Chicago NOW in the News A list of NOW in the news articles
Women's Health Care - September 28, 2007
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE (Letters) - Chicago Tribune
The recent decision to delay the opening of the Aurora Planned Parenthood facility is one that cannot be overlooked. This organization, comprised of a number of honorable doctors and nurses, is an asset to the community. Planned Parenthood provides a wide array of health services on a sliding scale in order to serve all women, regardless of their health insurance or income.
Abortion is not illegal. While I respect the right of others to stand for their moral and religious beliefs, we must remember the government’s obligation to uphold the separation of church and state. The religious beliefs of some do not dictate the laws that govern all.
It is shameful to deny this medical facility based on a technicality. One cannot help but wonder whether the judgment in this decision was made based on a personal bias instead of regard for the common good.
This judgment is a blatant dismissal of the need for specialized health care for women and therefore an affront to all women who require their services.
The right to govern one’s own body is a basic human right that must be protected. Closure of Planned Parenthood or any other women’s facility on account of personal feelings deteriorates the rights of women and therefore the rights of all Americans.
Michelle L. Staeger, Board member, National Organization for Women, Chicago chapter
NOW pulls endorsement of aldermanic candidate
By Mickey Ciokajlo, Tribune Staff Reporter, April 2, 2007
The Chicago chapter of the National Organization for Women has again pulled its endorsement of 2nd Ward aldermanic candidate Bob Fioretti, saying he misled them regarding his relationship with a woman who filed an order of protection against him in 2003.
“We are extremely disappointed in Mr. Fioretti, and because we can no longer be confident about the accuracy and honesty of his statements, we are withdrawing our endorsement,” Mary Przekop, vice president of the organization’s political action committee, said in a statement released Monday.
Fioretti is challenging Ald. Madeline Haithcock in the April 17 runoff election.
NOW’s move came three days after the Tribune reported that Fioretti’s explanation of his relationship with the woman conflicted with the public record.
Fioretti has said that the woman began harassing him after she saw him at work in courtrooms. Fioretti is a lawyer and the woman is a court reporter.
But the Tribune reported that Fioretti filed a court document seeking to have the protection order lifted. The order stated he and the woman had a past “dating relationship.”
His campaign later said Fioretti and the woman were friends who saw each other at social events over the years but declined to comment further, other than to say the court documents “speak for themselves.”
Fioretti’s campaign on Monday released a written statement from Nicki Pecori, his longtime partner, who said she was disappointed in the organization’s decision and felt it trivialized the harassment she and her family suffered.
NOW said it had relied on information provided by Fioretti in making its endorsement. Before the Tribune story, the group was not aware of the document noting the dating relationship.
“Chicago NOW originally endorsed Mr. Fioretti based on the information he provided to us, but we now have discovered that he misled Chicago NOW regarding his relationship to the woman who filed the emergency order of protection,” Przekop said in the statement. “Mr. Fioretti has been less than forthcoming and after days of inquiries to his campaign we still do not know why.”
NOW originally endorsed Fioretti but pulled its support shortly before the February municipal election after learning of the order of protection against him that was obtained in August 2003.
Fioretti finished first in the six-candidate field with 28 percent of the vote, followed by Haithcock with 21 percent. Because neither won a majority, they will meet again in the runoff.
Shortly after the Feb. 27 election, Chicago NOW re-endorsed Fioretti, noting that a judge vacated the protection order and saying the allegations had no basis in fact. The group acknowledged that it had not interviewed the woman.
Chicago re-elected Mayor Richard Daley and chose aldermen in 38 wards on Feb. 27, but voters in 12 wards still have unfinished business. No candidate for alderman received at least 50 percent of the vote in those wards, so the top two candidates will face each other in an April 17 runoff election.
The Tribune affirms its endorsement of candidates in 10 of those wards. They are: Pat Dowell (3rd), Shirley Coleman (16th), Lona Lane (18th), Howard Brookins Jr. (21st), Michael Chandler (24th), Scott Waguespack (32nd), Rey Colon (35th), Vi Daley (43rd) Don Gordon (49th) and Naisy Dol ar (50th).
Jobs, economic development, and the big-box ordinance loom large in those wards, as they do in the other two wards that will hold elections.
The Tribune supported an unsuccessful challenger in the 2nd Ward in February, but in the runoff race we offer an endorsement to the 14-year incumbent, Madeline Haithcock.
Haithcock has had an unimpressive tenure and her constituents let her know just how unhappy they were. She received just 20 percent of the vote in February. Many voters are likely to look closely at her opponent, attorney Bob Fioretti. But questions persist about Fioretti’s explanation of why a woman got an emergency order of protection against him in 2003. The order was vacated a week after it was issued. Fioretti’s evolving explanation of the incident, though, prompted the Chicago chapter of the National Organization for Women to rescind its endorsement of him.
