On the 3rd of October 2008, an important film on a very serious and devastating problem will open in selected theaters across the country. The film is titled "Call and Response" (http://www.callandresponse.com) and the subject of the film is modern human slavery, which holds captive an estimated 2.7 million sex and labor slaves across the globe. You have heard of narcotrafficking and the arms trade, but right up there with the drug and gun rackets is the global slave market. Victims are targeted and taken for many reasons: because they are poor, because they are in debt, or simply because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. They work in brothels, in factories, on farms, and anywhere else where their masters can exploit their labor for cash.

The film incorporates musical performances, interviews with luminaries such as Madeleine Albright and activist/actress Julia Ormond, plus cold, hard facts. It calls for an abolitionist movement for the 21st century, and for a public commitment to ending modern slavery. Here in the United States, human trafficking is a cause in need of more and louder advocates. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) is currently up for renewal. It passed the House, but is currently bogged down in the Senate (see http://www.polarisproject.org/ for more information). The bill (H.R. 3887 introduced by Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) and S. 3061 introduced by Senator Joseph Biden) outlines protections for victims and makes human trafficking a federal crime, establishing standards for proof and prosecution.

This is a human rights issue of monumental proportion. About 80% of the slaves are women (see https://www.sharedhope.org/). 50% of all trafficking victims are children. These women and children come from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, Europe, and yes, the United States. They are most often bound for the commercial sex industry, where their traffickers use them to make a tidy profit until the women die. In fact, trafficking in slaves is now the second most profitable criminal enterprise in the world, and the fastest-growing. Unless we step in and speak up for these women and children, some of whom are literally in chains, their situation is not going to get any better. We need Congress to reauthorize the TVPA, and we need the public to take heed of this issue.

For more information and for action suggestions, see:
Polaris Project, http://actioncenter.polarisproject.org/;
Free the Slaves, http://www.freetheslaves.net/;
Shared Hope, https://www.sharedhope.org/;
International Justice Mission, http://www.ijm.org/;
The Center for Women Policy Studies, http://www.centerwomenpolicy.org/.

This piece was written by Terra Gearhart-Serna, WLF intern and 2nd year law student at Yale Law School, with assistance from Sharon Grosfeld, WLF Executive Director.

There are many pieces of legislation that need attention by the public in order to move forward. They are listed below. Please call your Senators and Representatives to let them know about your support for these important bills.

FAIR PAY RESTORATION ACT (S.1843)
This legislation restores rights held by workers to sue their employers for wage discrimination under certain circumstances. Unfortunately, Republicans in the Senate prohibited a vote by their threatened filibuster of the bill. To take action visit www.capwiz.com/now/issues/alert/?alertid=11305581

INTERNATIONAL PROTECTING GIRLS BY PREVENTING CHILD MARRIAGE ACT OF 2007 (H.R. 3175 and S.1988)
This Act is intended to provide assistance from many different sources in order to prevent child marriage and increase educational, economic and social opportunities that will enhance the status of girls and women throughout the world.

THE BRING OUR TROOPS HOME AND THE IRAQ SOVEREIGNTY RESTORATION ACT OF 2007 (H.R. 508)
This comprehensive legislation contains numerous directives concerning Iraq, including ending hostilities, reconstruction, investigation of the Administration�s conduct in Iraq and its reasons for going to war, and health care for our military personnel.

MILITARY READINESS ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2007 (H.R. 1246)
Introduced back in February of 2007, this legislation repeals the current Defense Department policy regarding homosexuality in the Armed Forces. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against any member or prospective member of the Armed Forces.

Women have been making great strides in the medical realm over the past few years, yet it is taking women a long time to break into all specialities within the medical professional on par with men. The first woman to attend and receive her medical degree was Elizabeth Blackwell in 1849. In 1864 Rebecca Lee Crumples became the first African American woman to receive her medical degree and in 1889 Susan La Flesche Picotte became the first Native American Woman to receive a medical degree.

Dr. Antonia Novello was the first woman, as well as the first Hispanic Surgeon General. Dr. Novello emphasized the need for greater focus on women's health and treatment of women with AIDS and on neonatal transmission of HIV.

More recently, Duke University named Harvard researcher Nancy Andrews Dean of its medical school, making her the first and only female Dean in the nation's top 10 medical schools. Approximately 33% of Associate Deans of medical schools are women and 26% of Senior Associate Deans are women.

While the number of female full time professors, department chairs and medical school Deans throughout the U.S. is quite low, studies suggest that this will change now that approximately half of the student body in medical school is comprised of women. As such, these women will eventually move into positions within academia and hence expand the numbers of full professors and department chairs.

Though the situation for women entering the medical profession is brighter than it was in the 70's and 80's, women still face many obstacles in their paths towards reaching their goals. For example, due to women still having greater responsibilities for child rearing, female physicians choose to specialize in areas of medicine that generally provide more flexibility in terms of their daily schedule, such as pediatrics, family medicine and internal medicine, however are lower paying specialties. One study found that in families where both parents were physicians, 92% of the female physicians were the primary caretakers of the children, compared to 21% of the male physicians.

