-   A far greater proportion of women cut back or interrupt time in the paid workforce to deal with family responsibilities. 15 years after graduating college, male business school graduates of the University of Chicago were making 75 percent more than female graduates–unless those women had no children and rarely took time off.
-   Time out of the workforce can directly impact women’s earning potential. Often mothers returning to the workforce experience a “motherhood penalty.” Employers are less likely to hire moms. If mothers are hired, they tend to be paid less than childless women, a pay cut worth more than their time outside the workforce. Fathers are not punished compared to other men.
-   It is important to note that women’s choices regarding work are not made in a vacuum. Factors that impact women’s decisions include: workplace discrimination, either experienced or anticipated; a lack of women-friendly policies and resources in the workplace; persistent stereotypes that steer women and men toward different education, training and career paths; different societal expectations for wives compared to husbands and mothers compared to fathers; and myriad forms of sexism, both subtle and blatant.
American productivity will be weakened until women are treated as equal partners.
(Women's Rights)
https://iwpr.org/publications/impact-equal-pay-poverty-economy/
Women’s earnings are increasingly important to the economic stability of families.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-women-make-boardrooms-more-productive-2015-12
When women enter the boardroom and engage in high-level discussions, there is an immediate and positive change in productivity, says Xero general manager and former Microsoft Ventures director James Maiocco.
The tech veteran is an outspoken supporter of female entrepreneurship and regularly volunteers his time to organizations like Women 2.0, a group that advocates diversity among employees, entrepreneurs, and investors in technology.
In his experience, Maiocco says executive conversations with women at the table "tend to be more professional and have better outcomes."
He admits that men have a tendency to engage in elbow rubbing and locker room talk that at times can be unprofessional and unproductive, but says when women join the team, much of that unproductive behavior disappears.
"With women and other diverse backgrounds at the table it brings a level of transparency and accountability," Maiocco says. "We have jobs with a lot of responsibility and obligation. We should not be acting like kids in a locker room, and we should be getting down to business."
Women are still dramatically underrepresented on boards, however. They hold just 18.8% of board seats at major American companies, according to the 2020 Women On Boards gender diversity index. In fact, there are 10 companies in the S&P 500, including Garmin and Discovery Communications, that still do not have any female board members.
Maiocco believes having more women and minorities at the table is better for business, since diverse opinions can save a company from embarrassing PR nightmares that often spring from bad assumptions made by a single governing demographic.
"Making sure the executive circles are inclusive of women and diverse backgrounds, in general, brings more opinions and better outcomes, because you are getting a look at something in a different way," he says. "We are often blind to our own biases or assumptions because we might not even realize we are making them. The right voices at the table can question and correct those unintended assumptions."
Over the last two decades, Maiocco says he's seen firsthand that bringing women and other people of diverse backgrounds into executive roles and the boardroom consistently leads to increased productivity and stronger businesses.
Gender should not be an obstacle to receiving excellent healthcare.
Affordable healthcare for women saves lives and tax dollars.
Violence against women and girls is a national epidemic we CAN cure.
(Women's Rights)
SOURCE: http://us.breakthrough.tv/resources/13-reasons-why-we-must-drive-the-culture-change-needed-to-make-violence-against-women-unacceptable/
We’ll start with the bad news.
-   Violence against women affects everyone. When women are unequal and unsafe, they cannot fully participate in society. Only when everyone is safe in public and private, can women, men, children, families, homes, neighborhoods, workplaces, communities, institutions, economies, ecosystems, and nations truly thrive.
-   Violence against women is rampant. 35% of women worldwide have experienced physical and/or sexual violence. Look around whatever room you’re in: that’s about 1 in 3 of the women you see. Violence against women (VAW) takes countless forms, from domestic abuse and dating violence to online and street harassment, sexual harassment at work, rape as a weapon of war, bullying, reproductive coercion, forced and early marriage, stalking, and more. (For global stats, see UN Women.) And then there’s the always-hovering threat of violence that leads women to adjust their walking routes, carry pepper spray, watch friends’ backs at parties, avoid public transportation, stay inside or offline, or tell their daughters not to wear heels in case they have to run. All of the above interfere with women’s everyday ability to live, go, do, work, love, thrive, and just be.