The decisive issue for us is this: Who would bring jobs to the ward? Haithcock took a courageous position opposed to the so-called “big-box” ordinance, which would chase large retailers out of the city. She voted to encourage businesses to set up shop in Chicago and hire the city\'s residents. For that reason, she is endorsed.
It’s an easier call in the 15th Ward, where attorney Felicia Simmons-Stovall is endorsed. She would be an intelligent, dynamic leader for a ward that has struggled with crime, inadequate housing and unemployment. The ward has sagged under the uninspired Ald. Ted Thomas, who is retiring. Simmons-Stovall would be a vast improvement. She understands the need to put a big emphasis on rebuilding the infrastructure of a ward that is plagued by vacant lots, abandoned buildings and crumbling sidewalks. Simmons-Stovall is endorsed over a well-intentioned, likable community activist, Toni Foulkes.
NOW pulls support for Fioretti, again - 'He misled us' on relationship with woman
April 3, 2007 - Chicago Sun Times, BY SCOTT FORNEK Political Reporter
The National Organization for Women is not backing aldermanic challenger Bob Fioretti -- again.
Two weeks after they reinstated the endorsement they earlier withdrew, leaders of NOW’s Chicago chapter again pulled their support Monday, saying the Near West Side lawyer misled them about his relationship with a woman who got an emergency order of protection against him 3½ years ago.
“We’re pretty disappointed with him at this point,” said Mary Przekop, vice president of the Chicago chapter of NOW’s political action committee. “He misled us.”
NOW initially backed Fioretti in his campaign against Ald. Madeline Haithcock (2nd), but then rescinded its endorsement days before the Feb. 27 election after learning about an August 2003 order of protection.
Fioretti argued that the woman was a court reporter who was harassing him and his girlfriend. He said she sought the order of protection only after he filed criminal charges against her. He provided a document showing the order of protection was lifted a week after it was granted.
Fioretti said he did not have any relationship -- sexual or otherwise -- with the woman.
His integrity defended
Two weeks ago, NOW’s Chicago chapter reinstated its support of Fioretti in the April 17 runoff election and denounced Haithcock for sending out a mailer calling him a “stalker.”
But last week, the Chicago Tribune reported that Fioretti’s lawyer filed a court document in 2003 stating that Fioretti and the woman “had a dating relationship that terminated approximately 10 years ago,” and the woman “has been unable to accept” Fioretti’s lack of interest in continuing it.
Fioretti’s campaign manager, Hanah Jubeh, stood by Fioretti’s position that “there was no relationship between him and the woman.”
She declined to comment further, instead releasing a statement from Fioretti’s “longtime partner,” Nicki Pecori, whom Jubeh described as a victim of the court reporter’s harassment.
Pecori defended Fioretti’s integrity and said NOW’s “decision trivializes the harassment my family and I had to suffer.”
“Not only was I harassed personally, but my mother, father, aunt, uncle, brother-in-law and grandmother were as well,” Pecori said. “ I find it unfortunate that one issue from the past is being distorted and exploited for political purposes.”
sfornek@suntimes.com
Chicago Maroon (UofC) January 30, Viewpoints
The Time is Now, By Maroon Editorial Staff
This week marks a spirited campaign by the National Organization of Women chapter on campus to raise awareness of both sexual assault and the University's current policy toward this crime.
Though the University can be credited with providing resources and programming regarding the prevention of sexual assault, a more comprehensive infrastructure designed to assist victims after the fact should be implemented. Many sexual assaults go unreported, and measures should be taken to rectify this. Victims can be encouraged to come forward about their experiences through the recruitment of trained professionals specialized to address the fears and concerns specific to survivors and make the process of reporting assault more comfortable and efficient. Though any sexual offense should be acknowledged with sensitivity and anonymity, sexual assault, unlike sexual harassment, is a violent crime and should be addressed accordingly.
Under current University policy, instances of sexual harassment and sexual assault are funneled through the same boards and hearing committees. However, because the nature of sexual assault is exceptionally more violent and personal than sexual harassment, NOW feels specific attention should be focused on addressing the needs of these survivors of sexual violence. It is unclear whether creating a new committee will encourage more victims to come forward, nor is it certain that this is the best way to combat sexual violence on campus. However, it is clear that any step to support victims of sexual assault, as well as any step to decrease the number of incidents of the crime must be explored, and, if proven successful, implemented. NOW's proposal is one step. The Maroon hopes that this is the first of many.