On average, female physicians make less money than their male counterparts. An article in the Annals of Internal Medicine reported that women internists in Pennsylvania made $63,000 less than their male colleagues. Even after adjusting for variables such as lower-paying specialties and salaried positions rather than partnerships, the women surveyed still earned 14% less than their male peers.

Hopefully as more women enter the medical profession they will create new frameworks that will allow them to balance both roles of doctors and mothers, without sacrificing on specialty choice or higher income. In addition, as noted by the American Medical Women's Association, thanks to the increased role of women in medicine, women's health issues are receiving more attention from doctors and researchers.

This piece was written by Luciana Salinas, WLF intern, with the assistance of Sharon Grosfeld, WLF Executive Director.

March 1st begins Women's History Month and that is particularly important for Democrats since we have a long, proud history of women's accomplishments to celebrate and honor. Simply going back to 1920, after battling for 72 years, the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was finally ratified and women got the right to vote. From that point on women were, and still are, unstoppable.

In 1925, Nellie Taylor Ross, A Wyoming Democrat, became the nation's first female governor. In 1931, Hattie Wyatt Caraway was appointed to the U.S. Senate from Arizona and in 1933, Frances Perkins was appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to be the first female Secretary of Labor.

In 1965, Patsy Takemoto Mink from Hawaii became the first woman of color and the first woman of Asian-Pacific Islander descent to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. Then in 1968, Shirley Chisholm from N.Y. became the first African American woman to serve in Congress. In 1972, she ran for president in the Democratic primary.

In 1977, President Carter appointed Patricia Roberts Harris, the first African American woman to serve as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and thereafter Secretary of Health and Human Services. A few years later in 1984, Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro became the first woman nominated for Vice-President.

In 1985, Madeline Kunin was elected governor of Vermont and became the first woman to serve three consecutive terms as governor. The following year, in 1986, Barbara Mikulski from Maryland became the first Democratic woman elected to the U.S. Senate without previously filling an unexpired Congressional term.

In 1992, Carol Moseley Braun from Illinois became the first African American woman to be elected to the U.S. Senate and Nydia Velasquez from New York became the first Puerto Rican woman to be elected to Congress. The following year, in 1993, Janet Reno became the first woman to serve as U.S. Attorney General.

Madeleine Albright became the first woman to serve as U.S. Secretary of State, making her the highest ranking woman in the government in 1997. Also that year, Aida Alvarez became the first Hispanic woman to hold a cabinet level position when she was appointed Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration by President Bill Clinton.

The next year, in 1998, Tammy Baldwin became Wisconsin's first woman in Congress and the first open lesbian elected to Congress as a non-incumbent. Three years later, Hillary Clinton became the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate from New York and the only First Lady ever elected to public office. Also in 2001, Senator Patty Murray from Washington State became the first woman to serve as Chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Representative Nita Lowey became the first woman to Chair the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

In 2003, Arizona made history when its citizens elected Janet Napolitano as their Governor, the first time a female governor succeeded another female governor. Two years later in 2005, three Congresswomen became the first women of color to chair congressional committees: they are Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones from Ohio, chairing the Committee on Ethics; Representative Juanita Millender-McDonald from California, chairing the Committee on House Administration; and Representative Nydia Velasquez from N.Y., chairing the Committee on Small Business.

Thanks to these trailblazing women, (and the many not mentioned here but no less important), the idea of having a female Speaker of the House seemed more than plausible. Indeed, it was doable and it happened. In 2006, when the Democrats took control of Congress, Nancy Pelosi became the first woman Speaker of the House, making her the third highest ranking official in the government and the highest ranking female in U.S. political history.

Finally, we must also pay tribute to the unsung heroines whose contributions to women's history are marked by their labor on many different fronts. They are our mothers, grandmothers, sisters, daughters, cousins and friends. They are everywoman.

Beginning with the first primary Caucus in Iowa, to the elections on Super Tuesday, women have demonstrated that they are the heart and soul of the Democratic Party and that they will take our Party to the White House. Exit polling and studies reveal that women are voting in numbers significantly larger than men to the point that even the media is finally taking notice of women and their role in effecting the outcome of elections.

Women not only make up the majority of voters, but they are voting for Democrats at higher numbers than ever before and their enthusiasm cannot be squelched. Starting with Iowa and then New Hampshire, women made up 57% of the Democratic voters. In Nevada women were 59% of the voters and in South Carolina they were a huge 61% of the voters. Single women in particular are demonstrating their clout. There are approximately 53 million single women in the U.S., reaching parity with the number of married women, and comprising more than a quarter of the electorate. In Iowa, 28% of the voters were single women which is larger than their 22% portion of that state's population.

Republicans on the other hand cannot claim the women's vote, especially given how much they have dismantled women's hard fought rights. The economic and social policies of the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress have brought women down by dismantling important programs to assist them and their families. Women and men are both struggling more each day to stay afloat, feed their families, keep the roof over their heads, find and pay for child care, health care, college, and maybe even take a short vacation.

