• Congress Again Sends D & X Abortion Ban to President
• Seventeen States Enact D & X Abortion Bans
• House Anti-Family Planning Leaders Stall Foreign Aid Bills
• Republican Amendments Slash Domestic Family Planning

EDUCATION EQUITY

• Amendment to Education Bill Threatens Sex Equity Programs
• Sex Equity in Vocational Education Undermined

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

• Canady-McConnell Consideration Schedule Slides
• ISTEA Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Defended

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

• VAWA II Introduction Re-Scheduled

• List of All Updates
• Look up legislation on Thomas
• Sign up for the NOW Action Alert list
• Contact your Senators
• Contact your Representatives

This means that abortion rights supporters have a chance at sustaining an expected presidential veto if we can persuade a handful of House members to change their vote to support the President. A veto is sustained when either the House or Senate fails to achieve a two-thirds of majority of members present and voting (and when there is a quorum). There are 435 members of the House, minus three members who have resigned (Reps. Susan Molinari (R-NY), Floyd Flake (D-NY), and Tom Foglietta (D-PA)). Also, to be subtracted is the usual handful of members absent each day. H.R. 1122 is expected to go to the White House shortly; 10 days will be allowed for the president to veto it and then it will be returned to Congress for the final vote.

The Senate amendments were proposed by the American Medical Association (AMA) and do nothing to protect women's health, merely add some language allowing for a state medical board hearing for physicians who may be accused of performing the D & X abortion procedure, plus a stipulation that the procedure must be "deliberate and intentional." The AMA broke long-standing tradition in advocating the prohibition of a recognized medical procedure. The move was decried by many of the AMA's own members, including a number of national medical organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American Nurses Association (ANA), and American Medical Women's Association (AMWA). The 37,000 member ACOG wrote House members that "H.R. 1122 is bad for women, bad for doctors, and bad for our nation's public health."

Immediate Action Needed:

A great deal misinformation has been provided by abortion opponents to members of Congress about the D & X abortion procedure. Legal analysts and medical professionals agree that the vague language of the bill means that nearly all 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion procedures could be prohibited. Also, because of the vagueness the practical effect will be chilling to all physicians who will not want to risk being jailed and losing their medical licenses. The pre- and post-viability prohibition is obviously unconstitutional as the Supreme Court has said in Roe v. Wade and other cases that the government may not restrict abortion prior to viability. After viability, the government may restrict abortion except when necessary to protect a woman's life or health.

Twenty-three states, thus far, have defeated so-called "partial birth" abortion bans; 19 state legislatures voted to defeat bills or failed to act before the end of their sessions. Five governors vetoed bans: in Alaska, Florida, Illinois, Missouri and New Jersey. However, the Alaska legislature overrode the governor's veto and, in Missouri, the governor's veto was sustained. Two new D & X ban bills were introduced in a special session following the veto in Missouri, but died with the closing of that session.

Still under consideration are D & X abortion ban bills in Massachusetts, New York and Wisconsin.

Action Needed:

The Senate had previously passed these measures without the Mexico City provision and it seemed obvious that Senate conferees would not agree to it in final versions. President Clinton has threatened a veto because of the Mexico City language and, with emotions running high in the House, Majority Leader Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX) and Majority Whip Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX) dared the president to do just that. Meanwhile, federal aid and State Department programs are temporarily operating under a Continuing Resolution (CR) which expires on Oct. 23rd.

Specifically, the Smith amendment stipulates that international non-governmental and multilateral organizations receiving aid must certify that they will not -- even with their own non-U.S. funds -- provide abortion services, unless done to safe the life of a woman or in cases of rape or incest. The amendment further specifies that these organizations will not violate the laws of any foreign country concerning abortion or, engage in any activities to alter the laws or governmental policies regarding abortion. If any organization does not comply with these provisions, they will no longer be eligible for U.S. international family planning assistance. Further, the Smith amendment gags foreign organizations from discussing with their own governments anything related to abortion policy or law and would defund organizations providing voluntary, preventative family planning services.

Finally, this dangerous amendment denies U.S. contributions to the United Nations Fund for Population Assistance (UNFPA) unless the president certifies that UNFPA has stopped all program activities in China. This latter provision is related to reports of coerced abortions in China. Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Ben Gilman (R-NY), Nita Lowey (D-NY) and Jim Greenwood (R-PA) tried in vain to pass a substitute amendment that would have countered many of Smith's bad provisions, but this failed by a vote of 218-210.