State's justices say cops can be sued in 911 case - Domestic violence groups praise ruling
By Robert Becker (rxbecker@tribune.com) and Mickey Ciokajlo (mciokajlo@tribune.com), Published in the Chicago Tribune on April 21, 2006,
Ruling in the case of a Chicago woman whose murder can be heard on a tape recording, the Illinois Supreme Court said Thursday that law enforcement officials can sometimes be sued for failing to assist victims of domestic violence.
The decision permits the resumption of a lawsuit filed by the estate of Ronyale White, who was shot to death in May 2002 by her husband. The suit alleges that two Chicago police officers, responding to White's frantic 911 calls, sat outside her house for a few minutes and then departed without assisting her.
Domestic violence groups praised the court's decision, while municipal officials fretted that it might open the door to an onslaught of lawsuits.
In upholding an appeals court ruling, the Supreme Court weighed whether police officials in domestic violence cases were granted absolute immunity under the state’s tort immunity act, or whether they could be sued under a provision of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act. That provision offers immunity to officers and their supervisors in domestic violence cases unless their conduct is found to be “willful and wanton.”
In its unanimous decision, the court cited the intent of the Illinois legislature.
“The legislature chose to burden municipalities with the duty to enforce the Domestic Violence Act,” wrote Justice Thomas Fitzgerald. “It also chose to provide only limited liability from [legal] claims associated with a breach of this duty. It is not within our authority to question the wisdom of these choices.”
Attorneys for White’s family, who brought the civil suit against the City of Chicago and Chicago Police Officers Christopher Green and Donald Cornelius, praised the high court’s action.
“Finally the Supreme Court has spoken, and it has directed police departments to follow the legislature's direction,” said Richard F. Mallen, one of the attorneys representing White's estate.
Decision applauded
Women’s advocacy groups also applauded the decision.
“I do believe it is a victory for the women of Illinois,” said Kathleen Jacob, an executive board member of the Chicago chapter of the National Organization for Women. “Too often women in domestic violence situations pay a price and now police can be held accountable if they don’t respond immediately.”
But Jennifer Hoyle, a spokeswoman for the Chicago’s Law Department, expressed disappointment with the ruling.
“But it’s important that we receive clarification on the applicable legal standards for this case before proceeding with the litigation,” Hoyle said.
Roger Huebner, general counsel for the Illinois Municipal League, which filed an amicus brief for the defense in the case, said the ruling could place a financial burden on municipalities for crimes committed between two private parties.
“The concern is when we have independent statutes that establish lower thresholds of liability,” said Huebner, who cautioned that he had not yet read the Supreme Court ruling. "That's going to be very troublesome.”
The murder of White, a mother of three, rattled the city, prompting editorials and an internal police investigation.
In a dramatic twist, White apparently turned on a microcassette recorder in a jacket when her husband, Louis David Drexel, confronted her at the couple's South Side home.
The recording, played for jurors at Drexel's murder trial, captured the sounds of the last of her three calls to 911--and her shooting.
“Where are you? Where are you?” White could be heard asking a 911 operator in a frantic voice on the recording. “My husband has a gun. He's trying to kill me.”
Shots heard on tape. Seconds later a crashing sound could be heard. There were screams from White and a shouting male voice before the first sharp “pop” of a gunshot.
More screams could be heard, then a second shot. A "thump” on the tape followed, and a third gunshot was followed by a buzzing silence on the courtroom speakers.
After the murder, police officials said 17 minutes elapsed between White's first call to 911 and when the first officer arrived on the scene and that White already had been shot.
Drexel was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.
In ruling in favor of White’s estate, the Supreme Court rejected the city argument that the state’s tort immunity act “extinguishes” legal claims against police officers. The court also said the city's arguments "miss the unmistakable legislative intent” of the Domestic Violence Act.
That law, said the high court, “reflects a comprehensive statutory scheme to reform the legal system’s historically inadequate response to domestic violence.”
In concurring with her colleagues, Justice Mary Ann McMorrow wrote that the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act “underscore that law enforcement officials must be held accountable for their willful and wanton failure to enforce orders of protection” otherwise the legislature’s intent would be thwarted.
Can’t take slurs seriously - Chicago Sun Times, Letters to the Editor
Re: “Does word cast cloud on sunshine boys?” Carol Marin, April 30.
I don’t know what’s worse: Aldermen Stone and Natarus’ cavalier regard for the Shakman decree, or the use, while rousing his fellow alderman, of unprintable vulgar references to the female reproductive tract. Surely the words “spineless” or “unmanly” convey the same message and pack the same punch.