Recent polls demonstrate that women are most concerned about the economy, health care and education, along with ending the occupation of Iraq by bringing our troops home. Only the Democrats are speaking about these issues in any meaningful and serious way that will lead our country out of recession and war. Democrats are willing to make the changes necessary that will safeguard our nation without sacrificing the liberties upon which this country was founded and without looking for scapegoats.

This strong display of support for our Democratic candidates by women of all backgrounds and generations will see its reward in November, when a Democrat wins the General Election. Until then, women will continue to make their voices heard in every voting booth across America. Just look at what women can accomplish when they are organized!

This piece was written by Sharon Grosfeld, with the assistance of Luciana Salinas, WLF intern.

If there ever was an example of why young women needed to vote, it could be found in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, passed prior to the Democrats taking back the majority in Congress. This Act included a provision that has been detrimental to women's health. It ended the ability of pharmaceutical companies to sell contraceptives at very reduced cost to college clinics and other clinics that were used by low-income women. As such, since the enactment of this provision, the price for birth control sold at these clinics has risen astronomically.

Fortunately, Democrats in both the House and Senate have introduced legislation to reverse this insidious attempt by the former Republican Congress to control the reproductive health of young women. The "Prevention Through Affordable Access Act" (H.R.4054 and S.2347) will restore the ability of pharmaceutical companies to sell contraceptives to clinics at a discount, thereby giving young women the opportunity again to protect their health.

The Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress have been systematically limiting women's rights to privacy and self determination by slipping in restrictions such as this one to the Deficit Reduction Act, in addition to enactment of the Global Gag Rule which prohibits distribution of family planning funds to clinics located outside the United States that provide abortion services.

Many other examples of women's rights being obstructed or denied by the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans have been written about in previous blog entries, and should convince every woman about the importance of her vote. In particular, by voting for a Democratic President, we will not have to fear that the hard fought freedoms secured by our fore mothers will be in jeopardy any longer.

By voting Democratic we will see appointees to the Supreme Court and Federal Courts that will respect precedent and hold steady to the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade. We will see rulings that do not dismantle laws designed to protect us from pay discrimination and we will reverse the harm done by the recent Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company.

Young women have the power to change the disastrous course charted by the Bush Administration simply by voting. By doing so, young women empower not only themselves, but the generations that follow them into the heart of the 21st Century.

As the gap in wages and benefits grows wider between lower, middle and upper income ranges, minimum wage workers are particularly threatened by the prospect of falling into severe poverty and homelessness if they were to become unemployed. Millions of workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own are ineligible for unemployment insurance due to serious problems and inequities in the system. Last year, fewer than half of the people who lost their jobs were able to receive unemployment compensation.

For people at the lowest ends of the payscale, lacking this safety-net can mean losing the roof over their heads and the ability to provide food for themselves or their families. These workers are struggling to make ends meet while they are employed in low wage jobs and fighting for their survival when they become unemployed.

Unemployment insurance is an absolute necessity for low wage workers who lose their jobs and S. 1871, the Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) is intended to assist unemployed people who should be eligible for support but currently are not.

Though some states have been a little more generous to unemployed individuals with respect to the compensation paid, federal incentives are needed for states to provide benefits that will keep people from becoming impoverished as a result of losing their jobs. S. 1871 provides solid financial incentives to states that improve their unemployment insurance programs so that more workers are covered and more services to assist the unemployed are provided.

For instance, if a victim of domestic violence is compelled to leave her job and move to another location in order to find a safe haven, she does not qualify for unemployment insurance. S. 1871 helps victims by offering incentives for states to provide unemployment insurance in these circumstances, as well as others detailed in the legislation.

Passage of this bill will have a profound impact upon the lives of millions of unemployed people. Congress should pass S. 1871 quickly, the President should sign it into law and the states should take advantage of the incentives provided in the legislation. Anything less is inexcusable.

On October 18th and 19th, the Women's Leadership Forum held its 14th Annual Issues Conference in Washington D.C., and it was a huge success. Over 300 participants attended the conference and were energized by the speakers throughout the two day event.

The nation's first female Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was the honored guest and luncheon speaker. Unfortunately, due to the president's unfathomable veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program(SCHIP)legislation, our steadfast leader of the House was critically needed for the vote taking place on the 18th to override the president's veto and thus she was understandably unable to join us.

Sadly, the two-thirds vote necessary to override the veto came up short due to the Republicans in Congress, and the SCHIP bill went down by a vote of 273 to 156 (290 votes were needed), in spite of the fact that originally the bill had a fair degree of bipartisan support, at least until the president began his campaign of misinformation and Republican arm twisting. The legislation would have extended health insurance coverage to four million children whose families cannot afford to buy it themselves. Once again the "family values" practiced by the Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress are only relevant when they are intended to control the lives of women rather than foster healthy families.

But the Democrats are valiantly trying again, working to bring health insurance to those four million children who should have received it on the first go-around. The Democrats are also working on other important legislation to correct the harm caused by President Bush and his Republican followers.

