In Colorado, a Question of Personhood

Oct 30, 2014Andrea FlynnShulie Eisen

In Colorado, the Senate race is particularly divided by issues of personhood and the minimum wage. Read the other state-by-state analyses in this series here.

In Colorado, the Senate race is particularly divided by issues of personhood and the minimum wage. Read the other state-by-state analyses in this series here.

In September, a writer for the Denver Post accurately summed up the heated Colorado Senate race: "If Colorado's U.S. Senate race were a movie, the set would be a gynecologist's office, complete with an exam table and a set of stirrups." Perhaps more than in any other state, women’s issues have indeed been front and center in the sparring match between incumbent Senator Mark Udall (D) and Representative Cory Gardner (R). All eyes are on Colorado’s women’s vote, which is likely to determine that state’s next U.S. Senator, and in the process, set the course on a broad range of socioeconomic issues that disproportionately impact women.

Where do women in Colorado stand?

  • At first glance, women in Colorado are faring better than their counterparts in other states. Colorado has more women in the state legislature than any other state, and ranks among the top ten for the proportion of women with a bachelor's degree or higher and for its share of women in the workforce. But as a report from the Colorado Women’s Foundation illustrates, those gains obscure the disparities facing poor women and women of color.
  • Colorado women face higher poverty rates than men, and women of color experience rates twice that of white women. Two-thirds of all low-wage workers in Colorado are women. Families of color are particularly affected – median incomes for Black and Hispanic households are about 35 percent below the statewide median, and for American Indians, 40 percent below.
  • Only about half of low-income households headed by single women receive food stamps, and childcare in Colorado is among the most unaffordable in the country.
  • Colorado women make nearly $11,000 less annually compared to their male counterparts and are paid only 77 cents to every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men (African-American and Hispanic women earn 61 and 53 cents, respectively).
  • The state has no paid sick leave or family leave policies.

Where do the candidates stand?

Affordable Care Act

Colorado’s uninsured rate is 11 percent (down from 17 percent in 2013), thanks to its state exchange and Medicaid expansion. It now ranks fifth nationally among states’ reductions in the rate of uninsured under the ACA. It is predicted that Medicaid expansion will yield significant economic results: a 41.5 percent increase in federal payments, a more than $600 increase in average household earnings. the creation of 22,000 jobs, and a 20 percent growth in employment.

Udall was an early supporter of – and stands by his vote for – the ACA. He has said he is committed to making sure the ACA works for Colorado families. “We cannot go back to the old, broken system when adults and children could be refused coverage because of a preexisting condition, the sick faced annual coverage limits, and all of us were subject to persistent rate increases.”

As a representative Gardner opposed Colorado’s expansion of Medicaid, citing concerns over the state’s ability to pay for it. He has also cited concerns over discontinued plans and increased premiums resulting from the ACA’s new coverage requirements. “Health care should be about patients and doctors, not government and bureaucrats … As a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, I will be at the forefront of the effort to outline replacement legislation.”

Family Planning

Udall sponsored a bill in the Senate – the Not My Bosses’ Business Act – that would have nullified the Hobby Lobby ruling. He has also voted against banning federal funding for Planned Parenthood and against the Blunt Amendment, which would have granted broad exemptions to the ACA’s contraceptive mandate. He said, “It astounds me that some still think the legality of birth control and access to reproductive health services should be subject to debate.”

Gardner voted in support of banning federal funding for Planned Parenthood. He voted against a proposal that would allow pharmacists to prescribe emergency contraception (EC) and against a measure that would require insurance companies to cover contraception. He has opposed a bill that would expand Medicaid coverage for birth control and another that would allow hospitals to tell rape victims about EC. He spoke out against legislation that required science-based sexuality education.

After the Supreme Court announced the Hobby Lobby decision, Gardner said, “The court made the right decision today to protect religious liberty and the First Amendment.” He later recommended that oral contraceptives be made available over-the-counter, a move that many women’s health advocates criticized as being a blatant attempt at trying to get women’s votes.

Abortion

Udall received a 100 percent pro-choice rating from NARAL and has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood. He has voted against so-called partial-birth abortion bans and against measures to prevent the transportation of minors across state lines to get an abortion. He supported a measure to ensure that rape victims have access to emergency contraception in hospitals and supported legislation to expand funding and access to contraceptive services. “I’ll never stop fighting to protect the rights of Colorado women because I trust them and respect the choices they make.”