-   Violence and discrimination against women and girls are human rights violations. The underlying causes of violence against women are inequality and discrimination. A life free of violence and discrimination is a basic human right, one that every person and child deserves. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes that:
-   Violence against women is everywhere. Violence is one expression of women’s unequal status. It varies in form and degree across cultures and countries, but persists worldwide.
-   Violence against women is expensive. The annual cost of intimate partner violence alone in the U.S. alone exceeds $5.8 billion, including both medical costs and lost productivity. Violence against women has been shown to reduce countries’ gross national product.
-   Violence against women hurts men and children. And leads to more violence. Witnessing violence in one’s home is the strongest predictor of violence in one’s adult and intimate relationships.
-   Violence and discrimination against women is often seen as normal, not a big deal, a private problem, or the fault of…women. That’s what’s happening every time a woman is blamed for “getting herself raped.” (Welcome to “rape culture”—the norms that emerge when people and institutions tolerate, shrug off, or justify rape.) That’s what happened when the NFL punished players more harshly for possessing pot than for committing domestic violence. That’s what happened when many men surveyed in Delhi said women bring street harassment upon themselves (ICRW, 2013). And that’s what Dean Obeidallah means when he says: “A woman is attacked once every 15 seconds in this country. If women were doing this to men, we’d have gender profiling, we’d want terror alerts, we’d be going crazy.”
And now, the good news.
     -   Ending violence against women will help end violence against everyone. We stand
against all forms of violence and discrimination. And in fact, all are interconnected. Violence
against women—and gender-based violence in general—fuels and is fueled by virtually all
other societal ills and inequalities. They’re the same issues that drive bullying, homophobia,
anti-trans* discrimination and violence, and more. We see preventing violence against women
is a key entry point for addressing them all and promoting all humans’ human rights.
     -   Violence against women is preventable. Mallika Dutt: “Violence against women is
staggering in scale. It is also one of the easiest things to stop. We don’t need to create a new
vaccine or a new technology. We just need to act. We can start in our homes and our schools
by teaching kids to respect boys and girls. We can demand enforcement of laws that protect
women and punish offenders. We can speak up in our workplaces, fraternities, congregations,
and schools. We can use social media to challenge bullying and promote human rights. The
power to change the world—for women, for girls, for everyone—is in our hands.”
-   There’s never been a better moment. Men and women from Delhi to Dallas are—now
more than ever—realizing their responsibility and power to end violence against women and
standing together to do it. Awareness and momentum, among civil society, government
leaders, the media, and more, have never been stronger: in the U.S., in India, around the world.
This is a moment we can seize together.
     -   When we end violence against women, everyone wins. We believe that the norms and
cultures that cause and continue violence against women hurt us all. These norms include
limiting, damaging notions and models of the “right” way to be a man or a woman. The more
we challenge and dismantle those norms, the more we are all safe, free, and able to be our best
and realest selves.
     -   A world in which violence against women is unacceptable is a better world for all.
SOURCE: Reproaction
The days of forcing girls to take home economics, while boys take wood shop, are long gone. But gender inequality in U.S. schools remains.
Today, one in five women, as well as many LGBT and gender-nonconforming students, will experience sexual violence during their time in college. Many turn to their schools for support, only to be ignored, dismissed, or blamed — and without support, many survivors are forced to drop classes or leave school entirely. Violence and institutional indifference cost too many students the opportunity to learn.
Although Title IX and the Clery Act require schools to take action to address gender-based violence, these federal laws set only a floor for schools' responsibilities to create safe and equitable learning environments. States can and should do more to keep schools from sweeping sexual violence under the rug.
Students, parents, and alumni deserve comprehensive data on how their schools respond to reports of sexual violence. By adopting common-sense transparency requirements, states can keep schools from sweeping sexual and dating violence under the rug, ensure prospective students and parents can make informed choices about where to attend college, and provide students and alumni with the data they need to hold schools accountable in creating and sustaining safe learning environments.