LANSING, Mich. - The Violence Against Women Act has been renewed twice with bipartisan support since originally passed in 1994, but this year's reauthorization has become the object of an election year political battle. The Senate has approved a version of the bill that includes immigrants, Native Americans, and LBGT victims of domestic abuse, but the House passed a version that excluded those protections. The National Organization for Women is opposed to the House version, which it calls an "atrocious bill".

Mary Pollack, legislative vice president for Michigan NOW, says that's because the House bill excludes many domestic abuse victims who historically have fallen through the cracks.

"Especially immigrant women are especially vulnerable, because some of them are victims of domestic violence and are very afraid of calling the police or calling for help."

Leaders of more than 30 religious groups are also opposed to the House bill, because they say it rolls back current protections for "battered non-citizens." House Republican leaders say their bill protects all victims and that there is no reason for the bill to single out certain groups.

Pollock says the two Senators from Michigan, Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin, did the right thing by voting for the Senate reauthorization bill.

"It's the bill that we want, and the Republicans seem to be dead set against anything that women's rights advocates want."

Proponents of the Senate bill cited studies that show the rate of domestic abuse among lesbian, gay, and transgender people to be about the same as among the general population, yet that abuse is reported less.

Pollock thinks House Republicans are afraid to face reality.

"They cannot vote on anything that recognizes that there may be more discrimination against that group than other groups. It is the civil rights topic of our time."

Pollock calls the House bill anti-gay, anti-woman and anti-immigrant. House Republicans accuse Senate Democrats of playing politics with the issue.

The Violence Against Women Act expires in September. Both sides say they support reauthorization. No official negotiations have been scheduled to work out a compromise. President Obama has threatened to veto the House version.

The Senate bill is S.1925; the House bill is H.R.4970.

A NOW statement is at tinyurl.com/7kd2qjv.





get more stories like this via email

Following the signing of the Michigan Family Protection Act by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, concerns remain about a potential federal ban on in vitro fertilization. The Act, signed in April, safeguards reproductive services such as surrogacy IVF and abortion. However, Project 2025 could limit access to these services if he wins the presidency in November.

Stephanie Jones of Grand Blanc, a mother who used IVF to conceive and had her daughter via surrogacy after secondary infertility, is a strong advocate of the procedure.

"A ban on IVF would be a ban on critical health care to hundreds of thousands of Americans, and without access to IVF, people would not be able to grow and some start their families. So it would be devastating," she contended.

Jones nearly lost her life due to a rare ectopic pregnancy, and credits an emergency abortion with saving her. Her pre-Roe experience now drives her advocacy for policies that protect IVF and support unrestricted abortion rights.

However, many right-to-life advocates contend that these reproductive services are not only morally wrong but unsafe.

Natalie Dodson, a policy analyst with The Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington D.C., warns that reproductive service providers often downplay the health risks associated with IVF for both mothers and babies.

"In particular, the risk of non-chromosomal birth defects increase by 40%, the risk of autism is two times more likely, stillbirth increases up to 4 times compared to spontaneous conception. Additionally, women who undergo IVF experience increased health risks and poor health outcome," she said.

Dodson claims that scientifically life begins at conception, inside or outside the uterus, and said her main concern is whether embryos created through IVF have the same value as those developing naturally.


get more stories like this via email

Women's Equality Day commemorates the passage of the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. More than a century later, women have made progress but more work needs to be done.

Women have made major gains in elected positions across the country. In Oregon, they make up more than 40% of the seats in the legislature, the 13th highest percentage in the country.

Libra Forde, co-chair of the Oregon Commission for Women, said the 19th Amendment was a big accomplishment but it did not end the push for women's progress.

"As they saw a need during their time for us to have availability and access to things that they didn't have, I think most of the women -- especially the women of the commission -- we see a need to do the same thing for things that maybe women have not had access to yet and kind of taking the torch that's been passed to us," Forde explained.

Forde highlighted some of the issues where Oregon lawmakers could go further, such as being more vigorous in protecting women from domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. On Aug. 26, 1920, the U.S. Secretary of State completed the ratification process for the 19th Amendment, ensuring women the right to vote.

Forde acknowledged Oregon lawmakers and groups across the state are doing a good job advocating for women's rights but added it is going to take a greater effort to protect rights for the next generation.

"We're going to need more than just women to do that work," Forde emphasized. "We need everyone to come together, kind of like they did 104 years ago, and say, hey, this is important to all of us and if we all came in on this, then I think we all can also succeed."

The Oregon Commission for Women is among the state's four advocacy commissions. It pushes for policies to support and protect women.


get more stories like this via email

In Ohio, women's political voices are facing a significant challenge, as a new analysis by the Center for American Women and Politics revealed a stark disparity in campaign contributions between men and women.

The study, which examined donations to major party candidates across 10 states, found men significantly out-give women, potentially leading to the underrepresentation of women's interests in politics.

Kira Sanbonmatsu, a researcher at the Center for American Women and Politics, explained the findings.

"Men are much more likely than women to be providing the funds that are fueling state candidates," Sanbonmatsu reported. "This means that women have fewer resources to get their voices heard."

Sanbonmatsu added the financial disparity has significant implications in Ohio, where women, especially in the Republican Party, remain underrepresented. Despite some progress, women in Ohio's legislature still struggle to achieve parity with men, largely due to financial constraints.

Sanbonmatsu said women, particularly from marginalized communities, often lack the resources to self-finance their campaigns, making it even harder to compete with better-funded male candidates.

A deeper look into Ohio's political landscape revealed most women running for office are Democrats, leaving a significant gap in representation among Republican women. Sanbonmatsu noted the trend mirrors national patterns and highlighted the challenges women face in accessing the financial networks necessary to support their campaigns.

"It's not enough for us to say women should run," Sanbonmatsu emphasized. "Do they have the resources to be successful in their campaigns?"

The study argued closing the funding gap is crucial for achieving equal representation for women in Ohio's political system. Increasing financial contributions from women and providing stronger support for female candidates could help create a more level playing field, ensuring women's voices have a meaningful effect on shaping the state's future.


get more stories like this via email