| Winter 1999-2000 Affordable Housing: An important Minnesota NOW issue "Millionaire" wedding makes a mockery of marriage 2000 Legislative Update Response to unicameral legislature proposal Response to covenant marriage proposal Call to conference: Is Minnesota nice? Analyzing victim services consolidation State PAC endorses five candidates Friends and colleagues honor Susal Stebbins
|
2000 Legislative Update
By Rachel Callanan, MN NOW Legislative Coordinator The 2000 Legislative Session started Feb. 1st, and the Legislative Committee is hard at work. Kathy Murphy, who recently returned to Minnesota from living in Washington, D.C., was appointed as Legislative Committee Chair by MN NOW’s Executive Committee. She has hit the ground running in her new role. Kathy will be working as an intern lobbyist with Sue Rockne, a well respected and legendary lobbyist and advocate for women’s rights. Kathy will be close to the action, giving MN NOW some crucial visibility at the Capitol. She will be following some of MN NOW’s key issues this year: anti-choice legislation, covenant marriage, and the unicameral issue, among others. The benefits of her contribution are apparent in her issue briefs in this newsletter. I commend the efforts of all of those working with the Legislative Committee this year. We have received a lot of input and support from members on specific issues, Mary Ann Gaspar, our office coordinator, has kept the committee moving forward with her tremendous assistance, and I am particularly grateful for the commitment of the committee members who are making it all happen. Now it is time for all MN NOW’s members to contribute to our legislative efforts! This year’s legislative agenda is being carried out primarily through a grassroots lobbying strategy. That means if our members don’t act, then our message does not reach the people that need to hear it—our elected officials. It is the sound of many voices raised together that will reach a volume the Governor and legislators cannot ignore. So my request of the membership is this: Start small, don’t think you have to act on every action alert we issue—you may be overwhelmed. Choose one or two issues that are close to your heart and do whatever you can. Make a call to the Governor, write a letter to your state senator or representative, or post the action alert at work so that others will see it. Whatever you do, please take some sort of action—your voice may be the one that achieves the critical mass to change a bill this year. And if you are one of the few who have the time and energy to act on each and every action alert that MN NOW puts out, then let me know what kind of coffee you’re drinking! A note about Action Alerts: They will be released most frequently on the MN NOW Web site (http://www.mtn.org/mnnow) and to those signed up on the MN NOW email activist list (you can sign up by e-mailing the office at info@mnnow.org). Those without Internet access may keep up to date on actions by contacting the MN NOW office at (651)-222-1605 and Mary Ann will send them out to you. Less frequently, Action Alerts will be sent out in the mail; they may be faxed if so requested; and in mid-March this year's second Legislative Newsletter will be coming out. Choice Late-term abortion is not being addressed as of yet in this session. “A Women’s Right to Know” is the main vehicle for abortion restrictions being sought by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL). “Right to Know” legislation requires that women seeking an abortion view materials about abortion (which is already done by clinics in Minnesota) and then the woman must wait 24 hours after viewing the material to get an abortion. “Informed Consent” and “24 Hour Waiting Periods” are the other terms that are used for this legislation. MCCL is rumored to be trying to add “Right to Know” abortion restriction language to the Newborns’ Bill that allows women to drop off their unwanted babies at medical facilities without prosecution. A bill was recently introduced (SF2733) that prohibits doctors from telling women of any characteristics of their unborn fetus found through genetic testing, ultrasound, amniocentesis, etc. that could incite an abortion. Violence Against Women Office for the Prevention of Violence Against Women (SF2980/HF3331): The bill Senator Junge is introducing is actually for the creation of a Department of Crime Prevention within the Department of Public Safety. Sen. Junge was initially pushing for a specific state Office for Prevention of Violence Against Women (OPVAW) but a compromise between Sen. Junge, DPS, and women’s advocates resulted in the current bill which passed unanimously through the Senate Crime Prevention Committee. The compromise was struck because of the high likelihood that if the OPVAW passed through both houses Gov. Ventura would veto it because in this bonding session, no new appropriations would be made to support the office. What does all this mean in light of MN NOW’s positions on Reorganization Order #182 and the OPVAW? (See article on page 8 outlining MN NOW’s positions). This compromise legislation answers some of MN NOW’s concerns regarding each of these issues, specifically this legislation: reinstates the grassroots women’s role in state victim services by providing specialized staff and resources within DPS to address violence against women; it establishes an