Gardner received a zero percent pro-choice rating from NARAL. He voted against the 2009 Birth Control Protection Act and for a bill that would have allowed hospitals to refuse to provide an abortion, even when a woman’s life is at risk. He sponsored a state bill that would have banned all abortions in the state, co-sponsored a personhood bill at the federal level (Life at Conception Act), and in August, backed both state and federal "personhood" measures in an effort to ban abortion. He has since changed his position on personhood efforts, citing his belief that restricting birth control is simply not right (the current CO personhood measures would have restricted EC). In one recent poll of likely female voters, 60 percent say they don’t trust Gardner when he says he no longer supports a personhood amendment.

Pay Equity

Udall voted for the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009 (meant to restore protections against pay discrimination on the basis of sex, race, national origin, age, religion, or disability) and is a co-sponsor of the 2013 Paycheck Fairness Act (which has yet to be voted on but would strengthen protections against sex discrimination in wages).            

Gardner helped block efforts to move the Paycheck Fairness Act forward in the U.S. House in 2013. However, when he was in the state legislature, he supported legislation that designated Equal Pay Day and acknowledged the “persistent problem of wage disparity among various groups.” In one recent poll of likely female voters, 40 percent said Gardner’s role in helping the House block the consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act makes them less likely to vote for him.

Minimum Wage

Udall voted for the federal minimum wage hike bill in April 2014.            

 

Gardner opposes raising the federal minimum wage, saying that he thinks that “if there’s a minimum wage issue, shouldn’t the state of Colorado be best equipped to handle the minimum wage in the state of Colorado?” However, Gardner has also opposed state-level efforts—he criticized a 2006 ballot measure to increase the state minimum wage in Colorado, voted against a state measure to implement an amendment (approved by voters) to raise the minimum wage, and sponsored a floor amendment in 2007 to strip increases in the minimum wage adjusted for the consumer price index.

In one recent poll of likely female voters, close to two-thirds (61 percent) said they supported raising the minimum wage, and 41 percent said Gardner’s opposition to raising the minimum wage would make them less likely to vote for him.

Read the rest of this series, to be published over the course of Thursday, October 30 and Friday, October 31, here.

Andrea Flynn is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. Follow her on Twitter @dreaflynn.

Shulie Eisen is an independent reproductive health care consultant. Follow her on Twitter @shulieeisen.

Share This

Election 2014: Women's Rights in the Balance

Oct 30, 2014Andrea Flynn

As the election approaches, a number of close-call races could have disparate impact on women. This piece is the overview in our Election 2014: Women's Rights in the Balance series. The state-by-state analyses, to be published over the course of Thursday, October 30 and Friday, October 31, can be found here.

As the election approaches, a number of close-call races could have disparate impact on women. This piece is the overview in our Election 2014: Women's Rights in the Balance series. The state-by-state analyses, to be published over the course of Thursday, October 30 and Friday, October 31, can be found here.

Pundits have long anticipated that women voters would be the deciding factor in many of the midterm races across the United States. This seems only fitting, given that the outcome of many of this year’s races will shape policies and programs that have a disproportionate impact on women's health, economic security, and overall wellbeing. From birth control to fair pay to food stamps, there is a lot at stake, both at the national and state level.

With the elections less than a week away, control of the Senate is a tossup (and, according to a number of polls, that’s being generous to the Democrats). What if the Republicans gain a majority? For starters, it would certainly make it more difficult to advance proactive legislation on health access, reproductive and sexual health and rights, gun violence, safety net funding, and financial regulations, among other issues.

Even with the current Democratic majority, getting legislation passed has been a herculean effort. Remember a year ago when the federal government shut down for two weeks because of the GOP’s disdain for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and specifically its requirement that insurance companies pay for birth control? If lawmakers can’t do the job of keeping open the very government that employs them, it’s hardly surprising they can’t find a legislative fix to the Hobby Lobby ruling. The “Not My Bosses Business Act” – introduced by Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Mark Udall (D-CO) in the wake of this summer’s Supreme Court decision – would have restored the ACA requirement that employer-based health plans cover all FDA-approved methods of contraception. But Republicans filibustered the vote, Democrats fell four votes shy of breaking the filibuster, and the bill met a swift end. Nothing about the fate of this bill – or many others like it – was surprising given the complete intransigence that has come to characterize Washington.

