http://www.idealist.org/view/internship/5tjKccpzdx74/

By Rachel Queirolo, BTCC Project Assistant

This International Women’s Day is a blog series featuring the opinions of BTCC advocacy interns and staff related to women’s rights in the US and around the world.

Her back sore and twisted from sleeping on the cold closet floor, V.M. awakes to cleaning the 34-room mansion that she is bound to, cooking, and caring for 6 children. Her hard work is rewarded with 87 cents an hour as she labors 17 hours a day, every single day for the past six years of her life. Most Americans are accustomed to a 40-50 and for the more ambitious, 60-70 hour work week. V.M. endures a 119 hour work week. Her identity consumed and her dignity devastated, V.M. has been transformed from a courageous woman seeking some semblance of a better life in the U.S. that her native India could not offer her, into a domestic slave.

Today, there are 27 million slaves silently suffering throughout the world. According to the State Department there are approximately 16,000 new cases of slavery in the U.S. every year. The Department of Justice acknowledges that of the 16,000 U.S. cases, 25 percent of the slaves are domestic workers. While many domestic servants and modern-day slaves are viciously tortured and abused, the shackles of immigration laws and the grave shortcomings of labor protections and rights further harm women even after they escape.

  While in 1935, the National Labor Relations Act granted unionization, safety standards, minimum wage, and collective bargaing to most workers, the Act also purposefully barred domestic and agricultural work from these crucial worker protections. Many lawmakers and scholars have attributed this explicit exclusion to race, as the vast majority of domestic workers are Latina, Black, Asian, and foreign-born women. Only in 2010, did the U.S. introduce the first legal act to safeguard domestic workers with the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights.

Amnesty International and Anti-Slavery International presented a nearly 200 page report denouncing the British government for being more concerned with the stringent legal immigration statuses of survivors than with the crimes committed against them.

Somehow in the confusion and formalities of the immigration legal rhetoric and debate, regulations, codes, and terms seem to triumph over the human spirit and one’s most fundamental of human rights. We must not let the nuances of immigration law overshadow the basic dignity and freedom of women throughout world. On the path where domestic workers, modern-day slavery, and immigration law meet, there is no simple black and white resolution. At Break the Chain Campaign, we are navigating those systems and invite you to comment and join us on this journey.

If you’re interested in the issues facing immigrant domestic workers who have faced trafficking and exploitation, here are a few links to check out:

www.breakthechaincampaigndc.org

www.webelongtogether.org

www.caringacrossgenerations.org

www.freedomnetworkusa.org

This International Women’s Day is a blog series featuring the opinions of BTCC advocacy interns and staff related to women’s rights in the US and around the world. 

By Susie Robertson, BTCC Intern 

This International Women’s Day, I want to talk about one issue that has been on my mind. Last week, the Senate effectively killed the Blunt Amendment, a piece of legislation created in response to the Department of Health and Human Services’ contraceptive care mandate. The amendment would have allowed employers to opt out of covering any health services that are contrary to their beliefs. This was a small victory in what feels like a rising “war on women.”  I do not support any attack on women’s access to contraception, but what upsets me most about this controversy is the sudden resurgence of hateful, misogynistic language.

When Rush Limbaugh used the term “slut” to describe the Georgetown Law Student who recently testified before Congress on the issue of contraceptive coverage, I was both offended and concerned. It scares me that that type of language still has a place in our political discourse. That type of stigmatization of female sexuality is not only outdated, it is flat out wrong.

As disgusting as Limbaugh’s comments were, overt sexism is not the only issue at play. Women themselves have wavered in their unconditional support for birth control. The arguments in defense of contraceptive coverage have focused largely on the alternative uses for the therapy, such as treating ovarian cysts and regulating hormonal disorders. Even Sandra Fluke, who has become a symbol of the female side to the argument focused primarily on these alternative uses in her testimony before Congress. These types of conditions are important reasons for the affordability and availability of birth control, but focusing on them seems to imply that there is something wrong with using contraceptive to prevent pregnancy. Taking control over your reproductive health and engaging in consensual sex responsibly does not make you a “slut,” and no woman should apologize for using birth control.

Access to family planning and quality healthcare are the most effective tools to empower women. Today, trafficking and exploitation of women are at disturbingly high levels and women across the globe face the threat of violence everyday. The current attack on women’s health in America is yet another obstacle in addressing this problem. The more we limit access to birth control, the more vulnerable women around world become. As the international community confronts the crisis of women’s rights, family planning and sexual health needs to be part of the discussion.

That is why this International Women’s Day, I want all women to be proudly demand control over our own reproductive health. To paraphrase one of this year’s best movies about strong women, I want to say something to every woman out there: You are kind, you are smart, you are important and you are not a “slut.”

This International Women’s Day is a blog series featuring the opinions of BTCC advocacy interns and staff related to women’s rights in the US and around the world.