Recently, the House of Representatives passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, (H.R.2831) which addresses the mistaken decision by the Supreme Court that denied Lilly Ledbetter the equal pay she deserved, and now the U.S. Senate will consider its own version called the Fair Pay Restoration Act (S.1843). These bills are vitally important in the effort to end the wage discrimination based upon sex and race still occurring and close the large gap between men and women's earnings. In 2005, median annual earnings for caucasian women were seventy-seven cents for every dollar men earned. For African American women the difference is seventy-one cents to every dollar and for Latinas it is fifty-eight cents to the dollar. Eliminating this gap in wages would cut the poverty rate in half! It is time for change.

The Global Democracy Promotion Act (H.R. 619 and S.1744) repeals the Global Gag Rule enacted by President Bush, that disallows U.S. funding to family planning clinics outside the U.S. if those clinics provided abortion services, including merely giving out information about abortion. As a result of this Act, family planning organizations have been severely limited in the important work they perform overseas. Restoring essential funds to international family planning programs that provide comprehensive reproductive services is vital to the health and well-being of women and girls all over the world.

Until we have a Democrat in the White House and more Democrats in Congress, these battles over simple basic human rights will be relentless. At the WLF Conference, we heard from experts about what it will take to achieve those Democratic victories. The answer was women.

Women's votes put Democrats back in control of Congress in 2006 and they can do the same for the presidency in 2008. We must all work to get women registered and out to vote, and we can do this by connecting with and engaging women in discussions about the issues that directly affect their personal lives. In addition to the issues previously mentioned, women have very serious concerns about national security, the environment, equal education, and other social, economic, political and international issues. Let us never forget that women hold up more than half of the world and we neither like nor appreciate the erosion of our rights by the Republicans and the Bush Administration.

From the beauty parlor to the Board Room, we must reach out to women wherever we find them. We must be courageous and fearless. Our survival depends upon it.

Our society has come a long way in how it thinks about domestic violence. At this point in our nation's history, a majority of adults think that domestic violence is a serious social problem facing our nation. Most Americans believe that services such as providing shelter, counseling and legal assistance are critical to protecting victims of domestic violence and their children.

National statistics demonstrate that domestic violence is a plague claiming more women and children than violence committed against them by strangers. Indeed, more than 9 times as many women were killed by a man they knew than by a person unknown to them. With respect to teenage girls, one in five female high school students have reported being physically or sexually abused by the person they currently or previously were dating. (See the National Network To End Domestic Violence for sources and statistics).

Legislation to address the problems faced by victims of domestic violence has been introduced by a number of our Democratic Senators and Representatives. For instance, S.1136, The Survivor's Empowerment and Economic Security Act, introduced by Senator Patty Murray (WA), and H.R. 8395, the Security and Financial Empowerment Act, introduced by Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34), both enhance victim safety and security by providing victims the ability to collect unemployment insurance and compensation under certain circumstances, along with leave from work to go to Court and seek medical attention.

These are just a couple of the pieces of legislation pending in Congress to address the needs of domestic violence victims. Unfortunately, with a President who finds it acceptable to limit funding for the Violence Against Women Act, thereby effecting delivery of critical services necessary for the survival of domestic violence victims, we may also see these bills vetoed if they find their way onto the President's desk.

Domestic violence victims and their children need to know that the President of the United States understands their needs and is willing to do what it takes to reduce the incidence of violence in the home. Democrats have proven their compassion and dedication to eradicating domestic violence and there is no doubt that a Democratic President will continue to work towards meaningful solutions to finally put an end to this deadly problem.

As we enter the month of October, which has been designated as Domestic Violence Awareness Month, we need to do everything we can to insure that legislation on the national and state levels is enacted that will lead victims of domestic violence towards independent lives, free of the abuse that has dominated their daily existence. By working to elect Democrats up and down the ballot, we will move much closer to that very important goal.

On September 25, 2007, at 10am in the Dirksen Senate Building room G-50, the Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing to discuss the Community Choice Act of 2007, also known as S.799. This bill, introduced by Senator Thomas Harkin (IA), has 17 cosponsors and is desperately needed. The bill has also been filed in the House by Representative Danny Davis (IL-7), along with 26 cosponsors and is H.R. 1621.

Simply because a person is labeled "elderly," does not mean that he or she desires nursing home living. Many people with disabilities also prefer to live independently rather than in an institution. However, current funding for assistance to the elderly and people with disabilities is much greater for those who live in long-term care facilities than in community based housing.

The Community Choice Act would allow people eligible for Medicaid funded assisted living to choose to live at home or in non-familial residential homes with attendant services if certain criteria are met. This means that attendants would assist with the practical needs of the individual, while at the same time allowing the individual to remain more independent than if she or he were in an institutional setting. Individuals could continue to be functioning members of their communities, feel valued and important, and the community would have the benefit of their contributions.