If Stone and Natarus feel that strict guidelines on appointments and hiring impede good government, and if they want us to take their argument seriously, they’ll have to come up with something better than schoolyard slurs that use female body parts as insults.
Joseph Hanc, board member
Chicago Chapter, National Organization for Women
POWERPOINTS READER FEEDBACK - What it means to be gay (Copyright 2006 by the Chicago Tribune)
Thank you for writing “That’s so gay? No it isn’t” (Boy on Boystown, June 29 column by Jason Steele).
I’ve been calling people on this for years, and every time I think we’ve evolved as a society (or at least a city) into a level of understanding and maybe even acceptance, I hear the term thrown around in a derogatory way.
It’s sad to me that we even need an article like this to point it out or remind people not to do it. I think it’s also the responsibility of those of us in the know to challenge people when they use the term “gay” to mean something negative. My favorite response when people say, “That party was so gay," is to say, “Oh, fun! You hung out with homosexuals! Wasn’t it fabulous?!” It’s a playful way to remind them of the proper use of the word and not put them on the defensive. And I’ll do it every time it occurs until they learn.
Cynthia Holmes (Chicago NOW Board Member), 26, Andersonville
Chicago Maroon (UofC) January 31, 2006 in News
NOW Asks for Sexual Assault Awareness, By Michelle Chun
The University’s chapter of the National Organization of Women (NOW)will pressure the administration over the next week to form a sexual assault policy—separate from its sexual harassment policy—through its Friday By 5 campaign. The organizers of the weeklong event also hope to make the campus community aware (by Friday at 5 p.m.) of sexual assault on campus.
NOW’s involvement in the University’s sexual harassment procedure began last year with a letter to the administration. Their efforts cumulated in a petition, signed by over 700 University members, to create an unequivocal, separate sexual assault policy. While the University has taken steps to respond, the school still does not have a clear sexual assault policy that is separate from their sexual harassment policy.
According to Martina Munsters, deputy dean of students in the University, the administration has worked with NOW since winter of 2005 to create a brochure on sexual abuse and sexual assault and a sexual violence website.
“We will continue to do so going forward,” Munsters said, referring to cooperation with NOW.
Currently, the University defines sexual assault as a form of direct sexual harassment and resolves all sexual harassment cases informally. The policy includes advising, mediation, and a formal review from a disciplinary board.
“It really worries me that someone who committed sexual assault would be treated the same way as someone who cheated on a test and that someone who was the victim of an assault would have to deal with the same bureaucracy as someone who was unhappy with their roommate,” said third-year in the College Aya Lewkowicz, a member of NOW.
NOW endorses the creation of individual policies to outline procedures and explicitly define sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and sexual assault in accordance with Illinois state law’s definition of the terms.
Another goal of NOW is to help the University provide and publicize more options and resources for the survivors of sexual assault, abuse, or harassment. As well as requesting a zero tolerance statement for all sexual assault, NOW recommends providing first-response training for Housing staff and sensitivity training for sexual harassment, abuse, and assault.
With 60 percent of rapes occurring in the home of the victim or a close friend, someone close to the victim could often be the assaulter. NOW members believe that it is important for the University to have procedures to allow the victim support within the campus community.
Third-year in the College Michelle Rengarajan, the head of the campus chapter of NOW, said that “the University silently condones victim-blaming when it does not explicitly speak against it.” She added that, to avoid sending the message that the victim has some control over the situation, the University should focus on survivor resources, rather than just prevention.
While Common Sense reported only one rape for 2004, rape statistics have typically been difficult to judge because attacks are underreported. This remains true on college campuses where the vast majority, over 84 percent, of rapes are acquaintance rapes and thus not reported, according to statistics released from the National Institute of Justice.
Dorothy Shope, a third-year in the College and member of NOW, described her motivation for participating in the campaign. According to Shope, a man attempted to assault her at a party. She said that others at the party did not take steps to stop him.
“[The campaign] is directed towards anyone who hasn’t been a victim of sexual assault because they could be in the future or they could see it happen. Everyone needs to learn to see and stop sexual assault,” Shope said.
Events for the next week include free hot drinks and information outside of Cobb on Tuesday and Thursday from noon to 2 p.m. From 6 to 8 p.m. on Thursday, Vickie Sykes, director of RSVP, will lead a discussion entitled “What is Sexual Assault?” The discussion, and an accompanying free dinner, will take place in Stuart 101. The campaign will end with free T-shirts for supporters to wear on Friday.