A more conservative Senate will mean even more attempts to reduce non-defense discretionary spending while concerns about ISIS, Russia, and other national security issues drive up the Pentagon budget. It will mean greater efforts to shrink the social safety net, to keep financial regulations at bay, to restrict reproductive health access, and to dismantle the ACA, President Obama’s crowning political achievement. As Politico pointed out recently, it’s nearly impossible for Republicans to completely repeal the ACA. But they would certainly try to overturn the law’s most vulnerable components or use appropriations and reconciliation battles to eviscerate it. And Republicans would use their strengthened political muscle to push for other measures that have been sidelined under Democratic control. Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell has promised to push for a 20-week abortion ban if Republicans gain control of the Senate, and there would surely be more where that came from.

Of course, President Obama would veto any legislation that undermines his own policy priorities, but it remains to be seen how much political capital he would need to spend – and what he would be asked to give up – in order to stay the course. Funding for Planned Parenthood in exchange for the employer mandate? Federal protections for contraceptive access in order to pay for essential safety programs like food stamps? Reducing funding for Medicaid expansion in order to authorize a funding extension for the Children’s Health Insurance Program?

Meanwhile, because of the gridlock in federal politics, states have become an increasingly important battleground for both parties to test and advance their priorities, particularly those that relate to critical – and often controversial – social issues. Each party has seen wins thanks to the shifting focus to the states. Look no further than the historic gains in LGBT rights on the one hand, and the significant restrictions in abortion access on the other, that have swept the country in recent years. This election will determine the path states will take in a number of other important areas: Medicaid expansion, abortion and family planning access, safety net programs, fair and equal pay, and paid sick and family leave.

To more deeply explore what the midterm elections will mean for women and families, the Roosevelt Institute is releasing a series of articles that examine where the candidates in a number of “close-call” states stand on the issues. Many of these articles were researched by and co-written with students from these states involved with Roosevelt’s Campus Network, the nation’s largest student policy think tank. Our hope is that these pieces will help voters and advocates assess the pressing health and socioeconomic challenges women face in states across the country, and to illustrate where each candidate stands on policies that will have a disproportionate impact on women and their families. 

Read the state-by-state analyses in this series, to be published over the course of Thursday, October 30 and Friday, October 31, here.

Andrea Flynn is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. Follow her on Twitter @dreaflynn.

Share This

Daily Digest - October 30: The Economic Impact of Cities' Sister Act

Oct 30, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Sister City Relationships Boost Business in Chicago, Phoenix and S.F. (Next City)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Sister City Relationships Boost Business in Chicago, Phoenix and S.F. (Next City)

Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellow for Defense and Diplomacy Nehemiah Rolle examines how these relationships allow cities to be power players in the global economy.

Why Millennials Can Fix Healthcare (Huffington Post)

Campus Network Senior Fellow for Health Care Emily Cerciello argues that Millennials' focus on how businesses can improve society could dramatically change the health industry.

Why Dems Are Winning on Minimum Wage (Politico)

Timothy Noah points at numerous races in which raising the minimum wage is proving the perfect wedge issue, and could help to boost Democratic turnout at the polls.

What Happens When People—Rather Than Politicians—Are Given the Chance to Vote for a Higher Minimum Wage? (The Nation)

Michelle Chen says economic justice advocates see these ballot initiatives as a far more straightforward way to improve people's lives than dealing with politicians.

Watchdog Slams Mortgage, Student Loan Servicers (The Hill)

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau says it has found a broad array of illegal practices, reports Benjamin Goad, but it won't be announcing which servicers are breaking the law.

New on Next New Deal

Election 2014: Women's Rights in the Balance

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Andrea Flynn introduces her series examining the ways that close-call races across the country could impact health care, economic issues, and more. The state-by-state analyses, published throughout today and tomorrow, can be found here.

We Need Pretrial Detention Reform in Massachusetts

Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellow for Equal Justice Jessica Morris says alternatives to bail would create a more just legal system in her state.

Share This

Daily Digest - October 16: Can a Nobel Change the FCC's Tactics?

Oct 16, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Nobel-Winning Message for the FCC (Bloomberg View)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Nobel-Winning Message for the FCC (Bloomberg View)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford asks whether Jean Tirole's new Nobel Prize might convince the Federal Communications Commission to reconsider his work on regulating communications utilities.