Providing attendant services is the means to greater independence for individuals with disabilities and elderly folks who need help in daily living. Through federal matching funds provided to the states, the Community Choice Act of 2007 provides hope to millions of people, be they persons with disabilities, the elderly in need of assistance, or the family members often caring for them.

To learn more about the Community Choice Act of 2007, go to Thomas.loc.gov and type in the bill number.

This piece was written by Kirsten Lindholm, WLF Intern and Sharon Grosfeld, WLF Executive Director.

This past weekend, the West Virginia Federation of Democratic Women held its 43rd Annual Meeting in Huntington, West Virginia, and there was a lot of discussion about why it is so important, particularly for women, to elect a Democrat to be the next President of the United States. While the answers may seem obvious, the need for a change is profound.

A Democratic President will work diligently to get us out of Iraq. A Democratic President will work towards ensuring that all Americans have good health care and insurance coverage. A Democratic President will fight hard to protect the environment, and will make sure that college is affordable to everyone seeking higher education. A Democratic President will enact policies that promote social and economic justice.

These goals reflect a major distinction between the values of the Democratic Party versus the objectives of the Republican party. For example, Democrats are trying to establish a national health insurance program through legislation (H.R.676) sponsored by Representative John Conyers (D-MI 14th) along with 78 Democratic co-sponsors, while no Republicans have cosponsored the bill.

When it comes to the rights of women, Democrats are the ones leading the effort to reverse the reactionary holding by the Supreme Court in the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber case in which the Roberts Court denied compensation to Lily Ledbetter for the sex discrimination she suffered after years of being paid lower wages than her male counterparts. Legislation in both the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R.2834) and Senate (S.1843)has been introduced to restore fairness and equity between men and women in the workplace.

Democrats have also been the ones to introduce in both houses of Congress, The Paycheck Fairness Act, which if passed and signed into law would enhance enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, in addition to provide better data collection to help develop a clearer understanding of the causes and extent of the problem, as well as what to do about it.

There is also the bill sponsored by Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT 3rd), along with 16 other Democratic cosponsors interested in restoring the credibility of the Food and Drug Administration as a premier scientific body rather than an ideologically driven governmental entity. H.R.2503, the FDA Scientific Fairness For Women Act will protect the health of women and the integrity of the drug review process.

Thanks to the Democratic leadership in the Senate, the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program, one of the federal governments most successful small business development programs that has helped women and minority owned businesses throughout the country, remains intact after House Republicans stripped the program from funding. Perhaps the Senate Democrats will also be able to finally ratify CEDAW: The United Nations Convention On The Elimination Of All Forms Of Discrimination Against Women.

Working together with the Federation and all of the other allied women's groups, environmental groups, labor organizations and other progressive activists, we can elect a Democratic president and increase the number of Democrats in all local, state and federal offices. The time for change starts with working on behalf of Democrats and that time is now.

The loss of constitutional freedoms by the Bush Administration and Supreme Court continues to activate people all around the country to speak out against the Robert's Court and more specifically its trampling on each person's right to privacy. In particular, the Supreme Court's decision in "Gonzales v. Carhart," this past April was an outright assault on women all across the nation and drew immediate attention to the importance of having a Democratic president elected in 2008.

Given the Bush Administration's impact and influence on the Supreme Court, men and women alike are beginning to recognize the relationship between the presidency and the people serving in the judicial branch of government. The checks and balances that are supposed to protect the people from a government run amok have been breached by the activist judges appointed by a President who demands total obedience to his own political sentiments.

People from all walks of life are joining together in greater numbers than ever before to express their anger at the reactionary policies of the Bush Administration, in addition to many of the Supreme Court's decisions. Women are especially aggrieved by Justice Anthony Kennedy's portrayal of women in "Carhart" as being incapable of making intelligent, independent decisions about their own personal health care. This paternalistic viewpoint effectively removes the decision-making process from women and their doctors to make critical health care decisions without government interference. The Bush Administration's sanctioning of this decision echos this discriminatory and sexist belief.

The problem with "Carhart" is explicit by what is not stated in the decision. No where does the Court discuss the life of the woman as a whole, complete person, an independent adult with intelligence and the same right as others to be free from control by a government apparatus that is supposed to respect a person's privacy, especially surrounding the right to control one's own body. Instead, the majority in the Robert's Court, along with the Republicans and Bush Administration, substitute their own judgment in place of a woman's considered and rational determination about her own health care needs.

"Gonzales v. Carhart" is the Republicans' first major step towards outlawing abortion. States dominated by Republican lawmakers are already following suit to outlaw abortions in as many ways as they can dream up. For instance, Missouri Governor Matt Blunt signed a new law that places abortion clinics under government oversight by classifying them as ambulatory surgical centers. As such, the often financially strapped clinics may be forced to spend millions of dollars to remodel their clinics unnecessarily. This will likely lead to additional closures of health care facilities that provide safe and legal abortion services.

In Louisiana, late term abortion procedures have been outlawed and doctors are penalized if they perform such procedures in all cases except for those when the mother's life is threatened. Thus, it is a crime to perform this rare, but sometimes medically necessary procedure, even when the pregnancy causes significant health problems and risks for the mother.

