Skip to content
Call Us Today! 212-533-4646 | MON-FRI 12PM - 4PM (EST)
DONATE
SUBSCRIBE
Search for:
About Us
UNWLA 100
Publications
FAQ
Annual Report 2024
Annual Report 2023
Annual Report 2022
Annual Report 2021
Initiatives
Advocate
Educate
Cultivate
Care
News
Newsletters
Sign Up For Our Newsletter
Join UNWLA
Become a Member
Volunteer With Us
Donate to UNWLA
Members Portal
Shop to Support Ukraine
Search for:
Print
Print Page
Download
Download Page
Download Right Page
Open
1
2-3
4-5
6-7
8-9
10-11
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-19
20-21
22-23
24-25
26-27
28-29
30-31
32-33
34-35
36-37
38-39
40
The financial support of ’’OUR LIFE” magazine is not secure. The ’’Emergency Fund” which should have been realized at the last Convention still falls short of its goal. Now all branches have donated funds appropriate to their membership. However, many have exceeded their requirements by promoting various public functions to collect money for this cause. Now we must consider funding the magazine for women in South America and other countries. The moving letters we receive from readers of OUR LIFE from all over the world should serve as an example of how cherished the magazine is. Mrs. Rozankowsky, says ” ln the following issue of our magazine I will relate our accomplishments as well as positive results of our efforts.” MOTRIA KUSHNIR WOMAN VIEWS & NEWS IN WOMAN'S WORLD The United States Supreme Court last month rejected the claim that employed women have the legal right to sick pay when they are absent from work during pregnancy. The Court ruled, 6 to 3, that the General Electric Company’s (GE’s) refusal to com pensate pregnant women is not sex discrimination. The decision overturned the rulings of two lower federal district courts and six United States courts of appeals. In so doing, the high Court also assum ed a position directly opposed to the policy of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the laws of many states. The ramifications of the decision are serious, but not cataclysm ic. The suit was brought under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The ca se involved not a C o n stitu tio n a l is s u e , m erely an interpretation of the Civil Rights Act. In the majority report Justice Blackmun explicitly stated that, so far as he was concerned, the decision in no way implied that the earlier Griggs v. Duke Power Co. ruling was "no longer good law.” By underscoring this point he reaffirmed the earlier position of the Court which held that the complainant in a discrimination suit can charge bias when the effect, even if not the intent, of an action is discriminatory. This is a most significant issue: if intent becam e the only basis for a charge of dis crimination, proving the charge would be difficult to the point of impossibility. The Court’s decision leaves it up to C ongress to revise the law to specifically grant women the right rejected by the ruling. State laws-such as equal rights amendm ents to state constitutions -which already provide employed women with this protection remain in effect; th ese statutes cannot be challenged on Con stitutional grounds. Hopefully, the Supreme Court action will infuse new life into a renewed push for the ratification of the federal ERA legislation. The out com e of the suit provided a perfect example of the need for the law’s p ass age. Despite this silver lining-and a very slim silver sliver it is, indeed-the Court’s ruling constitutes a very serious setback for American women. One w ishes that the fair-minded thinking of the minority had prevailed. Justice Stevens, a Ford appointee, found that GE’s health plan is sexually dis criminatory b ecau se it "places the risk of ab sen ce caused by pregnancy in a class by itself.” In a separate dissent, Justices Brennan and Marshall noted that the federal district court had found a "dis criminatory attitude” toward women that was a "motivating factor” in GE’s medical policy. The normal obstetrical and hospital co sts of delivery are covered by the policy, as are the co sts of surgery which only males undergo-such as cir cum cision and prostate operations. How ever, men who have undergone such surgery are entitled to 60% of their salaries during con valescen ce, while the sam e policy denies convalescing women any com pensation at all. The majority reasoning-which was upheld by all four Nixon appointees, Ju stices Burger, Rehnquist, Blackmun and Powell-was a study in non- sensification and absurdity. The majority stated that in the conditions which are covered by GE’s health plan: ’’There is no risk from which men are protected and women are not. Likewise there is no risk from which women are protected and men are not.” As indicated by the minority, this statement is simply not accurate. Moreover, one wonders-in the light of the facts of nature-why the J u stices would require a medical policy to protect men from the risk of pregnancy. Their reasons, no doubt, issue from their general conclusion that refusing pregnancy pay is not in consistent with the law becau se it is not based on sex! The Ju stices failed to add that: ”God didn’t make little green apples and it don’t rain in Indianapolis...in the summer time.” ★ ★ ★ Of all the world’s women, 99.5% have the legal right to participate in their countries' political processes. Political rights are denied to women in only nine countries: Baharein, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Lichtenstein, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Yemen Arab Republic and within six northern states of Nigeria. However, as indicated by Kathleen Newland’s global review of the political status of w om en, the right to vote d o es not guarantee that women will exercise it independently, or at all. Nor d o es the extension of the franchise assure equal treatment of women in the political arena. In her rep ort— p u b lish e d by Worldwatch Institute, a nonprofit research organization based in Wash ington, D. C. — Newland docum ents the fact that the number of women in p o l i t i c a l o f f i c e r e m a i n s d i s proportionately small. In the ca se of positions central to the highest levels of power, the small proportion decreases drastically. The primary ca u se for w om en’s limited political activity, Newland found, are traditional attitudes and ignorance. She stated that: ’’The most serious barrier to women in politics undoubtedly continues to be persistence of the belief, held by both men and women, that politics and public affairs are by nature exclusively male dom ains.” 24 НАШЕ ЖИТТЯ, ЛЮТИЙ 1977 Видання C оюзу Українок A мерики - перевидано в електронному форматі в 2012 році . A рхів C У A - Ню Йорк , Н . Й . C Ш A.
Page load link
Go to Top
1 
2-3 
4-5 
6-7 
8-9 
10-11 
12-13 
14-15 
16-17 
18-19 
20-21 
22-23 
24-25 
26-27 
28-29 
30-31 
32-33 
34-35 
36-37 
38-39 
40 