Take a Look at Them NOW by Cheryl L. Reed
Copyright The Chicago Sun-Times, Inc. (October 27, 2004)
Flitting between the contemporary artwork and waiters passing mushroom pate, young women and men with smart glasses and trendy haircuts swirled their drinks and discussed the heated political season above the crooning of Tony Bennett. It was the night of the first presidential debates, yet even Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his wife and daughters stood among the who's who of Chicago activists.
Anyone who had accidentally stumbled into the exposed brick art gallery on Belmont that evening might not have guessed the soiree of hip and urbane was actually a fund-raiser for the Chicago chapter of the National Organization for Women.
Amid an aging national membership, the Chicago NOW chapter is comprised mostly of board members who weren't alive when NOW was formed 38 years ago.
“When you're around us, you see that we're young, energetic women who have a lot of fun and you want to be a part of it,” explained board treasurer Meghan Streit, 27, as she sipped her Merlot at P.J. Clarke's. “When people see that we wear cute outfits and have boyfriends or girlfriends, then it's not so scary.”
Chicago NOW's youthful infusion seems only slightly planned and more the result of a turnover in leadership five years ago that has led twenty- and thirtysomethings to invite their friends, who have invited their friends, and so on. Many young women say they have become active in NOW because they see a conservative shift in the country that has clamped down on individual rights -- particularly reproductive rights.
When Time magazine questioned whether feminism was dead in 1998, NOW members say that was three years before President Bush took office and began chipping away at abortion rights. “George Bush has sort of helped revitalize the feminist movement and re-energized us,” said Jennifer Koehler, 34, president of the Chicago chapter.
Because 22 million single women did not vote in the last presidential election, NOW is trying to convince women that their vote could very well sway this election. The group has spent weeks canvassing South Side beauty shops, welfare offices and grocery stores, registering 3,500 black and Latino women.
“It's pretty well established that it's going to be young women who turn the tide of this election,” Koehler said. “One of our challenges is to make it clear to them that what happens in Washington actually does affect their daily lives and does factor into what they are going to do with their future.”
For women born after the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion, losing such rights seemed implausible. But Bush's signature on two new laws -- banning late-term abortions and giving rights to unborn fetuses -- has energized a graying feminist movement.
“Women my age have been doing this for a long time and we're burnt out,” said Olga Vives of Chicago, who in 2001 was elected vice president for national NOW. “NOW has become much more of a place for younger activists because they address the issues of concern to younger women: reproductive rights and gay and lesbian rights.”
One-third of the pro-choice marchers in Washington earlier this year were under 25, claimed Vives, who helped organize the “March for Women's Lives” in April.
One of NOW's problems, Vives admits, is overcoming a militant stereotype that many people still associate with feminists. “Feminism is not about hating men or burning bras,” Vives said. “It's about us participating in society equally.” Feminism has been so successful, she said, that the things she was fighting for two decades ago are now commonplace.“I have a daughter who is 32. When she goes into a job, she expects equality. When I was 32, I was asking for equality. I thought it was a bad thing to be assertive in my 30s.”
About five years ago, NOW decided it needed to reach out to younger women and formed a campus task force that encouraged local chapters to get college students involved. “We have been aware that we needed younger activists,” Vives said during a recent meeting with the Chicago board members trying to brainstorm events that would engage younger women. “This has happened by design,” she said, pointing to the twentysomethings gathered at the table.
Cinnamon Cooper, 33, was one of those women who joined in college, let her membership lapse and then reconnected about a year and a half ago when she felt she had to defend the rights for which her mother's generation fought.
At first Cooper anticipated encountering “a bunch of people active in the 70s still holding on,” but that wasn't what she found.
“I was really surprised and pleased with how young everybody from NOW is,” Cooper said. “It's not a bunch of bitter, unhappy women. It's a very positive atmosphere. They are young and hip, especially people on the board -- and critical thinkers, people able to hold a conversation without resorting to emotional attacks.”
Cooper, like other young members, says that part of Chicago's success is gearing events to women her age: “It's a lot easier being proactive if you're going to a gallery show or going to a concert instead of sitting around talking about a theory that maybe you don't completely understand.”
Besides Chicago, Boston and several NOW chapters in California also have attracted young women leaders. Chicago, though, remains an important breeding ground for feminist activists. Several board members and former presidents of Chicago NOW have run for public office, gone on to lead nonprofits and started their own businesses. Others, like Vives, have moved on to run the national organization. Chicago NOW always has had a special connection to the national organization: NOW was headquartered in Chicago from 1975 to 1977 before it was moved to its permanent headquarters in Washington D.C.
“Our board is doing quite a lot to help women of this generation see that there is nothing wrong with identifying as feminists,” Koehler said. “And look at how much fun we are having!”