Efforts have also been underway by the Bush Administration to severely limit sex education to abstinence only programs proven to be ineffective. And women in the military are unable to access many reproductive services, including emergency contraception, that non-military women possess.

There should be no doubt that the Republicans are on a mission to limit not only women's freedom to control their own bodies, including restricting their legal choices even as they relate to the use of contraception, but also to rewrite the Constitution in a 21st Century image that closely resembles McCarthyism. As such, it is abundantly clear that we must elect a Democratic president and many more Democrats to Congress lest women's constitutional rights, and the freedoms all Americans have peacefully enjoyed pursuant to a constitution based upon individual liberty and a Supreme Court that is supposed to administer justice for all, become completely obliterated.

Thankfully, Democrats in Congress have already taken a strong stand to counteract the Bush Administration by introducing the Freedom of Choice Act (S.1173 and H.R. 1064) which codifies reproductive freedom based upon the tenets of "Roe v. Wade." Finally women will have the protection they need under federal law by the passage of this legislation. However, without sufficient numbers of Democrats in Congress and a Democratic President who will sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law, women and men will continue to lose their constitutional rights.

This piece was written by Louisa Kinoshi, WLF Intern and Sharon Grosfeld, WLF Executive Director.

At the 2007 National NOW Conference held in Detroit earlier this month, a Resolution was passed to form an "ad hoc" committee to study the health issues of women in the military. This committee plans to work with other organizations to find solutions to the many problems facing women in the armed forces. (The full resolution can be found by going to the 2007 National Now Conference site at http://now.org).

Women have served in every military conflict in U.S. history, whether through troop support, nurses providing aid to injured troops, or in other capacities. The first group of women to formally enlist joined the Navy and Marines in World War I. In World War II, more than 400,000 women served as nurses, pilots and other "non-combat" roles. Women were also a substantial presence in the Korean, Vietnam and Persian Gulf War.

Today, there are approximately 350,000 women serving in the armed forces, composing about 15% of active U.S. military forces. In Iraq and Afghanistan, women are taking more active roles as bomber pilots, navigators, tanker pilots and weapons officers. In Iraq alone, one out of seven troops is a woman. The high percentage of women serving in the Iraq war reflects both an increased role for women as well as an increased demand for soldiers. It is an absurdity to think that women cannot or should not serve in combat positions when the reality is precisely the opposite.

Women in the military make the same sacrifices as men, such as leaving behind families, friends, and jobs, and suffer similar rates of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as well as other psychological and emotional conditions. However, women also have to deal with problems their male counterparts typically do not confront, such as sexual harassment and abuse. In 2005, there were 37 reports of sexual assault suffered by female troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet the response to their victimization has been negligible.

President Bush has, and continues to put our servicemen and servicewomen in harms way in Iraq, without any foreseeable plan to bring our troops home. What's more, his policies regarding addressing military women's health needs are harmful to servicewomen and place them at additional risk. Military women deserve full and complete access to all abortion and contraception services currently available to non-military women. Health screenings such as pap tests and mammograms must be made a routine part of the health care military women receive. It is a disgrace that the women risking their lives for our country are denied basic health care treatment.

In addition to bringing our troops home from Iraq, the problems faced by women in the military must be immediately addressed. The "ad hoc" group being created by the National Organization For Women is a great place to strategize and create ways to end the discrimination our servicewomen face, and the Women's Leadership Forum stands ready to assist in finding solutions. Hopefully WLF's work in electing a Democratic president and increasing the number of Democratic members in Congress will serve that purpose. It is certainly the best way to bring home our troops.

Written by Louisa Kinoshi and Joanna Pucci, WLF interns, with the assistance of Sharon Grosfeld, WLF Executive Director.

According to a newly released report by "Women's Voices Women Vote," (see http://www.wvwv.org), an organization created to actively involve women living on their own in politics and government affairs, it is these very women who will be the driving force creating major political change in 2008. Democrats need to be speaking directly to the needs of these women, who will turn the tide away from the Republicans and into victory for the Democrats, as they did in the 2006 Congressional races.

Almost 31 million women living on their own are registered to vote. Over the last three presidential elections, women on their own have supported the Democratic nominee at far greater numbers than many other constituency groups. By understanding the particular needs of these women, in addition to reaching out to the millions more who are not registered to vote, the Democratic Party can build a formidable alliance with a critical group that will help to insure a Democrat sits in the White House in 2008, and that Democrats hold a substantial majority in Congress.

Working together, we can propel even greater numbers of women living on their own to be the agents of change that so many have already demonstrated themselves to be. Those of us active in Democratic politics must each commit to register at least 8 women to vote, and we must stay in touch with these women to keep them engaged in the political process. We must also commit to educate and inform women on their own, who are already registered but do not vote, about how their participation in the democratic process will make a difference in their personal lives, as well as in the uplifting of our society.

The momentum of this cultural shift must continue in our direction, and it will as long as we reach out and address the real concerns of this new majority. It is not too soon to start this civil engagement. Then, on election day, we must make absolutely certain that all of these women come to the polls to cast their ballots.