Tomorrow night, Break the Chain Campaign will be hosting a screening of the PBS special “Lost in Detention” at the IPS conference room.  “Lost in Detention,” a documentary done by Frontline and the American University Investigative Reporting Workshop, is the end result of a year-long study into the implications of the Obama administration’s harsh crackdown on immigration enforcement.

 As a presidential candidate, Obama ran on a platform that promised immigration reform.  Now, almost four years later, the Obama administration has deported over one million people – more than any other administration in the history of the United States.  Once a major campaign promise, Obama is unable to get any progressive or moderate immigration reform passed in Congress.  How does someone go from a major campaign promise to executing the exact opposite?

 Washington has been unable to enact new immigration policy for years. If change is impossible with a Republican-controlled Congress, the Obama administration acknowledges the responsibility it has to enforce the laws that are currently in place. As Gary Segura, a political scientist at Stanford University comments, “in the absence of reform, we are left with enforcement on steroids.”

 But at what cost does this harsh enforcement come?  A couple of the far-reaching implications that are highlighted in Frontline’s documentary include Secure Communities and detention centers.

 The Secure Communities program allows law enforcement at the local and state levels to crosscheck fingerprints of anyone booked with the federal immigration database.  The goal is that the worst type of criminals will then, at the same time, be checking their immigration status – ensuring that if one of these criminals is undocumented, they are deported instead of staying in the US prison system.

 This noted explanation of the Secure Communities program is idealistic, at best; critics of the program say that the program has swept up thousands more than just hardened criminals. Some may brush this off as “collateral damage” – but is even one life ruined too excessive of collateral damage?

 In detention centers, detainees are not guaranteed access to a lawyer.  These centers have become more like permanent structures, with the government out-sourcing to third-party vendors.  The “politics of immigration are lost in detention centers.”  When women and men are sexually assaulted and beaten, they are threatened to not file complaints.  Without access to lawyers or anyone who can ensure that basic human rights of these individuals are respected, how can we really claim to know that these detainees are safe?

“This year, about 400,000 undocumented immigrants will be detained and deported.”  At what ethical cost does “protecting the public” and “strengthening border security” come?  Tearing apart families and stripping detainees’ basic human rights – are these acceptable collateral damages of the responsibility of enforcing current laws, or has the Obama administration gone too far?  What, if anything, can be done to get progressive immigration reform passed in Congress?  Will the Obama administration continue to run on immigration reform for the 2012 election, and if (in the future), will the current administration continue to try to change the immigration system?

These are the types of topics you can expect to be discussed tomorrow night, including a focus on the intersection between gender and detention in the United States.  After the screening, we will be joined by a panel of experts for an open discussion on the film: Jennifer Podkul from the Women's Refugee Commission, Chris Harley from the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF), and Sarahi Uribe from the National Day Labor Organizing Network (NDLON).  Space is limited, so RSVP to tiffany@ips-dc.org  to reserve your space!

http://www.idealist.org/view/internship/Kj2zp2Pj832D/

In October 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement declined the renewal of a grant to the United States Conferences of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Migration and Refugee Services (MRS), an organization that distributes aid to organizations whose clients are victims of human trafficking.  Instead, the grant was divided and given to four organizations, the largest of which is the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI). 

In a statement, HHS explained their decision: 

"Victims of trafficking have significant health care needs. Based on these needs, our Office of Refugee Resettlement included an explicit preference for organizations that would ensure that victims had access to information and referrals for the full range of health care services in the funding announcement for these grants…The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops indicated it could not meet that standard."

In essence, that “standard” to which HHS is referring is providing abortion, sterilization or contraceptive services- case managers commonly refer to these as family planning services.  In accordance with Catholic Church teaching, USCCB “won’t facilitate taking innocent life, sterilization and artificial contraception.” In 2009, the American Civil Liberties Union brought a suit against the U.S. District Court in Boston for not requiring USCCB to provide these services as a part of MRS’s anti-trafficking programs.

Due to controversy concerning the grant dispersal, The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform began an investigation into HHS’s grant dispersal process: whether or not HHS did so justly and within the correct parameters, or if they should have refused USCCB from submitting an application from the beginning. The first hearing was held on December 1^st, 2011.  This hearing dealt only with the concerns surrounding HHS and the justness of their dispersal The second hearing was held on December 14^th, at the request of Representative Elijah Cummings (D-MD). 

The focus of the second hearing was to educate the Committee on the services needed by and available to victims, in contrast to the first hearing, which dealt exclusively with the actions of HHS.  ”To conduct a responsible review of the process used to award these grants,” said Cummings, “we need to understand who these victims are, what they have gone through, and why they need reproductive health services.” Service providers and survivors of trafficking were represented by a panel of two human rights activists: Florrie Burke, a psychologist and well-respected expert on anti-human trafficking efforts and Chair Emeritus of Freedom Network USA, and Andrea Powell, the Executive Director and Co-Founder of FAIR Girls in Washington D.C. Throughout the hour, they emphasized that returning agency to a client is essential to the healing process, as it is agency that was taken from them by their traffickers.  By restoring agency, the client service providers restore the dignity of their clients, and by restricting access to reproductive health services, the USCCB is denying survivors of human trafficking the agency to choose their health care for themselves.