NOW puts Hull on the defensive over divorce file
By John Chase and Molly Parker, Published March 2, 2004
U.S. Democratic Senate candidate Blair Hull on Monday traveled the state promoting his fourth trip to Canada to buy low-cost prescription drugs for seniors, but he found himself once again on the defensive, battling questions surrounding his 1998 divorce in which his ex-wife accused him of violent behavior.
The Chicago chapter of the National Organization for Women blasted Hull's answers to the furor resulting from the release of the divorce files, saying his responses to questions have been almost dismissive of domestic violence as a serious national issue.
“We still haven't gotten the kind of emphatic rejection of domestic violence . . . that we've been looking for from him,” Chicago NOW President Jennifer Koehler said. “We waited three days and still don't have answers, so we decided to step it up a little bit.”
Speaking to reporters in Springfield, Hull said he does take domestic violence seriously and thought he had answered all of NOW's concerns several months ago as part of a questionnaire the group gave all candidates.
Though he declined to answer questions about the validity of accusations his ex-wife Brenda Sexton made in the divorce file that was unsealed Friday, Hull did say, “This is not an issue of domestic violence, I guarantee you that.”
During the final days of the contentious divorce, Sexton sought an order of protection against Hull, saying he had threatened her life and struck her once. Authorities, though, declined to press charges because they determined that “mutual combat” had occurred when Hull struck Sexton's shin in retaliation after she allegedly kicked him.
Hull's campaign was critical of the timing of Chicago NOW's statement, saying it was politically motivated and being fueled by Hull's opponents in the March 16 primary. Hull spokesman Jason Erkes said the Hull campaign invited Chicago NOW's leaders to review the divorce file before it was made public, but they declined.
“I think we expect to be attacked by our opponents,” Hull said. Koehler denied the group's statement was politically motivated, adding that her group is not endorsing any candidate and she personally has not yet chosen whom she will support. Koehler, though, is chief of staff for Cook County Commissioner Michael Quigley, who has endorsed candidate Dan Hynes, the Illinois comptroller.
Both Koehler and officials with the Hynes campaign said it was insulting to suggest NOW's criticism was politically motivated, and Koehler said her role as Chicago NOW president has nothing to do with her job as Quigley's chief of staff.
“It's insulting to assume that an organization that has fought for so many years to protect women would not want to speak out about an issue as important as domestic violence,” Hynes spokeswoman Chris Mather said.
February 2, 2006 in Viewpoints - Sexual Assault Policy
I applaud NOW’s initiative to pressure the U of C to form a sexual assault policy. When I was assaulted midway through last quarter, there was nothing I could do: I hadn’t been “harassed,” nor had I been officially “raped,” but without giving details of what happened, I can say that I was violated nonetheless. When I reported the incident, I was told to go to counseling and to talk about what happened with the offender and all parties present that night. There is a wide range of sexual wrongs that can be committed against women, and it’s the University’s responsibility to define them.
Andrea Natalie Goldstein - First-year in the College
30 under 30 Awards, Meghan Streit
Windy City Times, 2004-06-23
Meghan Streit, 26, has been active in the National Organization for Women since she was an undergraduate student at Tulane University in New Orleans. There, Meghan had the opportunity to meet her role model, Terry O’Neill, current vice-president of NOW.
During college, Meghan also interned at NOW in Washington, D.C., for a summer. For the last two years, she has been a board member of Chicago NOW and has been a voice for GLBT issues. Meghan said she has been committed to NOW because of their activism in multiple issues. Through NOW, she has been active in projects aimed to eliminate violence against women, fight for equality in employment for women and GLBT members, and protection for gay families.
Meghan is also devoted to the fight for reproductive rights, and attended the March for Women’s Lives in Washington. D.C.. last April. Meghan thinks marriage equality is one of the most important issues for the GLBT community and has attended rallies to support equal marriage and implore Chicago counties to begin allowing same-sex marriage through Marriage Equality Now, the Chicago Anti-Bashing Network and NOW.
Meghan is also business manager of Windy City Media Group.
Community, Labor Fight Wal-Mart's Inner City Expansion
CHICAGO, May 24, 2004 (AScribe Newswire)
CHICAGO, May 24 (AScribe Newswire) -- A coalition of labor, community, and religious groups is pressing city council members to vote no Wednesday on zoning variances for Chicago's first two Wal-Mart stores -- unless the company agrees to a community benefits agreement (CBA) promising living wage jobs with benefits, local hiring, nondiscrimination, and neutrality on union organizing -- and forswearing predatory pricing.