Retail Group's Report Aims to Counter Wage 'Misperceptions' (Chicago Tribune)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Annette Bernhardt tells Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz that the National Retail Federation's report is "an astonishing exercise in tautology" that ignores the industry's bad jobs.

Nurses Union: ‘We’ve Been Lied To’ About Ebola Preparedness (MSNBC)

National Nurses United is accusing the Centers for Disease Control of insufficiently training nurses for the front-line work needed to fight this potential epidemic, reports Ned Resnikoff.

Wall Street Might Know Something the Rest of Us Don’t (NYT)

Neil Irwin suggests that current drops in the stock market need not be seen as a sign of another crisis brewing: more likely, the market is falling back in line with the rest of the economy.

When the Workday Never Really Ends (The Nation)

Michelle Chen looks at new research on how so-called flexible scheduling disrupts the lives of low-income workers with "normal unpredictability" in already-precarious industries.

What’s the Punishment for Ripping Off Consumers? (Medium)

The typical regulatory response to large financial institutions lying to customers is a fine, and Felix Salmon says these fines aren't high enough to be an actual punishment or force change.

Gar Alperovitz on Why the New Economy Movement Needs to Think Big (Yes Magazine)

Scott Gast reviews Alperovitz's new book, What Then Must We Do?, in which he lays out the possibility of a new economic system built up from worker cooperatives.

New on Next New Deal

Threat of Ebola Highlights Problems in the U.S. Public Health System

Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellow for Health Care Emily Cerciello says the two cases of Ebola transmitted in the U.S. prove the need for improved public health infrastructure and guidelines.

Share This

Threat of Ebola Highlights Problems in the U.S. Public Health System

Oct 15, 2014Emily Cerciello

It is likely that Ebola will be contained in the United States, but errors in Texas show we have room for improvement in responding to public health emergencies.

It is likely that Ebola will be contained in the United States, but errors in Texas show we have room for improvement in responding to public health emergencies.

On October 15, the second case of Ebola transmitted in the United States was confirmed in Texas between patient Thomas Eric Duncan and a health worker. Even more frightening, perhaps, is the sequence of events leading up to the transmission, and the many questions it generates about the preparedness of the U.S. in responding to public health emergencies.

Six days after Duncan arrived in the United States  – having passed a screening for fever at a Liberian airport – his symptoms progressed and he sought care at a Texas hospital, where he was promptly sent home with antibiotics.

The hospital claimed his early discharge was the fault of the electronic health record (EHR) for not communicating the patient’s travel history, but soon issued a correction saying his history was “available to the full care team…there was no flaw in the EHR.”

No matter who or what is at fault for letting Duncan fall through the cracks, we cannot let this huge breach in protocol happen again.

More than a week later, and several days after the patient was confirmed to have Ebola, the apartment at which he was staying with four individuals remained unsterilized. The quarantined family had the responsibility of arranging clean bedding until a waste management company agreed to clean the apartment. When they arrived, contractors wore no protective equipment and used power washers to sanitize – a practice which is likely not the most effective method of treating infectious surfaces.

And then, on October 12, the CDC confirmed that a nurse who had worn full protective gear while treating Duncan had contracted Ebola due to a yet unknown breach in protocol. On, October 15, another nurse who treated Duncan was confirmed to have the virus, showing symptoms just one day after boarding a commercial flight returning from Cleveland to Dallas.

These events point to several issues in the U.S. public health infrastructure: who is in charge when high-stakes infectious diseases spread? How should the U.S. prevent diseases originating in other countries? What can we learn from this case to prevent other errors in the system?

First, we need to decide who, or which agency, is in charge when a public health emergency occurs. Larry Copeland, a reporter at USA Todayagrees. Currently, the CDC provides assistance and guidelines to states and educates providers about how to prepare for Ebola. The choice to enact these protocols and successful operation of these procedures remains with the states. The CDC also issues guidelines to prohibit practitioners who have treated Ebola patients from boarding commercial flights. Separately, the Department of Homeland Security controls issues of air travel, including providing guidance to airlines and calling for symptom screenings at high-profile airports.

So there is no single entity leading the public health response to Ebola. While the CDC may fall into this role, it is up to individual hospitals and practitioners to respond promptly and effectively. Unfortunately, in Texas, several errors – including sending the patient home while infected, delaying sanitation of the patient's apartment, and developing two more confirmed cases – showcase how disorganization in public health can lead to unfavorable outcomes.

