A round up of current news stories on the state and national level, with a focus on feminist issues
By Tess Koenigsmark
I’m a little late on this one, but it still gives me a sense of excitement to be able to highlight a project that addresses both domestic abuse and the inequities in the criminal justice system. Activists launched a letter writing campaign in support of Marissa Alexander, the Florida woman sentenced to 20 years in jail for firing a warning shot when threatened by her abusive husband. The great part of this campaign is that it asks men to write letters in support of Alexander, thereby challenging men to become more engaged on what is often seen as a “women’s issue”. Brilliant.
The Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund, the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, the Connecticut Department of Labor, and the U.S. Dept. of Labor Women’s Bureau are hosting a “roundtable on women in science, technology, engineering and math occupations” Tuesday in Hartford. Shout out to all our STEM sisters! Details here.
An update on the battle over NYC’s stop and frisk policy.
A scheduled decrease in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits (also known as food stamps) went into effect Friday, even though food insecurity remains high. Even worse, Congress is currently negotiating the 2013 Farm Bill and both the House and Senate versions call for cuts to the program.
Technical problems continue to plague the federal government’s new healthcare exchange website, but rollout of Connecticut’s site, Access Health CT, has been relatively smooth by comparison. However, challenges remain for CT’s exchange, with price cited as a top concern.
Connecticut’s Democratic Party has seen a fundraising boom thanks to a new CT law that increases the amount an individual can contribute to political parties. While advocates claim the legislation better aligns CT with federal law, others fear it’s a mistake to allow a greater influx of money into the political system.
A federal court has ruled that the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act is a violation of religious freedoms. However, this fight is far from over and will most likely land at the Supreme Court. I’m no lawyer, but I’ve never understood this reasoning. If employers are allowed to deny coverage for any healthcare they disapprove of on religious grounds, what else does that open the floodgates for?
Limiting credits is not cool, UConn.