Break the Chain Campaign strongly believes in the concept of restoring the rights of the survivors through restoring agency and self-determination.  Survivors of trafficking deserve immediate and full access to the entire range of healthcare services, including family planning and reproductive services. We are concerned that anti-choice politics will distort what really matters in anti-trafficking service provision: the human rights of survivors.

On Wednesday, January 25, the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on HR 1173, which is euphemistically entitled the “Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act of 2011.”  This bill would repeal the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act.  The CLASS Act was designed to be a voluntary insurance program to help Americans pay for long term care, and it was passed as part of the Affordable Care Act.

Please CLICK HERE to find the phone number for your Member of the House of Representatives and tell her/him:

1. The CLASS Act should not be repealed.
2. Repealing CLASS ignores the needs of millions of Americans with disabilities and seniors who need long term services and supports to maintain their independence and dignity.
3. Repealing CLASS ignores the needs of the direct care workforce for quality jobs.

Then, let us know you've made the call!

by Josh Edwards

Jill’s admittance to the hospital was preceded by a diagnosis of a decubitus ulcer, which is damage caused by pressure or friction, on her lumbar spine. Jill is a 17 year-old girl who has suffered from Myelodysplasia (spina bifida) since birth. Beth is an occupational therapist who has worked with Jill’s insurance to assist her in getting a much needed new mattress that will supply continuous airflow. Jill currently uses a standard mattress with a gel overlay. The mattress is estimated to be 10 years old, while the gel overlay, over years of use, has succumbed to an unsupportive split down the middle offering Jill negligible support.

Beth, along with a mattress representative from a company dealing exclusively with supportive equipment for spinal conditions, has requested from Medicare a new mattress––the one that supplies continuous airflow. Medicare refused to cover the $9,000 expense to supply Jill with an indispensable medical need, but offered to rent the mattress for one month. After refusing to accept Medicare’s offer, Beth and the mattress representative along with Jill’s physician wrote a compelling letter detailing Jill’s condition, her current sleeping arrangement, and the need for this equipment to avert additional bed sores.

Within a short time, Medicare revised their decision, allowing a rental mattress for two months instead of just one, rather than spend $9,000 for years of quality use. Why? The reason they cited was a mattress of this sophistication cannot be resold. Per Medicare’s policy, a standard mattress can be bought and resold every five years under their coverage policy, but because Jill would require a specialized mattress, Medicare will not approve purchase.  

People with spinal cord injuries like Jill’s cannot feel the damage being done, while a person without such an injury could simply adjust their posture. Consequently, after Jill has surgery to repair the skin, she will be bed-ridden with spotty support for several weeks, unaware if any movements she makes could be damaging her skin. Yet Medicare holds firm in their decision not to cover the cost of the mattress for Jill.

Through my internship for the Caring Across Generations campaign, I am starting to learn more about the improvements we need to make to our health care system. Like Jill, many individuals with disabilities are unable to receive the care they need – whether that’s in the form of hours of home care, or specialized equipment that would significantly improve quality of life. I look forward to sharing more blogs in the future as I learn more about the state of healthcare in America.

When issues like Medicare and Medicaid come up in political conversations, people in my age group (20-30) tend to ignore them. After all, I’m young and healthy, so how do Medicare and Medicaid affect me anytime in the near future? The truth is that we will have to deal with these programs earlier in our lives that most people think. In the past few years, I have seen my grandparents age and I have watched my parents work to ensure they receive quality healthcare and assistance for all of their needs. What has become clear is that the management of those services often falls into the hand of their adult family members. These programs will affect me and my peers as early as our 30’s or 40’s. That is why it is important for our age group to pay attention to these issues and work to ensure that our country has a social safety net large enough and comprehensive enough to offer quality healthcare and assistance to our seniors and disabled at an affordable price. That is why we should all lend our support to projects like Caring Across Generations, which focus on making essential care available to all seniors and disabled.

The Caring Across Generations campaign seeks to improve the care of elderly and disabled by focusing not only on contributory programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security but also by reaching out to the direct-care work force itself. The direct-care work force, which includes Nursing Assistants, home health aides, and personal care aides, is rarely considered in discussions on healthcare reform and is exempt from many labor regulations, which is made possible by exploitive measures like the companionship exemption law. If we can improve the job quality and standard of living of direct-care workers while providing monetary support for individuals in need of caregivers, then we can create a better system of care for our elderly and disabled. Please take the time to visit the Caring Across Generations webpage to read more about the issues at hand and hear stories about what it is like to be elderly or disabled in America.

On behalf of the leadership team of the Caring Across Generations Campaign, I am excited to invite you all to an action on December 7^th down in Lower Senate Park.  Don't miss this important event, where our Everyday Superheros will speak out in front of thousands of people who will be spending the night camped out in the "Take Back Our Capital People's Encampment". Get more information and register here: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6748/p/salsa/event/common/public/?event_KEY=46005