The 12-point community benefits agreement was crafted by the South Austin Coalition and others, and adopted by the Chicago Alliance for Justice at Wal-Mart, reports Community Media Workshop at http://www.newstips.org. Such an agreement would be unprecedented for the company.
The city council is scheduled to vote on zoning variances for the two proposed stores at its Wednesday, May 26, meeting.
The Neighborhood Capital Budget Group has called on the city to require Wal-Mart to include the community benefits agreement in redevelopment agreements outlining infrastructure improvements and giving city approval for site development, said John Paul Jones of NCBG.
“The City of Chicago has the opportunity to set minimum standards for Wal-Mart that can be replicated around the country in other urban areas,” said Elizabeth Drea of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 881.
At a meeting with community groups last summer, WalMart officials promised to hire aggressively from the local community and provide access to career path jobs, said James Lemonides of the Greater North Pulaski Development Corp., who supports the new west side store. “An infusion of entry-level jobs makes a lot of sense” in this community, he said.
A written agreement is necessary because of the company longstanding disregard for laws outlawing gender discrimination and discrimination against people with disabilities, as well as laws regulating child labor, wages and overtime, said Jennifer Koehler of Chicago National Organization for Women, which has joined the Alliance.
Wal-Mart's employment practices may violate the city's human rights ordinance, Koehler said. The company was recently sued for gender discrimination violations in what could be the largest class-action suit in the nation's history, she said. ”Their attitude seems to be that these lawsuits are a cost of doing business,” she said.
“We're trying to develop more African American businesses in this community,” said Father Michael Pfleger of St. Sabina's Church. “If Wal-Mart comes in with poverty-level jobs and they're destroying other jobs that pay well and provide benefits, it's a lose-lose proposition.”
St. Sabina's serves the south side community where one of the new stores is proposed. Pfleger said a group of clergy was writing aldermen urging a no vote unless a community benefits agreement is included. Rev. Jesse Jackson has also endorsed the agreement.
A study of the economic impact of the proposed west side Wal-Mart by the Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of Illinois at Chicago estimated there are 763 retail establishments within the new store's three-mile service area that will compete with Wal-Mart for customers. Given lower staffing and pay levels at Wal-Mart, the study projected a net loss of local jobs and income resulting from the new store.
“It's going to be a disaster for small businesses,” said Sergio Moreno , an avocado importer who organized a press conference by owners of small business near the West Side Wal-Mart last week. “We've built up a good district of little shops and we don't want to see it disappear.” George Lopez, another neighborhood business owner, adds that Wal-Mart “will suck up all the little businesses, like a vacuum. They're ruthless.”
Wal-Mart is a “destructive force” that “will accelerate the de-development of our communities, further drain scarce public resources,” and inspire big cuts in compensation and especially benefits at other companies, according to a Center for Labor and Community Research report on the proposed West Side Wal-Mart.
The report cites a recent analysis by Rep. George Miller (D-California) that found a typical Wal-Mart with 200 employees cost the federal government $420,000 a year in free and reduced school lunches for children of employees, housing subsidies, tax credits, and health care and energy assistance.
Illinois NOW Announces All Out Strategy to Keep Abortion Legal in Illinois
Statement of IL NOW President, Bonnie Grabenhofer
Springfield, IL: In 2 days we will mark the 33rd anniversary of the historic Roe v. Wade decision making abortion legal in this country. As we approach the anniversary this year, the Roe v. Wade decision is in grave danger as the US Senate considers the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, each state would then be able to determine whether to keep abortion legal.
So, how do we protect choice in Illinois? We call on our state legislators to pass a Freedom of Choice Act that would codify the provisions of Roe v. Wade. A Freedom of Choice Act would ensure that abortion would remain legal in Illinois if Roe were overturned.
Illinois previously passed some anti-choice legislation that was enjoined or found to be unconstitutional. We call on our state legislators to repeal these laws. For example, A court held that Illinois’s ban on abortion procedures (the so-called partial-birth abortion ban) is unconstitutional. We have an unconstitutional and unenforceable law mandating husband consent before a married woman may obtain an abortion. A court has issued a permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of the state’s parental notification law. Illinois has an old 1975 provision still on the books that states that if Roe is reversed, Illinois would prohibit abortions. Back then, the courts enjoined these laws and we thought we were safe. But we need permanent protection. We urge our legislators to amend the Illinois Constitution to ensure that abortion remain legal.
We don’t have time to waste. Nor do we have a single woman’s life to waste. We cannot wait for a bad decision by the Supreme Court. We must act now to preserve reproductive choice in Illinois. We cannot go back to the pre-Roe days. The majority of the country wants abortion to remain legal. We need to make sure that happens.
