    |
       |
|
|
|
|
|
2008 NEWS
September 2008
High rate of C-section births is health concern for women
September 5, 2008 - Washington's extraordinarily high rate of Caesarean-section deliveries, reported Aug. 22 in the P-I, raises alarms for those who care about women's reproductive health and patients' rights.
Read Senior Legal Counsel Sara Ainsworth's op-ed column on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer website.
August 2008
Law Center Works to Support Legal Equality for Women Who Do Not or Cannot Marry Their Intimate Partners
On August 6, 2008, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard argument in Owens v. Automative Machinists Pension Trust. Norma and Phillip Owens were a committed couple who lived together, owned property, and raised 2 children together. After 30 years, they separated, and a Washington state court awarded Norma half of Phillip’s retirement pension. The Automative Machinists Pension Trust, the company that distributes the pension funds, refused to pay Norma any of the benefits because she and Phillip had never married. Norma brought suit in federal court, and the case ended up at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the Law Center filed an amicus brief urging the Court to recognize Norma’s right to her share of the couple’s community property. At oral argument, the Court seemed sympathetic to Norma’s plight, but concerned about the impact of the federal Defense of Marriage Act on whether the trust could lawfully recognize Norma’s state-based right to her marital-like property. The Law Center’s amicus brief addressed just that question, and urged the Court to understand that DOMA has no impact on Norma’s legal rights. While we anticipate that Norma will win her case, we will continue to fight for legal equality for all families.
July 2008
Federal Government Assaults Women’s Right to Birth Control
In another dangerous and misguided move – this time aimed directly at women – the Bush Administration is considering regulations that would prohibit any entity receiving federal funds from refusing to hire a healthcare provider who won’t fill birth control prescriptions, or otherwise requiring that they do fill them. The prohibition will extend to family planning clinics, hospitals, universities, and state and local governments. According to an article in the New York Times the regulation would do this by drastically redefining an “abortion” (which such providers already have a legal right to refuse) to include all forms of hormonal birth control, including monthly birth control pills and emergency contraception (Plan B).
We’re grateful for the wide support of the Northwest Women’s Law Center as we’ve worked to ensure that women have reliable, prompt access to emergency contraception – indeed, to all lawful medication and prescriptions as exemplified pharmacist refusal case. This appalling, callous disregard for women’s humanity and dignity is yet another instance of the danger women and men face under this administration. In the face of this latest outrage, our only choices are to throw up our hands – or better yet, roll up our sleeves.
You can count on our continuing to advocate aggressively in our pharmacy refusal case (see below).
Please contact Senator Patty Murray and Senator Maria Cantwell, and ask them not only to speak out against this threat, but also to pledge Congressional action to repeal the regulation if it is adopted.
Pharmacy Refusal Before 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Court reviewing whether to lift injunction of Board of Pharmacy Rules
On Tuesday, July 8, 2008, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in the case of Stormans et al. v Selecky et al. The Court will consider whether to lift an injunction on rules issued by the state Board of Pharmacy. These two rules, enacted in April 2007 by the Washington State Board of Pharmacy, require pharmacies to fill legal prescriptions and provide medication without discrimination or delay. Pharmacists may ask another pharmacist on duty to provide the medicine, but in all cases the pharmacy must fill the prescription in a timely manner. The State Board of Pharmacy adopted these rules to ensure that patients have immediate, professional access to health care, while also balancing the interests of pharmacies and pharmacists.
On July 26, 2007, the day the rules took effect, two individual pharmacists and a pharmacy owner (Stormans, Inc.) sued the State of Washington, challenging the new rules on constitutional grounds. In November, Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Board of Pharmacy rules from taking effect until constitutional issues surrounding the rules are decided.
The state Board of Pharmacy, which is defending the rules, was joined by a group of seven concerned citizens as intervenor-defendants. Those individuals are represented by The Northwest Women’s Law Center, Planned Parenthood of Western Washington, and the law firm of Heller Ehrman.