This piece was written by Louisa Kinoshi, WLF Intern, and Sharon Grosfeld, WLF Executive Director.

A good deal of data is being collected and analyzed about the increasing numbers of younger and middle aged women living on their own. As such, the matter of aging should be of particular concern to women, especially since older or "wise" women are the ones most likely to be living on their own given their longer life expectancy than men. Indeed, the average life expectancy for women is 84 years of age, whereas for men it is 81 years old. However, men are much more likely than women to be married until their deaths.

"Wise" women (over sixty-five) are particularly vulnerable since many lack the retirement income and assets that men often have accumulated, and will typically face increased health problems without adequate financial or social support. That is why we need to have a social security system that recognizes, and is based upon, the realities of women's lives. This reality consists of women earning approximately seventy-seven cents to every dollar a man earns and encountering sex discrimination in employment without adequate remedies.

President Bush and most Republicans in the House and Senate refuse to do what is necessary to insure a fiscally secure social security system and fair workplace environment that can meet the needs of women, many of whom during the past six years have fallen into poverty as a result of the president's disastrous policies that have favored the extremely wealthy at the expense of the middle class and poor. When nearly two-thirds of women over the age of 65 receive a majority of their income from social security, it is imperative that we elect a president and members to Congress that understand the vital importance of having a social security system that provides a decent standard of living for all Americans.

In just three short years from now, it is estimated that the population will increase to approximately forty million people and in 2020 there will be about fifty-five million people, with 7.3 million being eighty-five years of age or older. Given that the major source of income now for older folks is social secuirty, it is imperative that we insure this system's survival. Again, the only way to do this is by electing Democrats up and down the ballot. While having to grow older is inevitable, living a substandard life during those golden years is not. Let's make sure social security is protected by electing Democrats.

This piece was written by Joanna M. Pucci, WLF intern, and Sharon Grosfeld, Exeuctive Director, WLF.

President Bush's threatened veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (S.5), is yet another example of his refusal to accept the will of a majority of the American people and of the Congress on a matter of grave importance. This potentially life saving legislation would provide federal funding for research on frozen embryos regardless of the date that the stem cells were obtained. Currently, embryonic stem cell research is only permitted for research utilizing embryonic stem cell lines that were created on or before August 9, 2001. By expanding the law, the chances of finding better treatments and even cures for certain medical conditions increases dramatically.

A majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate voted to pass the legislation and 80 percent of female members of Congress supported the bill. Unfortunately, neither the House nor Senate currently hold a veto-proof majority, though the Senate may be just a couple votes shy of the two-thirds majority it needs.

All "ethical" concerns have been addressed in the legislation and as such the President has no rational basis to veto the bill. For instance, the embryos used would be ones that were otherwise going to be discarded, and the donors would have to give their informed consent in writing. There could be no financial or any other inducements to donors and the embryos would only come from in vitro fertilization clinics.

Sadly, people who could most be helped by the passage of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 will have to wait until we have a Democratic president. Fortunately, this will happen in 2008.

The Bush Administration has done everything in its power to block the distribution of emergency birth control to women. From delaying over-the-counter sales of the emergency contraception pill known as "Plan B," to overruling the decision by the Defense Department to stock "Plan B" at military medical facilities, President Bush's right wing agenda has been a constant assault on women's lives.

H.R.2064, known as the Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act would remedy the problem faced by our courageous women serving in the armed forces who are in need of "Plan B" by requiring emergency contraception to be included within the list of drugs made available at every military health care facility. Given the incidences of sexual offenses occurring against women in the military as reported in various media outlets, it is critical that emergency contraception be made easily and readily available to these women. All women serving in the military deserve to have immediate access to such methods in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

It is mind boggling that the President would interfere with this decision by the Defense Department to ensure the availability of emergency contraception to female military personnel, let alone obstruct women's access to "Plan B" after the FDA determined the drug to be safe and effective for over-the-counter use. Yet it should not be surprising given how little respect the Bush Administration pays to factual data and scientific evidence.

Currently this bill, sponsored by Representative Michael H. Michaud from Maine, along with 9 cosponsors, is working its way through the legislative process and has been referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. It is important to contact your Representative to ensure his or her support for this critical piece of legislation. Certainly, at the very least, our government should be providing quality health care to the women who have committed their lives to the security of our country. They deserve the same peace of mind.

Last month, when the Supreme Court ruled in the case of "Gonzalez v. Carhart" to limit the options that women and their doctors may consider when choosing to abort a pregnancy, it became abundantly clear that women did not enjoy the same equal protection under the law as they had prior to the Court's decision. By banning a particular, medically accepted abortion procedure in all cases except where the mother's life is endangered, the Court took away a woman's legal right to decide how to end a pregnancy, placing that decision instead in the hands of the government.

