Fresh Updates from RAC

Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to pass a version of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization that prioritizes some victims over others and politicizes the safety and well-being of victims of abuse.

I could not have predicted that a bill called the Violence Against Women Act would actually put victims of domestic abuse and intimate partner violence at risk. But that is exactly what the House version of VAWA has done.

Read more…

Last week when Kadima joined Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition, I questioned whether a near-unanimity government would either allow Kadima to bring Netanyahu’s government further to the center of the political spectrum or silence healthy political discourse.

At the beginning of this week, I was encouraged to see that Prime Minister Netanyahu had a letter delivered to Mahmoud Abbas, indicating that the new unity government provided an opportunity to restart negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. Sources who saw the document claim that, for the first time in writing, Bibi pledged that negotiations could include a demilitarized Palestine in an effort to come closer to a two-state solution.

Read more…

In response to Representative Rosa DeLauro’s (D-CT) introduction of the United States Leadership to Eradicate Obstetric Fistula Act of 2012 and in light of the crisis that obstetric fistula poses across Asia and Africa, Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, issued the following statement:

I could not commend highly enough Representative Rosa DeLauro for introducing legislation that would allow the U.S. to invest in proven methods to correct obstetric fistulas in Sub-Saharan Africa, and I call on Congress to offer bipartisan support and swiftly pass this legislation.

This legislation can eliminate in a decade the scourge of obstetric fistulas through a network of clinics and teams of U.S. and African doctors, social workers and midwives. And it can do it at the cost of $10 million per year. Think of it: a million women in Sub-Saharan Africa whose lives would be transformed for the better. Read more…

Over a month ago, the Senate leadership struck a bipartisan deal pledging to vote on a package of 14 judicial nominees, thereby momentarily addressing the pervasive obstructionism to judicial appointments. While this deal effectively stimulated voting on judicial vacancies, it did not even begin to address the urgent need for a real commitment to filling our nation’s benches. Judicial nominations have been subject to the worst kind of politics by placing the justice system for which we pride ourselves at risk for the purpose of partisan battles.

Read more…

At the beginning of the week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he would force elections a year ahead of schedule, possibly as a referendum on the escalating tensions between Israeland Iranor as a way to deal with the conflicts between secular and Orthodox Israelis over the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Tal Law. But early Tuesday morning, Netanyahu confirmed that elections would be unnecessary because Kadima has joined the ruling coalition. The inclusion of Kadima, the major opposition party to Likud, brings Netanyahu closer to a unity government and simultaneously creates the impression to the rest of the world that Bibi’s foreign and domestic policies are the only credible ones in the Jewish State.

Shaul Mofaz, Kadima’s new leader, has historically been a vocal critic of a preemptive strike on Iran without the support of the U.S. and of Netanyahu’s reluctance to seek a peace agreement with the Palestinians. It is unclear whether his move to join with Likud and other right-leaning political parties is an effort to liberalize the ruling coalition or whether it is a sign that Kadima is becoming more hawkish.

Read more…

Last Thursday, the Center for Disease Control released new data indicating that between 2006 and 2010, approximately 60% of sexually active teenagers ages 15 to 19 were using “highly effective methods” of contraception, which include IUDs or implants, the pill or patch, and injectable contraception. Compared to 1995, this finding represents a 26% increase in users of highly effective methods, coupled with a 7% decrease in those who used “no method.” The CDC also reported last week that teenage girls are waiting longer to have sex: Over the same time period, 57% of girls ages 15 to 19 said they had never had sex—an increase of nearly 10 percentage points from 1995.

This new data about contraceptive use and the onset of sexual activity is particularly relevant considering that in 2010 the teenage birthrate fell to 34.3 births per 1,000 women 15 to 19 years old. This is the lowest teen birthrate since the U.S. government began tracking these statistics in 1940, although the United States still has one of the highest teen birth rates in the industrialized world.

Read more…

Last week, the Supreme Court justices heard oral argument in Arizona v. United States. The legal lineup was one with which we are familiar: Paul Clement represented the state of Arizona and Don Verrilli represented the U.S. government (the same two lawyers argued the Affordable Care Act in front of the Supreme Court a few weeks ago).

The justices are considering the constitutionality of Arizona’s 2010 immigration law, S.B. 1070, which is more far-reaching than current federal immigration policy. The question at hand is: Does S.B. 1070 “complement or hinder federal immigration policy”? If it hinders federal immigration policy, then the preemption doctrine, which holds that federal law takes precedence over state law, would apply. This case is a facial challenge, which means the law has not yet gone into effect, the suit is not brought by a plaintiff who has been directly affected by the law, and the justices must decide that the law would be unconstitutional in any circumstance if they are to overturn it. This also means that, if the justices decide to uphold the law, someone could challenge it after it has gone into effect.

Read more…

A year ago I was sitting in my apartment at college, hogging the TV from my roommates who just wanted to watch the newest episode of The Bachelor, as I anxiously awaited President Obama’s press conference. Twitter had indicated 15 minutes earlier that Osama bin Laden had been killed at the hands of Navy SEALS, but it didn’t seem real until I heard the President say: “The United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who’s responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.”

But after I listened to this statement, I felt inexplicably empty. How was I supposed to feel? Joyous? Safe? Relieved? Sad? Should I join members of my campus who had wrapped themselves in American flags and were parading around the library? Was I supposed to say the Mourner’s Kaddish for bin Laden, as I might for a family member or friend? I wanted to immediately identify a nuanced reaction to the news, but wasn’t I allowed to just embrace my gut instincts? And what were those, anyway?

Read more…