And how should the U.S. prevent diseases originating in other countries? Experts agree that closing borders of West African countries would worsen the crisis. Unfortunately, the issue of Ebola as it relates to air travel has become politicized by conservatives, prompting CDC Director Tom Frieden to speak out strongly against a travel banConservative Republicans have even attempted to relate Ebola to anti-immigration reform by claiming that migrants from Central America could bring Ebola through the southern U.S. border (despite the fact that no outbreak of Ebola has ever occurred in Latin America).

In a press conference, Dr. Frieden assured that strong core public health functions could stop the spread of Ebola. Although the CDC and public health workers successfully tracked close contacts of Duncan and isolated those at high risk, those steps could not stop the first incorrect diagnosis or the spread to front-line health workers – arguably the most important role in stopping the epidemic.

The implications of public health slipups cannot be understated. We need to start a conversation about the relationship between federal, state and local public health authorities. We need to simplify and communicate protocols to hospitals and ensure that providers and communities are enacting preparations for infectious diseases. Valuing the field of public health as much as we do individual appointment-based care is essential to stopping an epidemic. We need to organize authority and mobilize an informed and efficient workforce to improve the preparedness of the U.S. health system in responding to public health emergencies.

Emily Cerciello is the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellow for Health Care, and a senior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Share This

Daily Digest - October 8: Government Should Push Back on Bad Financial Deals

Oct 8, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

City Hall’s Inaction on Interest-Rate Swaps Is Indefensible (Chicago Sun-Times)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

City Hall’s Inaction on Interest-Rate Swaps Is Indefensible (Chicago Sun-Times)

In a letter to the editor, Roosevelt Institute Fellow Saqib Bhatti points out what the Sun-Times missed in defending Mayor Emanuel's inaction to recover funds from these toxic deals.

Changing the Future of Sexual and Reproductive Rights (HuffPo)

In light of the Women and Girls Rising conference, Roosevelt Institute Fellow Andrea Flynn and Campus Network Lower Northeast Policy Coordinator Ariel Smilowitz examine the policy shifts needed in the U.S.

Eric Schneiderman is Still Seeking Justice for the Financial Crisis (WaPo)

Katrina vanden Heuvel, a member of the Roosevelt Institute's Board of Directors, praises New York's Attorney General for almost single-handedly keeping up the fight to hold Wall Street accountable.

Amazon Warehouse Workers Head To Supreme Court Over Unpaid Theft Screenings (HuffPo)

Dave Jamieson lays out the arguments in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, which broadly looks at whether employers can require nonessential tasks – like security screenings – off the clock.

The Great Wage Slowdown of the 21st Century (NYT)

David Leonhardt examines President Obama's optimistic take on why wage growth will finally start to pick up in the next few years. Leonhardt isn't quite sold.

John Boehner Just Admitted on Twitter That Republicans Have No Jobs Plan (TNR)

Danny Vinik says that while it's fun to joke about Boehner's empty tweet, the truth is that without a real jobs plan, Republicans have caused significant damage to the economy.

Tens of Thousands of Walmart Workers Are About to Lose Their Health Insurance — and It's Good News! (Vox)

Sarah Kliff explains that while Walmart's decision was almost certainly based on saving money, this gives part-time workers access to subsidies on the exchanges and cheap insurance.

Share This

A Crisis Turned Catastrophe in Texas

Oct 3, 2014Andrea Flynn

The Texan legislature created a crisis of women's health care with House Bill 2, and the latest decision from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals will bring Texan women to the brink.

The Texan legislature created a crisis of women's health care with House Bill 2, and the latest decision from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals will bring Texan women to the brink.

Last night, a decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals left Texas with no more than eight remaining abortion clinics. You would think by now the willingness of state lawmakers to deliberately create a health crisis among their constituents – and the willingness of the courts to allow it – would be of no surprise. But I continue to be shocked.

"All Texas women have been relegated today to a second class of citizens whose constitutional rights are lesser than those in states less hostile to reproductive autonomy, and women facing difficult economic circumstances will be particularly hard hit by this devastating blow,” said the Center for Reproductive Right’s Nancy Northrup.

