February 15, 2014

The French Way or the Broken US Way of Healthcare?

Advocates for Single Payer Healthcare Rallying in 2009 in Harrisburg, PA

Anya Schriffrin has just written a wonderful piece on universal health care from the French perspective called “The French Way of Cancer Treatment.” She discusses the differences in the treatment her father received at Sloan Kettering Memorial Hospital v. his treatment at Cochin Hospital, a public hospital in Paris.

The differences she saw in her father’s cancer treatment in both countries included:

Issue	At Sloan Kettering (United States)	At Cochin (France)
Average length of treatment day	7.5 hours	90 minutes
How specialists see patients	Patient traveled to each specialist’s office	All specialists came to see patient either in home or in the hospital room.
Treatment received	Chemo selected based on insurance company’s formulary	Chemo selected based on doctor’s determination of best treatment
Who paid for meals while in hospital	Patient	Hospital: Included in treatment
Who paid for transportation to and from hospital	Patient and/or Insurance Company	Hospital: Included in treatment
Type of medical care	Insurance based, for-profit	Universal Health Care
Average cost/person for medical care in each country (2011)	$8,608	$4,086
% of Country’s Gross Domestic Product for Health Care	17.9%	11.6%

The one statement that stood out for me on the French system was this:

“There were other nice surprises. When my dad needed to see specialists, for example, instead of trekking around the city for appointments, he would stay in one room at Cochin Hospital, a public hospital in the 14th arrondissement where he received his weekly chemo. The specialists would all come to him. The team approach meant the nutritionist, oncologist, general practitioner and pharmacist spoke to each other and coordinated his care. As my dad said, ‘It turns out there are solutions for the all the things we put up with in New York and accept as normal [emphasis added].’“

As a cancer survivor, I can attest to similar experiences in the United States just about a quarter century ago. Nothing has changed. Like Ms. Schriffrin’s father, my visits to the hospital often took 7-8 hours after getting up way before the break of dawn to travel 3 hours to the hospital to be one of the first people to wait in line to see the doctors and other specialists. I too had one doctor who wandered in to the clinic for my chemo 7-8 hours AFTER he was scheduled for treating patients. In that particular case, he kept patients and nursing staff waiting until about an hour after the clinic should have closed for the day. And I had to fight for my life with two insurance companies in order to get the bone-marrow transplant I needed.

My story is similar to many others here in the states. That’s why I support national universal, single-payer healthcare via Congressman John Conyers’ (D-MI) HR 676 in the United States. It’s why I support federal legislation to expand the Affordable Healthcare Act to all states to create a state-level single-payer plan like what Vermont has already passed and signed into law. It’s why I support the plan that Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has crafted; it’s called the American Health Security Act of 2013 bill and it creates state-level single-payer healthcare programs with Federal support. It’s why I am a board member of Health Care for All PA Education Fund. And it’s why I support the Pennsylvania Health Care Plan proposed by Pennsylvania State Senator Jim Ferlo.

We can do better here in the US. Better than what Ms. Schriffrin’s father and I have both experienced.

Let’s fix this broken US healthcare system. Let’s create access to quality healthcare for all via a universal, single-payer healthcare program in the United States. Check it out. Let’s do healthcare the French Way in the American style as suggested by Congressman John Conyers Jr. (D-MI), Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), PA Senator Jim Ferlo, the state of Vermont, and Health Care for All PA.

January 28, 2014

Sample Letter Opposing Sick Leave Preemption Bill

Help Stop ALEC

Yesterday afternoon, the Pennsylvania House Labor and Industry Committee forwarded a sick leave preemption bill — HB 1960 — to the floor of the Pennsylvania House of Representative without amendment. I have previously written about this ALEC-initiated bill and a similar one on this blog.

The vote on the amendments and on referral of the bill “as committed” was completely along party lines. All 15 Republicans voted to limit local control and disallow exceptions to the bill for pregnant women and victims and survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking; all 10 Democrats voted for the amendments and against the bill.

Now the bill goes to the full floor for debate. In Pennsylvania, bills can be amended from the floor ONLY on “Second Consideration.” And that is expected as early as tomorrow, Wednesday, January 29.

Every legislator—Republican and Democrat—needs to know our concerns about this type of bill.

So in an effort to assist my readers on contacting their representatives about a preemption bill such as this one, I decided to post my letter to Representative Kerry Benninghoff (R-171, Centre & Mifflin Counties) on this blog. FYI, he is a conservative Republican, but is not a member of ALEC.

If you live in Pennsylvania, now is the time for you to write a similar letter OR call your state Representative(click here to find your Representative).

This bill is also being “shopped” around the country by ALEC. So… if you live elsewhere in the country, keep this in mind, as a sick leave preemption bill is likely to show up in your state.

Hi Kerry,

I’m writing to strongly urge that you oppose and vote NO on HB 1960 when it comes up for second consideration as well as on final consideration. Voting and debate on several amendments is expected on the House floor tomorrow, January 29 under the rules for Second Consideration.

I want you to vote NO on HB 1960 because:

Laws that preempt local decision-making strip cities and counties of their right to adopt policies that will benefit their communities, in violation of core conservative and democratic principles;

It represents attempts by national businesses to circumvent policy at its most basic level; and

Local innovation is the lifeblood of progress. Preemption efforts, driven by special interests, should not stand in the way of local innovation or self-rule. Bills like this represent an ominous attempt to remove power from locally elected officials and make the voters mere bystanders in the democratic processes that define the character of their communities.

I’m particularly concerned about its effect on victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. This proposed law will threaten the lives of victims and survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking who need this form of leave to receive critical services to protect their and their families’ lives – like medical treatment, counseling, and dealing with all court and law enforcement related business. If local communities can’t make laws that allow victims who work for employers with less than 50 employees, you will be potentially sending these victims back into the hands of their violent perpetrators because they will be unable to financially stand on their own two feet.

Even if preemption bills seem to have a narrow focus, passage of this type of legislation could result in preemption of a wide range of local ordinances in municipalities throughout the state. These include efforts to expand protections for those who have experienced domestic violence, laws prohibiting wage theft, consumer protection initiatives, and many more.

Based on all of these concerns, I am therefore also requesting that you vote for any amendment that makes this bill less onerous. I understand that several such amendments will be offered, including ones that

Allow municipalities to have paid or unpaid leave programs with respect to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.

Allow municipalities to have paid or unpaid leave programs with respect to maternity leave.

That grandfather in any existing local ordinance.

Please vote for all of these life-protecting amendments. And when the bill comes up for a final vote, VOTE NO! on HB 1960.

Please let me know what you will do regarding this bill. Thank you.

January 17, 2014

Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Ruled Unconstitutional

PA Voter ID Ruled Unconstitutional by Commonwealth Court.

This morning, Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley struck down Pennsylvania’s Voter ID Law as unconstitutional. Judge McGinley’s condemnation of this law is clearly noted in his opinion. He said, in part,

“[The Voter ID Law is] invalid and unconstitutional on its face as the provision and issuance of compliant identification does not comport with liberal access and unreasonably burdens the right to vote….

Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the Voter ID Law does not further this goal.”

And most powerfully in my opinion:

“The right to vote, fundamental in Pennsylvania, is irreplaceable, necessitating its protection before any deprivation occurs. Deprivation of the franchise is neither compensable nor reparable by after-the-fact legal remedies, necessitating injunctive and declaratory relief.”

You can read a copy of the full opinion on the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia’s website. I am so pleased to see this decision. I have followed this bill since it’s outset. In 2011, as President of Pennsylvania NOW I wrote about some of the problems with the law before it was enacted; this blog includes a copy of the letter I sent to members of the House State Government Committee detailing problems with the law.

Then after it was enacted in 2012, I was asked to testify in Commonwealth Court about the problems I observed in people attempting to obtain a Voter ID. I told the Court what I had observed at the PennDOT licensing center in Pleasant Gap regarding problems in obtaining a photo id. These problems included lack of timely public transportation to and from the facility, lack of knowledge of the staff about the voter id law, inaccurate paperwork, long lines, and how women changing their names on their drivers’ licenses could be disenfranchised.

I also mentioned that I had used a photo id that did not meet the state’s Voter ID Law guidelines. Yet, it was accepted without question by the poll workers when I went to vote in the primary during the so-called “soft roll-out period.”

You can read more about that testimony and how accessing a photo id can specifically block access to the ballot for married women in a blog I wrote on this issue last year.

My thanks go to the legal team put together by the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, Advancement Project, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and the Washington, DC law firm of Arnold & Porter. They successfully argued over the last 18 months that this law was and is unconstitutional under Article I. Section 5 of Pennsylvania’s Constitution.

But the battle may not be over. Attorney General Kathleen Kane (D) argued in favor of the law before the Commonwealth Court. News reports indicate that she hasn’t yet decided whether or not to appeal Judge McGinley’s decision to the Supreme Court.

Your voice needs to be heard. And it can be. Right after the decision was announced, my colleague, Michael Morrill, Executive Director of Keystone Progress, created a MoveOn petition to AG Kane asking her to let the decision stand and not appeal the case to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. I signed and commented that:

I am one of the people who testified in Commonwealth Court in 2012 about the problems I observed in people attempting to obtain a Voter ID and about my testing the knowledge of poll workers in correctly interpreting the law (they accepted an invalid photo id that did not meet the requirements of the law during the testing period before the law was enjoined; I used it again at another election and once again, they told me it was valid).

Don’t play games with our elections. As Judge McGinley stated, “the law is “invalid and unconstitutional on its face as the provision and issuance of compliant identification does not comport with liberal access and unreasonably burdens the right to vote.” Let his ruling stand.

You too can add your voice. Please do so. Thanks.

Update 5 pm January 17, 2014

Attorney General Kathleen Kane released a press statement at 4 pm today in response to the Commonwealth Court’s ruling this morning. Here’s what it says,

“I respect Judge McGinley’s very thoughtful decision in this matter. The Office of Attorney General will continue to defend the rights of all Pennsylvanians and we will work with all related Commonwealth agencies to carry out this decision and ensure that all voters have access to free and fair elections.”

Q&A regarding Attorney General Kane’s position:

1. How does this decision affect Attorney General Kane’s previous concerns?

Attorney General Kane’s previous concern and legal analysis mirrored the concern and ultimate decision of the courts in that implementation may not be sufficient to ensure free and fair elections.

2. What happens now in terms of an appeal?

The Office of Attorney General is awaiting direction from its client.”

December 27, 2013

Another Terri Schiavo Story: What’s Wrong with Texas and Florida?

The hard right is at it again. This time with a woman who is brain-dead. Marlise Munoz was early in her pregnancy when she had a brain embolism that resulted in lack of oxygen to the brain for an estimated hour before she was found unconscious on the floor. She was a paramedic who along with her husband Erick and mother, Lynne Machado, all agreed against life support. Apparently she had a living will that stated this desire. And yet, even though the hospital agrees that she is brain-dead, they put her on life support against both her’s and her family explicit instructions due to Texas’s state law that gives precedence to a fetus and forces her family to use her body as an incubating machine.

This is just like what happened in the Terri Schiavo case when both the Florida legislature and Congress intervened against her husband’s wishes and kept her on life support. Terri, just like Marlise too collapsed. There are, however, four differences in these two cases.

Terri lived in Florida and Marlise lived in Texas;
Terri’s brain death was from cardiac arrest while Marlise’s was from a brain embolism;
Marlise was pregnant at the time of her accident; Terri was not; and
Congress hasn’t yet inserted itself into Marilise and her family’s case.

Yet both were (are) being treated by the state as objects rather than as human beings with loving families that should have control over end-of-life issues.

What’s wrong with these states? Why should the state intervene in cases where families who care and love their spouses and children say enough is enough? Why should a state intervene in contradiction to a person’s living will? These are matters of privacy. When a doctor or hospital determines that a person is brain-dead and the family, or the individual through her living will, says enough is enough, then LISTEN to the family and not some legislators down the road.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

Here’s the story about Marlise Munoz.

Texas hospital forbids husband of brain-dead, pregnant wife to remove her from life support (via Raw Story )

A Texas man who wants his pregnant wife removed from life-support is being thwarted by hospital officials who insist that Texas law states they must continue to care for her. Under Texas law, “[a] person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining…

December 19, 2013

Scrooge to Bellefonte: “Bah! Humbug!”

Streetscape next to the Centre County Courthouse if and when the Garman Opera House is razed. We need to stop this before it happens. Photo rendition by Mary Vollero

Streetscape next to the Centre County Courthouse once the Garman Opera House and Hotel DoDe are razed. Photo rendition by Mary Vollero

Three days ago, Ara Kervandjian, in his capacity as head of PDG and Bellefonte Mews (both are limited partnership companies created by Kervandjian), started tearing down the Garman Opera House and the Hotel DoDe (also see my previous blogs on this issue here, here and here). He received clearance to start the demolition after the Bellefonte Borough Council by a 5-4 vote granted a permit for demolition of this structurally sound historic theatre. The windows are already gone as are, I understand, the chairs inside. Teardown of the building, brick by brick is expected to start on Friday, December 20–five days before Christmas.

This morning, Gary Hoover’s letter to the editor appeared in the Centre Daily Times. He focused on the effect of the impending demolition of the Garman Opera House and the Hotel DoDe to the Bellefonte, PA community. Here are a couple of sentences from that letter:

It will take years to reckon the true cost for our community on multiple levels and, because of the precedent it sets, for future preservation efforts across the state.

But I bet the sum, when fully known, will be astonishing. Just the damage done to various important community-working relationships, erosion of trust in the responsiveness of local government and of faith in the fairness of our court system already frame a disaster.

I agree fully with Gary Hoover. This callous destruction of the Garman Opera House and the Hotel DoDe is truly Scrooge-like. Ripping down these gems of Victorian Bellefonte is ripping out much of the heart of our town. In terms of history. In terms of historic architecture. In terms of economic sustainability. In terms of community. In terms of trust in our local government. In terms of business continuity. And inevitably, in terms of continued respect and interest from visitors to our town.

Bah! Humbug!

Ignoring and dismissal of the public concern about destroying our history is part of this Scrooge-like behavior. How was the public ignored? Here’s just one example of the “Bah, Humbug to you” mentality of the people in power; it is one of many that have occurred since this saga started.

In late October, Bellefonte’s Scrooge-like Council initially tried to clear the room of supporters of the Garman at a Council meeting. On the agenda that night was a vote for demolition of the Garman Opera House and the Hotel DoDe. They cited a fire hazard when they ordered us to leave. They backed down and tabled the vote for two weeks after I stood up and cited Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Law regarding public participation and comment before taking any official actions.

Two weeks later, over 130 people came to the special meeting. Twenty-six people spoke out; none of them supported the demolition of the Garman. After the public comment period ended, Council asked Ara Kervandjian for comments. He stood up and had a letter written into the record that erroneously stated that the demolition follows federal preservation rules. When several people in the room called for proof of this statement from the appropriate authority, the President of Council denied any further comment from the public and called for a vote to demolish the buildings.

Three days later, Borough Council, Kervandjian and several others received a letter from the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission’s (PHMC) Bureau of Historic Preservation stating that the letter read before the vote was incorrect (see quote below). Thus the vote for demolishing these historic buildings appears to have been flawed. Yet when the public asked the Council to reconsider this vote based on having been presented flawed information, Council said no.

In other words, “Bah! Humbug! to the citizens, businesses and visitors of historic, Victorian Bellefonte.

The Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future Speak Out

Quoting from the PHMC Bureau of Historic Preservation letter:

We recently received a copy of the November 11 letter addressed to you from Holly Glauser of PHFA. In it, she mistakenly states that the review process under Section 106 is complete [emphasis added]….

In our opinion, although fire damaged, these building retain sufficient integrity to convey their significance and contribute to the Bellefonte Historic District. Therefore, the removal of the contributing buildings and new construction has the potential to adversely affect historic properties, specifically the Bellefonte Historic District….

Under Section 110(k)of the National Historic Preservation Act, any demolition (even as a result of a court order) that occurs PRIOR to [emphasis in original] completing the Section 106 review process would be considered “anticipatory demolition” and could put your use of HUD funds in jeopardy. Every effort should be made to resolve the potential adverse effect prior to any decision to demolish a contributing building within the Bellefonte Historic District.

– Andrea McDonald, Acting Director, Bureau of Historic Preservation

Who is Scrooge?

Who is Scrooge in this act of destruction? There’s more than one Scrooge in this comedy of errors.

There’s the developer, Ara Kervandjian and his companies PDG and Bellefonte Mews who ignored all calls for saving the Garman. They said it’s “too expensive” to preserve even the facade.

There’s the Bellefonte Area Industrial Authority who pooh-poohed the alternative plan by the Bellefonte Historical and Cultural Association (BHCA) to preserve the theatre and create a regional arts center. They gave Kervandjian essentially a free ride in presenting his plan while at the same time created multiple hurdles for BHCA to jump over that weren’t raised in Kervandjian’s plan.

And then there’s the majority of members of the Bellefonte Council who ignored calls, petitions, and public meeting calls for saving the building and then voted to destroy part of the town’s National Historic District based on false information.

Here in Victorian Bellefonte, we are not likely to see the happy ending written into the original Victorian classic, “A Christmas Carol.” Our Scrooges haven’t seen, or heard the spirits of Bellefonte’s past, present, or future. Their hearts and minds appear to be heartlessly frozen.

Neither Bellefonte nor the state want to see these miserly Ebenezer Scrooge’s harm our town and historic preservation in general.

Scrooges, do the town some good. We still have a chance to turn this travesty around before the buildings are completely gone. These historic buildings are our town’s Tiny Tim. Save “him” now.

November 16, 2013

Urge Senate to Pass Military Justice Improvement Act

I received an email today from the National NOW Action Center regarding Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s (D-NY) Military Justice Improvement Act. I pulled the text of the email and then rearranged and edited it to provide you with information about the bill and what you can do. The bill is expected to soon come up for a vote in the US Senate, possibly as soon as this coming week.

Background

The Military Justice Improvement Act (S. 967), if passed into law, would establish an independent, objective and unbiased military justice system to better respond to the epidemic of sexual assault in the U.S. military.

Military leaders have been claiming since 1992 that there will be “zero tolerance” of sexual assault, yet there were 26,000 incidents of sexual assault and unwanted sexual touching that were reported in FY 2012. It is clear that the current system of military “justice” does not work and must be changed.

Our major allies, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and Israel along with many other nations, years ago moved disposition of sexual assault crimes out of the chain of command to be handled independently by trained prosecutors. The U.S. should do the same.

Take Action

Your email message and your call – yes, please call your senators – could make the critical difference. It is likely to be a close vote and senators need to hear from the grassroots that we demand justice for survivors. It is a broken system that will remain broken unless Congress requires a fundamental reform of the process.

Please make that call today: tell them you want an independent, objective and unbiased military justice system that deals promptly and effectively with all reports of sexual crimes.

This link will take you to NOW’s action alert page where you can enter your zip code. The website will then list your two Senators, their address, phone number and fax number. It also gives you a formulated email. So there are five ways you can contact your Senator. I’m listing them from 1 to 5 with 1 being what I believe would have the most impact in a timely fashion:

Call your Senators.

Craft your own letter and fax it to both Senators

Use the formulated email, personalize it on the website and submit it; It will be forwarded to both of your Senator’s in-boxes. Your email will have more clout if you personalize it with your own words.

Just fill out the email address info and submit without making any changes to the email letter.

Craft your own letter and mail it through the US Postal Service. Although this has a lot of clout, it is very slow due to the high level of mail security used for Congress. So it may or may not get there in time for your Senators and their staff to read before the vote.

Following each Senator’s name is their DC phone number in case you want to call without going to the NOW website. When you do call, be sure to give the person answering the phone your name, address, and that you want your Senator to vote yes on S. 967, the Military Justice Improvement Act. Then tell them why you support this bill.

Who’s on Board, Leaning, or Unknown

According to NOW the following are the Senators who have already signed on and/or are the most likely to vote for the bill. If your Senator(s) are not listed here, they may be are harder sell for a “yes” vote, but it’s still worth a try. The Senators listed below still need to hear from you so that they stay on the right side (“YES”) of the vote on S. 769. Some are sponsors, some are leaning yes, and the rest on this list are unknown (sitting on the fence), but could be persuaded if they hear from constituents.

Before most of the names, you will see either a + (plus sign), an * (asterisk), or a # (pound sign). These are keys to how they voted on S.967 in committee and on their votes on the 2013 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). A plus sign means they are members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and they voted for S.967 when it was in committee. An asterisk means that they both sponsored and voted for the 2013 version of VAWA. A pound sign means they didn’t sponsor, but did vote for the 2013 version of VAWA.

And here’s the target list.

Primary Targets

Note: All phone numbers are in Area Code 202. The letters and numbers immediately after the state identification but before the phone numbers refers to their office address (building and room number) in DC:

SD =Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510;

SH = Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510; and

SR = Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510.

Most likely Yes on Sponsorship/Support: (33)

#ALEXANDER, Lamar (R-TN) SD-455 224-4944

BARRASSO, John (R-WY) SD-307 224-6441

BAUCUS, Max (D-MT) SH-511 224-2651

BOOZMAN, John (R-AR) SH-320 224-4843

BROWN, Sherrod (D-OH) SH-713 224-2315

#BURR, Richard (R-NC) SR-217 224-3154

CHIESA, Jeff (R-NJ) SR-C1 224-3224

#COATS, Daniel (R-IN) SR-493 224-5623

COBURN, Tom (R-OK) SR-172 224-5754

CORNYN, John (R-TX) SH-517 224-2934

*CRAPO, Mike (R-ID) SD-239 224-6142

DURBIN, Richard J. (D-IL) SH-711 224-2152

ENZI, Michael B. (R-WY) SR-379A 224-3424

HATCH, Orrin G. (R-UT) SH-104 224-5251

*HELLER, Dean (R-NV) SH-324 224-6244

#ISAKSON, Johnny (R-GA) SR-131 224-3643

JOHNSON, Ron (R-WI) SH-328 224-5323

LANDRIEU, Mary L. (D-LA) SH-703 224-5824

LEE, Mike (R-UT) SH-316 224-5444

McCONNELL, Mitch (R-KY) SR-317 224-2541

*MORAN, Jerry (R-KS) SR-361A 224-6521

MURRAY, Patty (D-WA) SR-154 224-2621

MURPHY, Christopher (D-CT) SH-303 224-4041

#PORTMAN, Rob (R-OH) SR-448 4-3353

REID, Harry (D-NV) SH-522 224-3542

RISCH, James E. (R-ID) SR-48 3 224-2752

ROBERTS, Pat (R-KS) SH-109 224-4774 –s

RUBIO, Marco (R-FL) SR-284 224-3041

#SHELBY, Richard C. (R-AL) SR-304 224-5744

TESTER, Jon (D-MT) SH-706 224-2644

#TOOMEY, Patrick J. (R-PA) SR-248 224-4254

WARNER, Mark R. (D-VA) SR-475 224-2023

WHITEHOUSE, Sheldon (D-RI) SH-530 224-2921

Voted for Gillibrand in Armed Services Committee (3)

+DONNELLY, Joe (D-IN) SH-720 224-4814

+HAGAN, Kay R. (D-NC) SD-521 224-6342

+UDALL, Mark (D-CO) SH-730 224-5941

Secondary Targets: Armed Services committee members who voted NO on S.967 in committee but could/should change their mind and support (3)

KAINE, Tim (D-VA) SR-388 224-4024

KING, Jr., Angus S. (I-ME) SD-359 224-5344

MANCHIN III, Joe (D-WV) SH-306 224-3954

Additional Targets for Support

Democrats not on the bill who voted for VAWA (note: All Dems voted for 2013 VAWA) (6)

KLOBUCHAR, Amy (D-MN) SH-302 224-3244

LEVIN, Carl (D-MI) SR-269 224-6221

McCASKILL, Claire (D-MO) SH-506 224-6154

NELSON, Bill (D-FL) SH-716 224-5274

REED, Jack (D-RI) SH-728 224-4642

STABENOW, Debbie (D-MI) SH-133 224-4822

Republicans who sponsored and/or voter for VAWA 2013 (9):

*AYOTTE, Kelly (R-NH) SR-144 224-3324

#CHAMBLISS, Saxby (R-GA) SR-416 224-3521

#COCHRAN, Thad (R-MS) SD-113 224-5054

#CORKER, Bob (R-TN) SD-425 224-3344

#FISCHER, Deb (R-NE) SR-383 224-6551

#FLAKE, Jeff (R-AZ) SR-368 22 4-4521

#HOEVEN, John (R-ND) SR-338 224-2551

#McCAIN, John (R-AZ) SR-241 224-2235

#WICKER, Roger F. (R-MS) SD-555 224-6253

Unknown (6)

BLUNT, Roy (R-MO) SR-260 224-5721

GRAHAM, Lindsey (R-SC) SR-290 224-5972

INHOFE, James M. (R-OK) SR-205 224-4721

SCOTT, Tim (R-SC) SR-167 224-6121

SESSIONS, Jeff (R-AL) SR-326 224-4124

THUNE, John (R-SD) SD-511 224-2321

Good luck with your calls, faxes, letters, and emails. If you hear something concrete from your Senators as to how they might vote, please come back and let us know in the comment section of this blog. Thanks!

October 25, 2013

Voter ID Laws Block Women’s Votes

In the early spring of 2012, Pennsylvania passed its restrictive photo voter id law that is similar to the one in Texas discussed in Nel’s New Day. That summer, I testified in Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court about my observations at the PennDOT licensing center in Pleasant Gap about the problems I observed in obtaining a photo id. These included lack of timely public transportation to and from the facility, lack of knowledge of the staff about the voter id law, inaccurate paperwork, long lines, and how women changing their names on their drivers’ licenses could be disenfranchised.

This last problem is one I saw in addition to all of the issues for women voting that are raised in Nel’s blog. Here’s what I observed.

A woman came in and said that she had just gotten married and needed to change her name on her driver’s license. She asked for the paperwork. The employee said rather than filling out the paperwork and paying for a replacement driver’s license, he could give her a piece of paper to carry with her current license showing her new name. Since Pennsylvania’s voter id law requires the name to be “substantially the same” on the voting records and the driver’s license, any woman taking this suggested route could end up being disenfranchised since what is on the id doesn’t match her new legal name and will not match the voting registration if she has made the change with the elections office. Had she gone through the paperwork and paid for the new license, she could have done a voter registration update at the same time since PennDOT is one of the recognized state voter registration sites. None of that was offered.

As a result of the Commonwealth Court case, the Pennsylvania Voter ID law has been temporarily enjoined. I wrote about the case in January of this year. The second stay came in March and the third one came after the primary. That stay says that until the constitutional issues surrounding the Voter ID law are resolved, photo ids can be asked for but cannot be required. First time voters will still need some form of identification (but doesn’t have to be a photo id; for example, it could be a copy of an utility bill).

As Nel states at the end of her blog, we here in Pennsylvania are hoping for the same thing:

“Let us hope that the lawyers will carefully explain to the judges the [constitutionally] discriminatory basis for voter ID laws and that the judges will believe them.”

Nel's New Day

GOP legislators and governors have found many ways to disenfranchise voters who might possibly vote against them: gerrymandering, voter ID laws, voter list purging, etc. The Supreme Court decision that struck down Section 4 of the almost 50-year-old Voters Rights Act created even more havoc for voters. The tipping point against these actions may have come this fall in Texas.

Last night Rachel Maddow laid out the Texas problem on her show. It starts with a Texas law that mandated that all married women must use her maiden name as the middle name, a change resulting in a mismatch between the name on voter registration and driver’s license for women. The information went viral after Sandra Watts, judge in the 117^th District Court, was challenged when she tried to vote. Watts has voted in every election for the past 49 years, the name on her driver’s license has stayed…

View original post 1,016 more words

October 13, 2013

Educating Girls with Disabilities around the World: A Guest Blog

My friend, Stephanie Ortoleva, President and Founder of Women Enabled, Inc.

Friday, October 11 was the International Day of the Girl. To celebrate that day, one of my best friends, Stephanie Ortoleva, wrote about a missing piece of the conversation on educating girls – the education of girls with disabilities. I thought you’d like to hear what she has to say. Thus this guest blog.

First, a bit about Stephanie. She is the President and Founder of Women Enabled, Inc., a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of woman and girls with disabilities in collaboration with activist organizations around the world. She is also an international human rights lawyer, advocate, speaker, and author. You can follow her on Twitter or Facebook and read her papers on the Social Science Research Network.

If you like this blog, you can get more information on this topic from Stephanie. She has written a chapter in a soon-to-be-published (2014) Sage Publications book edited by Asha Hans entitled “Women and Girls with Disabilities – Global Perspectives” (ordering information will be on the Women Enabled, Inc. website in the Reading and Listening Room). You can also go to the Women Enabled, Inc. website in the “Education and Employment in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math” section and the Publications Section for several other articles on women and girls with disabilities.

And now, here’s what Stephanie has to say on the education of girls with disabilities….

International Day of the Girl: Focus on Education – Missing Stories in the Blogs

The United Nations has designated October 11 as International Day of the Girl, with a focus on Education. But as I read many well-written and strong feminist posts on this issue, the concerns of millions of girls with disabilities are missing from the dialog. Who are the missing girls? The deaf girl in India who attends a school for deaf children and who was raped by her teachers. The blind girl in the United States who wants to be a scientist, but is not permitted to take the classes and who is told a blind person can’t be a scientist, especially not a blind girl. The girl with a disability in Pakistan whose parents keep her at home and will not even let her attend school because they are ashamed. These are only a few of the untold stories. But the statistics about education of girls with disabilities tells an even starker story.

Statistics

Estimates of the percentage of children with disabilities not attending school are extremely variable. However, in general, children with disabilities are less likely to start school and have lower rates of staying and being promoted in school than their peers without disabilities. The correlation between low educational outcomes and having a disability is often stronger than the correlations between low educational outcomes and other characteristics such as gender, rural residence or poverty. The limited statistics that are available indicate that although the literacy rate for adults with disabilities is 3%, only 1% of women with disabilities are literate, based on comprehensive research completed by Harilyn Rousso for UNESCO. These percentages are significantly lower than those for women in general.

The UNESCO Institute for Statistics reports, “In 2008, 796 million adults worldwide (15 years and older) reported not being able to read and write and two-thirds of them (64%) were women. The global adult literacy rate was 83%, with a male literacy rate of 88% and a female literacy rate of 79%.” In 2010, according to a journal article by Francis Huebler, this statistic improved marginally to a male literacy rate of 89% and a female literacy rate of 80%, with the percent differential between the genders remaining the same.
The World Bank and the World Health Organization Report states that out of the 51 countries included in the analysis, “50.6% of males with disability have completed primary school, compared with 61.3% of males without disability. Females with disability report 41.7% primary school completion compared with 52.9% of females without disability, a difference of 8.9% between males and females with disabilities.”
There is a direct correlation between poverty, being a child with disabilities and low education participation, with the girls with disabilities from lower socio-economic backgrounds rarely attending school.
Girls with disabilities have the lowest education participation rates of all groups and they have few opportunities for vocational training, all of which further contributes to their low employment rates.

International Law

Under international law our participation is our human right. [These rights are enumerated in both the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and in the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women]. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in its Article 7 on Children with Disabilities and its Article 24 on Education focuses on the girl child with a disability and her right to education. The United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), in Article 10, guarantees to all women and girls the right to education. Furthermore, in several of its General Recommendations, the CEDAW Committee has specifically addressed the rights of women and girls with disabilities. And the Final Conclusions from the 55th Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women, which focused on women and education and employment in the STEM [science, technology, engineering and mathematics] fields, specifically incorporated these rights for women and girls with disabilities. Thus, the synergy between the CRPD and the CEDAW is a vital tool for advancing our rights in this area.

Barriers to Participation in Education

Barriers to the participation of women and girls with disabilities in education are based on culture, family structures, societal attitudes and stereotypes, institutional systems, law and legal processes, economic realities, patriarchy and paternalism. Specific barriers include:

Cultural bias – Often, women are denied education because it is believed that they will become wives and mothers and such resources are provided to male children. But for women with disabilities, are often seen as unlikely to assume such roles, and thus are the last to receive family resources;
Double discrimination – Women and girls with disabilities face double or intersectional discrimination based on both gender and disability (as well as other identities) and stereotypical attitudes based thereon further limit our opportunities;
Invisibility – Girls with disabilities are often kept in the home and their births may not be registered, making them invisible to the education system, either because of assumptions about our abilities or embarrassment on the part of our families. Additionally, misconceptions about our abilities may make us invisible to teachers even if we attend school;
Violence against women and girls with disabilities – Women and girls with disabilities are more likely to experience gender-based violence than their non-disabled sisters, sometimes because we are erroneously perceived as sick, helpless, asexual, and powerless, or on the other hand, we are seen as hypersexual or just lucky to have sexual experiences at all wherever we can because we are undesirable. Additionally, women and girls with disabilities living in residential facilities or schools are even more likely to experience such abuse;
Pregnancy, HIV-infection and other results of sexual assault and rape – As a result of sexual violence and rape, women and girls with disabilities may become pregnant or contract sexually transmitted diseases from the abuser;
Bullying and teasing – Disabled girls are sometimes subjected to bullying and teasing by their peers based on both our gender and our disability, negatively impacting our emotional and cognitive development, as well as causing low self-esteem;
Economic resources for education – Male education is prioritized as it is believed that a male child can contribute financially to the family, and women and girls with disabilities are not viewed as worthy of an education since many assume their disabilities will preclude success;
Schools in inaccessible locations and/or lack of transportation – Schools that provide special education and/or education for children with disabilities in integrated settings are often located in cities and families are reluctant to send daughters to the city or there is no accessible transport to such schools. Boys are often seen as more independent and permitted to travel to urban locations;
Accessibility to assistive technology and rehabilitation – Men and boys have greater access to such services;
Accessibility of school facilities – Often the school buildings and facilities themselves are inaccessible, posing yet another barrier;
Accessible toileting facilities and assistance in toileting – Provision of toileting assistance places a particular burden on women and girls with disabilities, especially with respect to menstruation which is often a taboo topic. [In addition,] access to appropriate hygiene products is non-existent or in very short supply, resulting in increased isolation for women and girls with disabilities and further impairs their ability to attend school or work;
Availability of special education – Girls with disabilities are less likely to receive special education, in some instances because teachers expect more from boys than girls and sometimes because girls, who may be less likely to act out due to cultural control pressures, are not referred for services based on a learning or other disability. And even if a girl receives special education services, she may be tracked toward pursuing traditional gender-identified career paths;
Competitive classroom climate and teaching strategies – Competitive educational approaches are challenging to some girls with disabilities. Mainly for the same reasons discussed earlier, like bullying, being outnumbered by males in the classroom, and low self-esteem. In addition, many teachers are trained to teach more life skills to students with disabilities rather than focus on competitive subjects;
Digital divide – Women and girls with disabilities are at the bottom of the digital divide and the least likely to have access to technology;
Belief that girls do not do math and science – We are presumed not to have aptitude in these subjects and are steered into gender stereotypical subjects, as well as the “talent myth” which is based on the erroneous assumption that skills in STEM fields are an innate aptitude and cannot be learned;
Counseling based on stereotypical roles for women and girls – Counselors often steer girls with disabilities toward gender-stereotyped jobs and generally they are less likely to afford girls with disabilities vocational education. [Also,] many counselors hold the incorrect societal perception that girls with disabilities have limited aptitude or interest in STEM and other challenging subjects;
Girls with and without disabilities have limited interaction – Both groups would benefit from such interactions, as they contribute to networking and peer support, and reduction of fear and stigma;
Absence of women with disabilities as role models – The invisibility of women with disabilities in educational materials, as educators, in the workplace and in the media creates a dearth of positive role models for women and girls with disabilities; and
Shortage of women with disabilities as mentors – Having a responsive and supportive mentor makes the world of difference for academic and professional success and increased self-esteem.

Let’s spread the facts and then, let’s change them!

October 1, 2013

Pennsylvania’s Proposed Women’s Health Agenda

Kate Michelman discussing strategy with women’s health care advocates and members of the General Assembly Health Care Agenda Caucus.

Yesterday (Monday, September 30, 2013), I attended a two-hour meeting with Pennsylvania’s House and Senate members of the joint Women’s Health Agenda Caucus led by Representative Dan Frankel of Pittsburgh. Some of the advocacy groups attending the meeting included the Women’s Law Project (WLP), Women Vote PA, and members of the Pennsylvanians for Choice coalition including Pennsylvania NOW whom I represented.

For a very long time Pennsylvania has focused on restricting women’s access to abortion services – currently accounting for over 1270 pages of legislation and regulations in the state. This wrong-headed approach to health assumes that women’s sole need is to protect them from safe, legal access to decent abortion care services. In other words, the state has wrong-headedly been crafting laws and regulations to deny access to abortion, sending more and more women to the back alleys similar to the Gosnell clinic and ignoring the broader issues of women’s health equity.

Women’s concerns about their health are broadly based in bias based on gender. Terry L. Fromson, Amal Bass, Carol E. Tracy, Susan Frietsche of the Women’s Law Project created a report entitled Through the Lens of Equality: Eliminating Sex Bias to Improve the Health of Pennsylvania’s Women in 2012. The WLP is Pennsylvania’s feminist legal organization that engages in litigation, advocacy, and education to ensure women’s equality and treatment in Pennsylvania. This report set the context for yesterday’s meeting. The WLP framed the health care agenda as follows in this report and in the meeting this morning:

The legal and social status of American women has changed dramatically in the last fifty years. Half a century ago, it was legal to segregate jobs by sex, to refuse to hire or promote on the basis of a person’s sex, to fire women who became pregnant, and to limit the number of women admitted to professional schools such as law and medicine. Sexual and domestic violence were hidden from public view and public policy. Abortion was illegal and the birth control pill was not yet on the market. Today, women have taken their place in the working world and educational opportunities for women have expanded exponentially. Sexual and domestic violence are recognized as crimes and some resources are available to its victims. Abortion is legal and birth control is available.

Despite these advances, deeply embedded cultural biases and stereotypes about women’s place in society continue to impede women’s equal participation in society. In our homes and communities women are subjected to violence, poverty, and the burden of care taking responsibilities. In the workplace, women are paid less than men for the same work, remain concentrated in stereotypically female low-paying occupations, are subjected to sexual harassment and discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and care giving, and are denied advancement to managerial and higher paying positions. In school, young women are denied their fair share of sports opportunities and are sexually harassed and violated. Women are denied essential reproductive health care and subjected to discrimination in access to insurance coverage. Women pay more than men for the same coverage, and pregnancy is a preexisting condition that often denies pregnant women access to insurance coverage and therefore maternity care. Access to abortion has been limited by burdensome legislative requirements, and providers and patients have been terrorized by an increasingly violent opposition. Attacks on access to contraceptive services have grown.

While many laws have been adopted to eliminate sex discrimination at work and at school, gaps persist that must be filled and enforcement needs to be strengthened. This is particularly true in Pennsylvania. While some Pennsylvania cities have outlawed employment discrimination on the basis of care-giving responsibilities and provide other accommodations for women who work, the Pennsylvania legislature has failed to adopt a statewide prohibition on discrimination on the basis of caregiver status or to provide family leave for caregivers. In Pennsylvania, the law permits insurers to price the cost of health insurance higher for women than for men, resulting in women paying more for individual health insurance policies and small employers paying more for health insurance for a predominantly female workforce. Pennsylvania’s sexual assault laws have for the most part eliminated discriminatory provisions, but the myths and stereotypes that continue to infect the criminal justice system hinder the investigation and prosecution of these crimes. The health care perspective on domestic violence and sexual assault is far too limited. Sexual assault is treated as a health care matter primarily in the immediate aftermath of a rape, even though the physical and emotional health consequences can be long lasting. Although a number of health care providers recognize that domestic violence is also a health issue, screening for domestic violence in health care settings is not universal. Poverty, which disproportionately impacts women, exacerbates the impact of sex bias in all of these realms….

Pennsylvania, with 6.5 million women, has consistently been found deficient in national studies on women’s health care measures. In their 2010 health report card, the National Women’s Law Center and Oregon Health & Science University placed Pennsylvania 32 among the 50 states and graded it unsatisfactory with respect to the status of women’s health….

To alleviate women’s health problems, it is necessary to eliminate adverse experiences — discrimination and bias — early in life and throughout life — and to improve access to health care, with an emphasis on care essential to women (pp. x-xii).

Representative Frankel heard this call to refocus the legislature from attacking women’s reproductive health to focusing — just like New York state’s “10 Point Plan for Women’s Equality” — on redirecting legislation in the General Assembly towards a women’s health equity agenda. So yesterday, almost 20 legislators from both houses attended a meeting with advocates seeking to improve women’s lives and health through a broad review and revision of Pennsylvania law. The agenda covers reproductive health, women’s economic security, and women’s safety.

The ideas for change come from real-life stories of women in the state. Calls to service agencies. Cries for help on hot lines. Requests for advocacy. And of course lots of research to back up the anecdotal stories. The 24 suggested changes to Pennsylvania law that were presented are in areas where either no legislation has been introduced or where legislation to improve the bias are lagging or need to be revisited. We, as advocates, understand that there are other areas of concern, but believe these health care agenda items are a good start.

Some of these ideas are conceptual at this point. Some have some preliminary model wording for new legislation, and some are already in the works. Here’s the agenda:

Protect and Expand Women’s Reproductive Health Rights

Pregnancy Accommodations: Require employers to provide accommodations to pregnant employees with temporary pregnancy-related conditions to allow workers to remain employed throughout their pregnancies while imposing minimal burdens on employers.
Support for Breastfeeding Mothers in the Workplace: Require all employers to provide compensated break time and a private, sanitary (not a bathroom) for all employees who need to express milk.
Buffer Zones: Enact a statewide reproductive health care clinic buffer zone statute to protect safe access to essential health care.
Inmate Shackling: Strengthen pregnant inmate shackling law (Act 45 of 2010) to cover the entire pregnancy and a reasonable post-partum period for mother-child bonding and to eliminate the tasering of any woman known to be pregnant.
Medical Professional Conscientious Right to Refuse to Deliver Medically Inaccurate Information: Protect physician-patient relationships from political intrusion.

Improve Women’s Economic Security
TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) Grant Amount: Increase TANF cash assistance grant levels.
TANF Asset Limit: Increase the TANF eligibility asset limit to encourage saving and financial independence.
Earned Income Disregard: Increase the earned income disregard and apply it to applicants as well as recipients. FYI, the earned income disregard allows very-low income workers to continue receiving TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid if they make 50% or less of the poverty level. This proposed legislation would raise this “disregard” level to 75% and would apply to applicants as well as recipients.
Childcare Works Waiting List: Eliminate the childcare works waiting list.
TANF Pre-Application Job Search: Eliminate or modify the TANF pre-application job search requirements.
Minimum Wage: Increase Pennsylvania’s minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.00/hour.
Gender Wage Gap: Strengthen Pennsylvania law to eliminate the 24% gender wage gap by prohibiting retaliation against employees for discussing wages (“pay secrecy”) and closing the “factor other than sex” defense to apply only to bona fide business-related factors.
Family Responsibilities Employment Discrimination: Prohibit family responsibilities discrimination in employment by amending the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act to prohibit family status discrimination in employment pursuant to an expanded definition of familial status to encompass the true scope of familial responsibilities shouldered by employees.
Paid Family and Sick Leave: Require all employers to provide employees with paid family and sick leave
Spousal Pension Benefits: Require spousal consent when a retiring state employee chooses how his or her pension benefits should be paid consistent with federal law protecting each spouse from his or her spouse’s selection of a pension benefit in all privately-sponsored pension plans and laws adopted by other states.
Domestic Worker Protection: Amend Pennsylvania anti-discrimination laws to provide domestic workers protection from employment discrimination
Sexual Harassment: Extend the prohibition on sexual harassment in employment to all employers, even small employers.

Protect Women’s Personal Safety
Paid Leave for Domestic Violence, Sexual Violence, and Stalking Victims: Require employers to provide paid leave to obtain assistance for and pursue legal protection against domestic and sexual violence and stalking.
Housing Discrimination: Prohibit private and public housing discrimination against domestic violence victims.
Civil Orders of Protection for Sexual Violence and Stalking Victims: Authorize courts to issue civil orders of protection for sex crime and stalking victims.
Absolute Privilege for Student Victims: Protect victims/witnesses of sexual assault who testify in school grievance proceedings from being sued by their harassers.
Human Trafficking: Strengthen Pennsylvania’s criminal statute on human trafficking.
Veterans’ Real Estate Tax Exemption: Amend Pennsylvania law to provide veterans real estate tax exemption for veterans suffering from PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) due to sexual victimization during service and appoint women representatives to the House and Senate Committees on Veteran Affairs and to the Pennsylvania State Veterans Commission.
Voting Reform: Reform voting rules to provide online registration, same day in person registration, early voting, including early in person voting on weekends.

These ideas will be discussed in continuing meetings between members of the General Assembly’s Health Care Agenda Caucus and advocates for women’s equality. I’ll post more on these issues as this legislative program becomes better defined.

September 26, 2013

When Men Murder Women: The Violence Policy Center 2013 Report

Picture of Joanne Tosti-Vasey standing with sign that says "I AM Ending Violence"

Joanne Tosti-Vasey “Refusing to be Silent” and calling for an end to gender-based violence

The following is a guest blog originally published here by Jerin Arifa, with an acknowledgement to Patricia Reuss for staying on top of this issue and sending the report to us.

Jerin serves with me on the board of directors for the National Organization for Women (NOW) and chairs NOW’s Young Feminist Task Force.

Patricia is the “godmother” of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), having worked very closely with now Vice-President Joe Biden when he authored the original VAWA back in 1994. She describes herself as “a longtime women’s rights activist pretending to be retired and currently serving as a policy adviser to NOW and the National Task Force [to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women].”

Earlier this year, Pat wrote a guest blog for me on the Violence Against Women Act. It focused on a watered-down version of VAWA introduced by Republican legislators that fortunately failed and was replaced by a strong re-authorization bill signed into law by President Obama on Women’s Equality Day last March. Thank you Pat for all you do for women’s lives.

Here’s Jerin’s guest blog:

The Violence Policy Center has released their annual report, When Men Murder Women, in advance of Domestic Violence Awareness Month. The study reports the statistics for females murdered by males, and includes a list of the top ten states with the highest homicide rates.

Some key findings:

For homicides in which the victim to offender relationship could be identified, 94 percent of female victims were murdered by someone they knew. Compared to a man, a woman is far more likely to be killed by her spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a family member than by a stranger.
For homicides in which the weapon used could be identified, 51 percent of female victims were shot and killed with guns. Of these, 73 percent were killed with handguns.
The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate acquaintance was more than five times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined in single victim/single offender incidents
For homicides in which the circumstances could be identified, 87 percent were not related to the commission of any other felony, such as rape or robbery.
Of these, 60 percent involved arguments between the victim and the offender.
For homicides in which the age of the victim was reported, 8 percent were less than 18 years old and 10 percent were 65 years of age or older. The average age was 39 years old.
Owning a gun doesn’t protect women. Females living with a gun in the home were nearly three times more likely to be murdered than females with no gun in the home.
A gun in the home is a key factor in the escalation of nonfatal spousal abuse to homicide. In one study, firearm-associated family and intimate assaults were 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm associated assaults between family and intimates.
Women who were murdered were more likely, not less likely, to have purchased a handgun in the three years prior to their deaths, again invalidating the idea that a handgun has a protective effect against homicide.
While firearms are at times used by private citizens to kill criminals, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that the most common scenarios of lethal gun use in America in 2010, the most recent final data available, are suicide (19,392), homicide (11,078), or fatal unintentional injury (606).
South Carolina was followed by Alaska and Oklahoma as the states with the highest homicide rates for women.

Civil Rights Advocacy

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. — Margaret Mead

Laws and Treaties