In the heat of the Presidential contest, the Republican candidates are tripping over themselves as they attempt to appeal to the far right base of their Party. Once a supporter of a woman's right to choose, including the right of women to receive publicly funded abortions, Rudy Giuliani is now flip-flopping on this fundamental right for women, trying to blur his stance by making nonsensical distinctions between his past position and current one. Other Republican candidates such as Mitt Romney have also changed their positions as they pursue the presidency, demonstrating that women's rights are expendable.

Fortunately, Democrats do not treat women's rights as mythology. This is evident by the introduction of the Freedom of Choice Act, (sponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) along with many cosponsors), which would reverse the Supreme Court's ruling in "Gonzales" by restoring the decision-making process about the most medically appropriate abortion procedure to women in consultation with their doctors. The Freedom of Choice Act codifies the ruling in "Roe v. Wade" and as such protects the constitutional right women had to control their own bodies prior to Congress enacting, and President Bush signing the federal abortion ban, followed by the Supreme Court giving this irresponsible and unsafe ban its final stamp of approval.

As Republicans continue to dismantle the Constitution, seen here with respect to women's equality under the law, but also in connection with other cherished civil liberties that define our country, we must remember that a huge price is paid by the gradual disintegration of our bedrock principles. That toll comes in the form of a loss of freedom for us all. That is why passing the Freedom of Choice Act is an absolute necessity. It serves as the starting point for the renewal of our commitment to the Constitution and America's ideals.

This piece was written by Michelle Yashar, intern, DNC American Majority Partnership and Sharon Grosfeld, Executive Director of the Women's Leadership Forum of the DNC.

Though women are breaking through all kinds of ceilings, they still encounter wage disparities, and for women of color the inequities are even more profound. Overall, women earn 77 cents to every dollar a man makes, however, if the woman is African American she makes on average 72 cents, while Latinas earn 59 cents for every dollar a white male earns. In addition to this wage inequity, far fewer women than men receive pensions or have retirement savings, despite the fact that women as a whole live longer than men. (For complete details on the employment status of women and men, visit the U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau website at: www.dol.gov/wb/)

Women must demand pay equity now and not have to rely upon filing discrimination suits in order to get the same wages and benefits that men receive for the same or equivalent jobs. Currently there are two bills in Congress that address the problem of income inequality. One is "The Fair Pay Act" which establishes equal pay for equal work. That means that jobs held primarily by women must pay the same as jobs of the equivalent or similar skill level as those primarily held by men.

The other piece of legislation currently pending in Congress is "The Paycheck Fairness Act" which strengthens the penalties for violations of the Equal Pay Act, in addition to re-instating the Bureau of Labor Statistics as the government agency to be responsible for the collection of data on women. It also bans retaliation and eliminates the "gag rule" regarding the disclosure of wages, amongst other things.

National public awareness campaigns will be taking place throughout the country on Equal Pay Day, marking the importance of this issue. Here in Washington, D.C. at 1:30pm a rally will be held on the West Lawn of the Capitol to demonstrate support for equal pay and the two bills introduced to achieve it.

Sex discrimination in the workplace manifests itself in many different forms, with wage disparities being amongst the most blatant. Such practices are not likely to end until the strong message communicated on Equal Pay Day is heard by every employer and member of Congress.

The worth of women's labor must be measured by the same objective criteria used to define the quality of men's work. If this is done then it will become obvious that pay equity is good for women, for children and for men. It is good for the economy and it is one of the best ways to keep women and children out of poverty. Finally, it is the fair thing to do.

For all of the talk by the Bush Administration claiming to want a Supreme Court composed of justices who will not be activists, today's 5 to 4 decision upholding the federal abortion ban, or so-called "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act," demonstrated that what the Republican Administration really wanted, and got, were in fact activist judges who have no problem throwing away years of precedent when it comes to the health and safety of women. Today's ruling by the Supreme Court to ban an abortion procedure that has been found necessary in some cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists makes it clear that women's health care decisions are now in the hands of ideologues rather than their own and their physicians.

In the historic case of "Roe v. Wade," the Supreme Court found that abortion restrictions must contain exceptions to protect women's lives and health. The current Court however decided that the health of the woman was not a necessary consideration in this case, thereby reversing 30 years of precedent and demonstrating that these activist judges are willing to sacrifice the health and safety of women in order to impose their own personal dogma.

Not too long ago before President Bush had the opportunity to appoint two new anti-choice justices to sit on the high court, a very similar ban imposed on women in Nebraska was struck down by the Supreme Court because it did not include an exception to protect the woman's health and because the wording constituted an undue burden on a woman's right to choose. However, the decision in this former case was irrelevant to the current majority. As such, there can be no further doubt that these activist judges are likely to overturn "Roe v. Wade" once the opportunity presents itself.

Today's ruling represents an abuse of power by the majority of the Court over the privacy rights held by women for decades. These justices clearly believe that it is better to be paternalistic than to allow women to have the right to make their own health care decisions. Fortunately, women still retain the ability to exercise one basic, fundamental right - the right to vote. The voices of women's outrage must be taken to the ballot box if we are ever to restore the right just denied us and protect the rights we still have.