Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

July-27-06

Labor Unions Oppose Anti-Choice Ballot Initiative

Feminist leaders successfully convinced California unions this week to take a stand against an anti-choice measure that will be on the California ballot this November. If passed, Proposition 85 would amend the California state constitution to prohibit abortions for young women under the age of 18 – unless a physician notifies her parent or guardian in writing or she obtains a court order to waive the required notification. A similar measure, Prop. 73, was defeated by voters last year in a Special Election.

A feminist presence at the California Labor Federation’s 2006 Biennial Convention aided in the AFL-CIO Executive Council reversing its original “no recommendation” stance on Proposition 85 to a solid “vote no” for the November ballot. “It’s very rare for the executive council to reverse its decision,” said Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers and Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF) board member. “Labor is very top-down; workers usually do what their leaders tell them to do. We had some of the big unions on our side, but we needed a two-thirds vote … This is a smashing victory for the feminist movement.”

Feminist Majority Foundation interns joined Huerta and members of the Dolores Huerta Foundation to hand out literature on the dangers of Proposition 85 to union delegates prior to the vote. “I cannot tell you what an impact we made,” Huerta said. “These young women were here with their feminist shirts on and they really put a face on what we’re fighting for.”

The Executive Council’s decision to recommend no on Prop. 85 was met with applause and relief, rising to a crescendo of union members chanting “Si se puede!” “I had three women come up to me after the vote, teary-eyed, and thanked us for being there,” said Amanda Luterman, a FMF intern. “You could feel the energy and a willingness to speak out. Not just women, but men were speaking out for their daughters, and unions who don’t usually see a correlation between their work and young women’s lives were standing up for the women in their unions.”

Media Resources: Feminist Majority Foundation


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

9/12/2014 Violence Against Women Act Turns 20 - Saturday will be the 20th Anniversary of the groundbreaking federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Passed in 1994, VAWA was the first piece of federal legislation to specifically address domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes and to provide federal funding to improve local response to violence against women, including training and resources for law enforcement and judges. President Barack Obama on Tuesday issued a proclamation commemorating the VAWA anniversary. . . .
 
9/12/2014 Indiana Woman Charged With Feticide For Premature Delivery - An Indiana woman has been charged with feticide after she delivered prematurely and sought hospital treatment. Purvi Patel, 33, sought help at an emergency room for vaginal bleeding where it was discovered that she had delivered prematurely at home. . . .
 
9/11/2014 Missouri Legislators Pass 72-Hour Abortion Waiting Period Law - Missouri legislators voted late last night to triple the state's current 24-hour waiting period to 72 hours, with no exceptions for rape or incest. Governor Jay Nixon previously vetoed the bill in July, calling it "extreme and disrespectful." Missouri's House voted 117-44 to override the veto, and then the Senate used a procedural move to stop a Democratic filibuster of the bill and vote 23-7 to complete the veto override Wednesday. "The only purpose of a 72-hour waiting period is to attempt to punish, shame, and demean women who have arrived at a personal decision that politicians happen to disagree with," said the president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights in a statement. . . .