House Bill 2 could be the grand finale in Texas's efforts to completely dismantle its reproductive health infrastructure on which women – particularly poor women, women of color, young women, and immigrant women – have relied for decades. Pretty soon there won’t be any clinics left to close. Just three years ago, conservative lawmakers gutted the state’s family planning program, which closed approximately 80 family planning providers across the state, caused 55 more to reduce hours, and left hundreds of thousands of women without access to reproductive healthcare. Even before those programs were eviscerated, they provided care and services to only 20 percent of women in need.

And as if that wasn’t enough, lawmakers introduced HB2, a bill that imposes onerous restrictions on abortion providers and demands that all clinics meet costly – upwards of $1 million – building requirements to qualify them as ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs). Lawmakers claimed these regulations were critical to protecting the lives and health of Texas women, but that’s simply not the case. Currently more than three-quarters of the state’s ASCs have waivers that allow them to circumvent certain requirements: unsurprisingly, abortion providers are prohibited from obtaining those same waivers. HB2 quickly closed the majority of the state’s 41 clinics that offered abortion services – clinics that also provided birth control, pap smears, breast exams, pregnancy tests, and a host of other services. There are few, if any, providers to take their place.

These new restrictions add an unbearable weight to the burdens that too many of Texas’ women already shoulder. Texas has one of the nation’s highest unintended and teen birth rates. The nation’s lowest percentage of pregnant women receiving prenatal care in their first trimester. The highest percentage of uninsured children in the nation. High rates of poverty and unemployment and a woefully inadequate social safety net. And lawmakers who refuse to expand Medicaid, leaving nearly 700,000 women who would qualify for coverage without it.

Just a few weeks ago, Judge Lee Yeakel of the United States District Court in Austin gave health advocates an iota of hope when he ruled HB2 to be an undue burden on women’s constitutionally guaranteed right to an abortion. Yeakel’s decision wasn’t just significant because it delivered a win for humanity in Texas after countless losses, or because the concept of an undue burden was finally being used to protect – not erode – women’s right to chose, but because it was based on facts. Facts! Judge Yeakel relied on incontrovertible data to call bullshit on a law that purports to protect women, but has only ever been about abolishing abortion access.  

He argued that for many women, HB2 might as well be an outright ban on abortion. He asked how the eight (at most) providers left could ever each serve between 7,500 and 10,000 patients. How would they cope with the more than 1,200 women per month who would be vying for limited appointments? “That the State suggests that these seven or eight providers could meet the demand of the entire state stretches credulity,” he said.

Yeakel acknowledged the complex intersections of women’s health and economic (in)security:

The record conclusively establishes that increased travel distances combine with practical concerns unique to every woman. These practical concerns include lack of availability of child care, unavailability of appointments at abortion facilities, unavailability of time off from work, immigration status and inability to pass border checkpoints, poverty level, the time and expense involved in traveling long distances, and other inarticulable psychological obstacles. These factors combine with increased travel distances to establish a de facto barrier to obtaining an abortion for a large number of Texas women of reproductive age who might choose seek a legal abortion.

Yeakel warned that the stated goal of improving women’s health would not come to pass. And it won’t. The increased delays in seeking early abortion care, risks associated with longer travel, the potential increases in self-induced abortions “almost certainly cancel out any potential health benefit associated with the requirement,” he said.

But Yeakel’s arguments were not compelling enough for the 5th Circuit, which finds it perfectly acceptable that more than one million women now need to travel more than 300 miles (and many women even further) to access health care that is constitutionally guaranteed to them.

This decision will have a ripple effect. Other anti-choice lawmakers across the country are following Texas’ lead, imposing similar restrictions on clinics and physicians who provide abortions. The vindication of Texas lawmakers who have used their legislative power to wreak havoc on the lives of women and families will only continue to embolden other states seeking the same goals.

Conservatives like to argue that they are not waging a war on women. Today there are a whole lot of us who find it impossible to argue otherwise. 

Andrea Flynn is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. Follow her on Twitter @dreaflynn.

Share This

Daily Digest - September 12: Students Shouldn't Go Hungry on College Campuses

Sep 12, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

How One Student is Fighting the College Hunger Crisis (MSNBC)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

How One Student is Fighting the College Hunger Crisis (MSNBC)

Ned Resnikoff profiles Yvonne Montoya, President of the Santa Monica College chapter of the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network, and her work to get food stamps accepted on campus.

A Tour of the Roosevelt Family's New York (WSJ)

Sophia Hollander speaks with Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow David Woolner about the Roosevelt legacy in New York through fourteen sites across the state, in light of the upcoming Ken Burns documentary The Roosevelts.

Measuring the Impact of States’ Obamacare Decisions (WaPo)

Jason Millman looks at a new study on how costs varied for people buying insurance based on their states' approach to the Affordable Care Act. States with successful exchanges had the lowest costs.

Why Co-ops Are the Future of the American Economy (AJAM)

Worker-owned businesses should appeal to liberals and conservatives alike, writes Matthew Harwood, because conservatives see ownership as building self-sufficiency and liberals appreciate the higher wages.

The Inflation Cult (NYT)

The investors and economists who continue to insist that runaway inflation is coming to destroy the U.S. economy are a sign of just how polarized our society has become, writes Paul Krugman.

Allentown Bets Big to Shed its Former Image (Marketplace)

Tommy Andres looks at how tax incentives structured through a Neighborhood Improvement Zone have begun to revitalize Allentown's downtown.

Share This

Daily Digest - September 9: Block Grants Won't Solve Poverty -- They'll Make It Worse

Sep 9, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

The Republican Playbook for Cutting Anti-Poverty Programs (The Nation)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

The Republican Playbook for Cutting Anti-Poverty Programs (The Nation)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal and Bryce Covert write that block grants, like those that make up Paul Ryan's anti-poverty proposal, effectively freeze funding for their programs.

Can Republicans Be Convinced to Help Improve the Affordable Care Act? (TAP)

Looking at Mike Konczal's suggestion for improving the Affordable Care Act, Paul Waldman says that more specific proposals will force Republicans to act.

Democrats Have a Depth Problem. It’s Largely Their Own Fault. (WaPo)

Aaron Blake blames Democrats for not investing in developing young leaders, as the Republicans have done for 25 years, and credits groups like the Campus Network for starting to build that pipeline.

Ferguson Sets Broad Change for City Courts (NYT)

Frances Robles reports on the changes announced at Ferguson's first city council meeting since Mike Brown's death, including a cap on how much of the city's budget can come from court fines.

Dignity (New Yorker)

William Finnegan profiles one McDonalds employee on her work and her labor activism as she struggles to support her kids on $8.35 an hour, her wage after eight years on the job.

This Is What It's Like To Sit Through An Anti-Union Meeting At Work (HuffPo)

Dave Jamieson reports on recordings published by the Teamsters in which employers claim over and over that unions just want employees' money, not to improve the workplace.

Share This

Daily Digest - September 8: What Ever Happened to the Public Option?

Sep 8, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

To Improve ‘Obamacare,’ Reconsider the Original House Bill (AJAM)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

To Improve ‘Obamacare,’ Reconsider the Original House Bill (AJAM)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal argues that the House's public option for health care reform, which was missing from the Senate bill that became law, would greatly strengthen the Affordable Care Act.

SEC Faces Renewed Pressure to Consider a Corporate Disclosure Rule (The Nation)

One million comments submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission have called for requiring companies to disclose political donations to shareholders, writes Zoë Carpenter.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Holmberg finds that corporate political spending disclosure has substantial benefits.

Why the Worst Governments in America Are Local Governments (NY Mag)

Jonathan Chait looks at the problem of "Big Small Government," meaning local governments that act as oppressive forces. He says neither Democrats nor Republicans offer useful solutions.

Paid Sick Leave is Healthy for Business (SFGate)

Carl Guardino, a Silicon Valley CEO, explains the business advantages of instituting paid sick leave in California. He focuses on improvements to health, safety, and economic security.

Some Retail Workers Find Better Deals With Unions (NYT)

The retail union in New York City has secured protections for its members that other retail workers are fighting for, like plenty of advance notice on schedules, says Rachel Swarns.

Unemployment Rate Continues To Be Elevated Across the Board (Working Economics)

The combination of declining real wages and elevated unemployment rates for college graduates indicates the impossibility of a skills mismatch in today's labor market, writes Elise Gould.

Nearly a Quarter of Fortune 500 Companies Still Offer Pensions to New Hires (WaPo)

Since companies are scaling back the generosity of these pensions through hybrid plans that cost workers more, Jonnelle Marte says that number sounds deceptively good.

Share This

Pages