interagency task force on domestic violence and sexual assault prevention which provides an initial first step in better coordination among state agencies; and it reinstates power to the advisory councils that had been greatly reduced under the initial reorganization. Ultimately, MN NOW would still like to see a state OPVAW created, but that is an unlikely outcome this year. It may be something we want to pursue next year. Domestic Abuse Civil Remedies Act (SF11/HF47): These bills create a civil action specifically for domestic abuse. The statute of limitations for similar actions is two years. This bill extends that time frame to six years, which means the victim/survivor may bring a lawsuit up to six years after the domestic abuse incident for which she is suing. This extension is important for battered women because it may take longer than two years for many women to get to a point in their lives when they can take this kind of action. Restraining Order Fee Waiver Elimination/Amended Definition of Harrassment (HF2516/SF3580): This bill, authored by Rep. Steve Smith (R-Mound) and backed by the Minnesota Supreme Court, eliminates the waiver of the $120 restraining order filing fee. Low-income people may still file in forma pauperis which removes filing fees. However, this requires additional paper work and is an extra step in the process of obtaining a restraining order. The stated reason for eliminating this waiver is to cut down on the number of “frivolous” restraining order cases—primarily targeting “nuisance” lawsuits among neighbors, for example. However, the practical result of this bill will be that many women will be prevented from seeking restraining orders when they are victims of stalking or harassment (there is an exception that preserves the waiver for cases of domestic abuse). Parenting Plan Bill (SF2473/HF2527) (Sen. Knutson R-Burnsville/Rep. Biernat DFL-Mpls.): The bill allows parents in a sole child custody case to agree on their own standard of proof for a modification of the custody order. It would make sole custody cases the same as the rule in joint custody cases. This bill presents particular dangers for custodial parents who are unrepresented by an attorney at the time of the initial custody matter, as well as battered women because there would be pressure to negotiate a lower standard for modifying the custody order. See the Action Alert on MN NOW’s Web site for full information. Economic Justice Issues: MFIP Sanctions: Bills in both the House and Senate have been introduced to impose 100% sanctions on MFIP (welfare) recipients who are not in compliance with work requirements. Current Minnesota law allows up to 30% sanction for noncompliance. Sanctions should not be raised because a 100% sanction would fundamentally undermine perhaps the most important goal of MFIP—reducing child poverty. There is significant evidence showing that current sanction policy is often implemented in an inconsistent and inaccurate manner and that a large percentage of participants in sanction status have barriers that should qualify them for an exemption from MFIP work requirements. Given this evidence, a full family sanction policy would make the consequences of inconsistent implementation all the more dramatic, while failing to address the participant’s barriers to compliance. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Reserve Spending: As discussed in the January Legislative Newsletter, concerns about using the surplus money from Minnesota’s federal welfare grant—the TANF reserve—have been pleasantly answered with a promising proposal by the Ventura administration. Ventura’s proposal for spending the $173 million in TANF reserve includes a stated goal to use the money to help hard-to-employ families move from welfare to work. Specifics include: $55 million for a program to fund additional job training, intervention services, assistance for chemical dependency and mental health, and child care and transportation assistance; $83 million to address the housing needs of low-income families including a notable elimination of a provision that requires MFIP participants to count a portion of their public housing benefits as income, thereby reducing their MFIP grant; and $23 million to allow child support payments (now retained by state and federal government to offset welfare payments) to be passed on to MFIP participants. Healthcare Maternity Benefits Bill (Rep. Opatz DFL-St. Cloud): This bill prohibits waiting periods for insurance coverage for maternity benefits. Under current law many health insurance policies may require a waiting period up to 18 months from the time of initial coverage before the policy would cover maternity benefits (the costs of delivering a baby, hospital stay, etc.). This bill came very close to passing in the legislature last year—thanks, in large part to MN NOW’s lobbyist last year (Susal). Let’s get this one through! Ovarian Cancer Test/Healing Touch Insurance Coverage Bill (HF2581) (Rep. Karen Clark DFL-Mpls.): This bill would require that health insurance cover routine blood test screening for ovarian cancer, which can be a virulent form of cancer that often goes undetected. The bill also requires insurance coverage for a form of therapy called “healing touch.” The benefits of this therapy is that it stimulates the immune system to help your body naturally fight off disease. |