Action Needed:

Anti-family planning Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID) was successful in getting her amendment adopted to have $4.7 million of the $9 million cut from the Title X program transferred to a program providing meals for senior citizens. Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) proposed to move $36 million from Title X family planning into breast cancer research at the National Cancer Institute, but this was defeated. The Senate approved of a funding level of $208.5 million for Title X programs in the new fiscal year, but the final appropriated amount was still being negotiated in conference committee as of early October.

Prior to the August recess, the Senate adopted by voice vote an amendment offered by Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO) that extends the Hyde Amendment (which prohibits the provision of abortion services to low-income Medicaid eligible women except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest) to Medicaid recipients shifted to managed care plans. Earlier efforts by House abortion opponents would have required any managed health care plan participating in the Medicaid program to drop abortion coverage for all patients. But this onerous provision was beaten back largely through the efforts of Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY).

In a section of the Budget Reconciliation Bill which authorizes an expansion of health insurance for children and youth under age 20 (the CHILD Program), the Senate incorporated a Hyde Amendment prohibiting abortion coverage. The same bill, in its sections on Medicare+Choice and Medicaid managed care plans, includes a prohibition against "gagging" health care professionals in their counseling of patients on various reproductive health services. But, the particular way in which the language following that provision is constructed essentially overrides the "gag" prohibition and extends to those plans a so-called "conscience clause." The potential outcome is one in which any managed care plan which provides health care services to young people under the CHILD program could decline on moral or religious grounds to provide counseling or information about abortion, family planning, sterilization and AIDS treatment. Close observers believe that abortion opponents will have these "conscience clauses" extended to every managed health care plan in the country in order to deny to the vast majority of women health consumers abortion -- and perhaps even family planning -- services.

For the FY 98 Department of Defense Authorization bill (HR 1119), the ban on abortions for servicewomen and their dependents in military hospitals overseas (even if they pay costs out- of-pocket) was continued.

Action Needed:

If passed into law, the Gorton amendment would not only effectively dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, but have a fundamental impact on how education is delivered in every elementary and secondary school in the U.S. No longer would schools be required to promote sex-bias free education, assure that teacher training be sensitive to sex-biased practices, promote math and science courses to girls, combat sexual harassment as part of Safe Schools programs, or attend to the special needs of pregnant and parenting teens. In addition, federal civil rights protections for race, ethnicity, gender, and disability that are part of elementary and secondary education laws would be removed!

NOW co-signed a letter along with other educational and women's rights organizations protesting the Gorton amendment and sent this to members of the Senate. Women's education advocates say that the Clinton administration is doing very little to defend sex equity programs.

Action Needed:

The picture in the Senate for these programs is much better, however. In late September, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee passed a partially completed Workforce Investment Partnership Act (S. 1186) with some sex equity provisions restored. But a great deal remains to be resolved and consideration of this important bill is on a fast track. More support is needed for programs serving single parents and displaced homemakers in vocational education. Displaced homemakers have been re-inserted as a targeted group (along with low income, disabled, and other special needs groups) for job training in that section of the bill and there is stipulation that efforts should be made to train women for non-traditional (and often higher-paying) jobs. However, various federal mandates to require states to meet certain sex equity goals have been diluted, including no definition of what is sex equity and no requirement that states' leadership funds are to be used to achieve sex equity.

Action Needed:

A victory by affirmative action advocates was scored recently when Houston Mayor Bob Lanier convinced city council members that the so-called Houston Civil Rights Initiative (CRI) was deceptively worded. The CRI, advanced by arch-affirmative action opponent Edward Blum, is patterned after California's Prop. 209 and would essentially repeal all affirmative action programs. However, opinion polls still show that only 35% of those questioned would keep such programs, while 47% would end those programs. With the Blum language, 69% would end affirmative action. The new language reads: "Shall the Charter of the City of Houston be amended to end the use of Affirmative Action for women and minorities in the operation of City of Houston employment and contracting, including ending the current program and any similar programs in the future?" The question will be on the ballot in November.

In the meantime, an affirmative action state activist training session is set for November 15th and 16th at the George Meany Center for Labor Studies, Inc., 10000 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD (just outside Washington, D.C.). The intensive session is titled "Affirmative Action at the Crossroads: A Call to Action!" and is designed to develop a coherent national strategy to combat state affirmative action initiatives, like California's Proposition 209. Costs for the conference and on-site housing are moderate. More information may be obtained from the NOW Action Center, Wendy Weinhold, Gov't. Relations Intern, or by calling the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights at (202) 466-3311.

Action Needed: