California NOW

Equality at the Polls

We talk a lot about gender inequality.  How women represent over 50 percent of our state's population yet only comprise 28 percent of the state legislature. And how we earn just 84 cents for every dollar our male counterparts make here in California.

But at the ballot box, our vote counts every bit as much as any man's vote. Actually, our votes count more because there's more women registered to vote in California than men.

So let's not miss out on an important election that will set the direction of our country. And in many ways, the direction for women's equality. Do we want a president who isn't sure the Lilly Ledbetter Act was a good piece of legislation and who's gone back-and-forth on the question of pay equity? A president who chose as his running mate a man who is so stridently anti-choice that he thinks women and girls who are raped should be forced to carry the rapists' child? Do we want California Congressional members who share those same radical anti-women beliefs, who voted to cut HeadStart, rationalizing that vote by saying there is no need for the program because women should be home taking care of their children? Do we want state legislators who say that pay equity would bankrupt California?

If you think you're too busy to vote this year or that you can't decide who to vote for, think about what has taken place in just the past two years. Calling it "a war on women" is not an overstatement. It's the truth.

Here's the bottom-line. If we want gender equality and women's empowerment, then we are going to need to demand it. And that means taking responsibility for who we elect to represent us in our local communities, in Sacramento and in Washington. We ARE the majority so if anti-women candidates win again this year, that's on us.

We need to make sure that at every level, we are voting for candidates who respect and value women and we need to educate every other woman - and man - we know to do the same. I know it sounds overly dramatic but the truth is, this year our lives depend on it!

2012 California NOW Activist

The state Legislature is in recess and everyone has returned to their home districts to campaign for the November 2012 election, which is now just 29 days away.  For those of you who are absentee voters, your ballot is on the way, so we wanted you - the California voter - to have the facts about what's at stake for women before casting your vote.

This year's propositions are enormously important for California's women and girls, especially for their equality and empowerment.  Read the Activist to find out why voting NO on Prop 31 and 32 matters - why voting YES on Prop 38 and 39 is a better path forward and why voting YES on Prop 34, 36 and 37 is the better choice for women and their families.  Click here to read the 2012 Activist.

Read the Activist because it shows what happens when women stay home - only 24 percent of unmarried women voted in the 2010 election.  As a result, the anti-women extremists who took control of the House voted 12 times to restrict women's reproductive health care, redefine rape, cut ALL Title X funding, and voted against the Fair Pay Act and the Violence Against Women Act.

EVERY SINGLE CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN CONGRESS MEMBER VOTED FOR THOSE EXTREME BILLS.

We hope you'll be joining us in doing our part to demand Congress be Pro Woman.  Click here to access the California NOW PAC 2012 Voter Guide.

There is no doubt that this year and the previous years have been a struggle for all of us both economically and politically.  As Hillary Clinton stated, "The big challenge we face in these early years of the 21st century is how to grow our economies and ensure shared prosperity for all nations and all people. We want to give every one of our citizens, men and women, young and old, greater opportunity to find work, save and spend money, pursue happiness – and ultimately live up to their God-given potential. That is a clear and simple vision. But to make it real – to achieve the economic expansion we all seek – we need to unlock a vital source of growth that can power our economies in the decades to come. That source of vital growth is women."

California's women should expect and accept nothing less.

For Equality & In Solidarity,

 

Patty Bellasalma
President, California NOW

Monday's Action List

This week we're focused on health.  Women's health, children's health, our family's health.

Here in California, there's a proposition on the November ballot (Prop 37) that will require clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified. We already have food labels showing nutrition, allergy information and other facts consumers want to know. This measure adds information telling us if food is produced using genetic engineering, which is when food is modified in a laboratory by adding DNA from other plants, animals, bacteria or viruses.  Over one million people have contacted the FDA and told them we have a right to know what’s in our food. Become part of this growing movement and join them today. Take Action NOW:  Sign this important petition to the FDA and make sure your voice is heard!

No one should have to spend every working day in a toxic environment, and this week dozens of salon workers from across the country are descending on Washington, DC, sharing their stories with lawmakers and demanding safer products and safer hair and nail salons--and they need your support! While each of us is exposed daily to a cocktail of toxic chemicals when we use personal care products, salon workers are also exposed to highly toxic products as they work (like hair dyes and straighteners and nail glues and solvents) -- all day, every day. And, due to a labeling loophole, salon products aren’t required to list ingredients, which means workers (and their customers) can’t make informed decisions about what they’re using.  Take Action NOW:  Stand with salon workers in demanding safer products for a safer workplace! Write to your member of Congress today!

Did you know that that air pollution can stunt growing lungs, particularly in children who spend a lot of time outdoors? Exposure to air polluted with nitrogen dioxide, acid vapors and particulate matter (soot) has been found to have the greatest association with impaired lung growth.  The EPA has proposed new Soot Standards, which would decrease the allowable limit of soot in the air from the current 15 micrograms per cubic meter to as low as 11 micrograms per cubic meter.  The EPA is now taking public comments that will be used to determine the final standard.  Your voice will be critical in this comment process to help drown out the specious arguments of pro-polluters! Take Action NOW:  Ask the EPA to say "no" to soot!

9th Circuit Punts (or Takes Cautious Tack) on Prop. 8

There were no real surprises in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision yesterday in the federal Prop. 8 case to return the question of standing for Prop. 8 supporters to the California State Supreme Court, and to reject Imperial County's standing to appeal.

If the California Supreme Court finds that the Yes on Prop. 8 supporters do NOT have standing to appeal, then Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop. 8 will stand, as will his injunction against enforcement of Prop. 8, and we will have marriage equality again in California. However, the CA Supreme Court could take months to determine the question of standing, and their answer would then go to the 9th Circuit, which would review and then determine their decision in the case. It is also possible that the CA Supreme Court could refuse to answer the question, thus returning it to the 9th Circuit. And of course, whatever the decision of the 9th Circuit, this case could be appealed to the Supreme Court of the US. However, if the case is decided on narrow grounds of standing, the SCOTUS would likely choose not to hear an appeal.

Prop. 8 supporters have asked that if they are denied standing to appeal, that Judge Walker's ruling be vacated for this reason, but it seems clear that the proponents did have standing in that court, although they likely do not at the 9th Circuit level. The question has also been raised of whether a decision against Prop. 8 might apply only to the counties participating in the suit, but it appears clear that Judge Walker's ruling applies statewide if it stands.

At this point, we wait for the decision of the CA Supreme Court, the decision of the 9th Circuit, and then the decision of the SCOTUS before we have a final result, so keep your fingers crossed and keep supporting this essential work for marriage equality not only in California but nationwide!

What's the State of Prop. 8?

On Monday a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal heard oral arguments in the federal Prop. 8 case.  Watch the video here.

The case at this level comes down to a couple of main issues: standing and scope.  Courts don't like to set major precedents, they prefer to act in a narrow way on established principles, which is where this case runs into some complications.

First of all, the issue of standing, which determines who has the right to bring this appeal.  The judges seemed very skeptical that the Imperial County deputy clerk had the standing to appeal, given that she is not an elected official and did not have the Clerk's authority to represent the county. There were also serious questions raised as to whether the proponents of Prop. 8 had standing to appeal, given that the Governor and Attorney General had refused to defend the proposition.  However, the court does not want to set the precedent that the Governor and AG working together can overturn an initiative by refusing to defend it. The California State Supreme Court has in essence said that the Governor and AG cannot be required to defend Prop. 8, but the 9th Circuit may bounce the question back to them anyway.

The judges also asked several questions of each party as to how broadly the Court's decision would have to be applied, should they decide to uphold Judge Walker's decision overturning Prop. 8.  This Court adamantly does not want to be responsible for stating that under the 14th Amendment same-sex marriage must be legalized nationwide.  They could decide the case in such a way that it applies only to the couples involved, or only to the counties which have backed the overturning of Prop. 8 by supporting this case.  If they chose the former limitation, presumably any same-sex couple who wished to marry could bring a suit and cite the decision, but that creates a serious hurdle to those couples.  If they were to choose the latter, it would create a situation where same-sex marriages were legal in only some counties of California, an unworkable solution from a state-wide perspective. The strong likelihood is that the court will decide the case in such a way as to apply statewide, but only to California, regardless of how they decide.

In terms of the real substance of the issue, it has been made clear by both sides that what this really comes down to is the word "marriage". The anti-equality side even stated that the word "is the institution" and that keeping the word "marriage" for only opposite-sex couples matters even when all rights and responsibilities of marriage are available to same-sex couples.  Opponents of Prop. 8 pointed out that this makes it clear that the issue is about marking same-sex unions as lesser, thus showing no rational basis for the denial of equal protection.

The court could take quite a while to reach a decision, and even then this case likely won't be over.  We'll make sure to keep you up-to-date on the case as it proceeds.