For media coverage regarding the pharmacy refusal case, please click on the links below:
Click here and enter case number 07-36039 to listen to the argument.
Women at Work Find Reinforced Glass Ceilings
"Employers put women in a category where they think they're not going to be reliable," said Janet Chung, and attorney with the Northwest Women's Law Center in Seattle. "It's not just about pregnancy, but the whole frontier of family responsibility discrimination."
Read more of what Janet had to say in this Women's eNews article here.
June 2008
Great Moments in Pro-Bono History
"Washington has a rich history of landmark decisions rooted in the lore of pro bono litigation. Whether it’s fighting to preserve the balance between security and civil liberties, working on post-conviction inmate petitions, pursuing habeas corpus actions and complex civil rights matters or redefining parenthood through the expansion of rights, Washington’s rich pro bono history is undeniable.
... In 1979, the Northwest Women’s Law Center (NWWLC) litigated a case that forever changed the landscape of collegiate sports."...
Read the whole article at KCBA.org.
May 2008
The Tide Begins to Turn in the Fight for Marriage Equality
The Northwest Women’s Law Center congratulates our allies and the thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in California, who now have the legal right to marry. The California Supreme Court today issued a landmark opinion in In re Marriage Cases, finding that the California Constitution mandates that all loving and committed couples have a right to marry. The Court ruled that reserving “marriage” for opposite sex couples, while permitting same sex couples only to enter into domestic partnerships, violates the state Constitution. In addition, the Court found that prohibiting same sex couples from marrying deprives them of equal protection under the law.
As you know, the Washington Supreme Court reached a different conclusion in 2006 in our marriage equality case, Andersen v. King County, which was a setback, but not an ultimate defeat in the struggle for equality. We’ve never given up the fight to ensure all families are recognized and protected under the law, and we’ll continue to work on expanding Washington’s domestic partner law, and toward the ultimate goal of all couples who wish to marry being able to do so, and that all families are treated equally. This is one of the fundamental rights the Law Center works for: the right to decide when, whether and how to form and maintain our families.
Our heartfelt congratulations and thanks go out to our allies the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, the ACLUs of Northern and Southern California, and Equality California, whose stellar legal and organizing work led to this wonderful decision.
Read our Executive Director's comments in a May 16th, 2008 Seattle Times article.
Parental Rights for Rapists?
"Women's rights advocates have paid little attention to what happens to women who bear children as a result of rape, and whether they are able to raise those children without threat from the men who raped them. But for the thousands of women in the United States who become pregnant and bear children as a result of rape each year, the need to ensure that they can raise their children without further threat from the rapist is a critical - and largely unacknowledged - concern.
Read the rest of the article at RHRealityCheck.org.
New Washington Law Ensures Time Off from Work for Victims of Violence
 |
| Ramona Danny and Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire on April 1, 2008. |
Victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking are often placed in a terrible Catch-22: without time off from work to get a protection order, move with their children to a safe location, or attend criminal proceedings, they face either losing their jobs or staying in dangerous situations. Our client, Ramona Danny (pictured), was fired when she took time off from work for just these reasons. Read more about Ms. Danny's case here.
We are thrilled that the Washington State Legislature has passed a new law allowing employees reasonable time off, paid or unpaid, to obtain needed services, go to court, and deal with the traumatic effects of these crimes.
Read our brochure for questions and answers about employees’ new rights.
Oregon employees have similar rights under a law passed last year. Read a brochure from the Oregon Law Center about your rights under Oregon law.
Employees who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking in Alaska, Montana, and Idaho may have other important rights. If you work in one of those states and have suffered domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking and have questions about your rights, please e-mail us.
IN THIS SECTION: Great Moments in Pro-Bono History The Tide Begins to Turn in the Fight for Marriage Equality New Washington Law Ensures Time Off from Work for Victims of Violence |