At our annual conference, Illinois NOW created a Reproductive Rights Task Force to implement this strategy. The task force found several ways to proceed. We call on our legislators to work with us to make it happen. Most Democrats and some Republicans have promised to protect choice. It’s time that they keep their promises. This is an election year, and, with the focus on the Supreme Court, were finding that reproductive rights is becoming an even more prominent issue than it’s been in past. It would be foolish for any candidate to think that choice is not an important issue. It is a bottom line issue for women and men as well. Voters need to know where candidates stand on choice and vote for those who will take a stand to protect it.
We can no longer depend on 9 people in black robes to protect choice. We have to take initiative in Illinois to protect it here for the sake of women’s lives.
Topinka may sway Dem women
By Deanna Bellandi, Associated Press, April 10th, 2006
CHICAGO - Chicagoan Sheila Donovan says she is “essentially a Democrat.” But that doesn’t guarantee she’ll vote to re-elect Gov. Rod Blagojevich in November.
Donovan, a saleswoman who describes herself as liberal and proudly notes she has only missed one election in her 60 years, says she likes GOP challenger Judy Baar Topinka “a lot” and is bothered by reports that some of Blagojevich’s friends and political cronies have grown rich on state contracts. Ultimately, Donovan says, she’ll probably vote for Blagojevich unless something really bad about him comes out during the campaign. “I don’t want to give the Republicans any more power than they have,” she said.
“But I really wouldn’t be too disappointed if she beat him,” she added. Many female Democrats like Donovan are drawn to Topinka, in part because she’s a woman but mostly because she’s a moderate. That crossover appeal gives the state treasurer the opportunity to pick off voters from a key Blagojevich constituency, one he has carefully courted over the past four years.
“The fact that she’s a moderate makes it possible for them to slide over,” said University of Illinois at Springfield political studies professor Chris Mooney. And that’s vital, former two-term GOP Gov. Jim Edgar notes, because Democrats outnumber Republicans in Illinois. “There’s not enough Republicans in this state to get you elected to anything,” Edgar said. “The key is going to be, you got to also get a good number of independents and what I call thoughtful Democrats.”
But Blagojevich has built a record of advancing women’s issues that could help keep women in his camp. The first-term Democrat is trying to capitalize on that record with campaign ads on TV featuring women talking about his accomplishments in health care and education, areas typically important to female voters.
Bonnie Grabenhofer, president of the Illinois chapter of the National Organization for Women, said Blagojevich has a long list of accomplishments when it comes to women’s issues. For example, he supports abortion rights, while Topinka favors restrictions on it that are “troublesome to us,” Grabenhofer said.
Blagojevich also has said he would make sure women’s reproductive rights and freedoms are protected in Illinois even if Roe v. Wade - the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion - is overturned. “pro-choice with sensible restrictions,” opposes late-term and certain other abortions and favors parental involvement for underage girls who want the procedure.
During his first term, Blagojevich also issued an executive order requiring pharmacies to fill prescriptions for emergency birth control; succeeded in raising the minimum wage and wants to do it again, a move Topinka opposes; and passed a law requiring women be given equal pay for equal work. “They’re not as similar as how they may appear,” said MeLissa Obermiller, president of the southern Illinois chapter of NOW.
New poll numbers show Topinka and Blagojevich running about even in the race overall and in their support among female voters. Edgar, Topinka’s honorary campaign chairman, said her gender could help her with suburban women the GOP has struggled to bring over to its side.
“If she was a very conservative Republican I don’t think her gender would help, if she was a Democrat I don’t think it would help that much, but being a moderate Republican running against a Democrat whose numbers have come down among women voters in the last year, I think on the whole it will be very positive,” Edgar said.
Topinka has built a campaign message around convincing voters that the state has to tighten its belt after overspendng by the Blagojevich administration. That message resonates with JoAnn Marciszewski, 45, of Berwyn, who grew up in the same area west of Chicago that Topinka did. “You don’t spend money unless you have it,” said Marciszewski, who leans Democratic but plans to support Topinka.
Leslie Reliford, a 22-year-old graduate student at the University of Illinois in Springfield, said she also doesn’t like how Blagojevich has handled the state’s finances and isn’t sure how he’s going to pay for all the programs he has proposed. An independent, she’s leaning toward voting for Topinka.
Retired university administrator Carole Kennerly, 62, of Springfield said she plans to cross over. “I’m not voting for her because she’s a woman, I’m voting for her because she’s a woman who can win,” the Democrat said.
NOW is the time to filibuster Alito (Letter by Stephanie Bell Board Member Chicago-NOW)
(Published Jan. 31, 2006, Daily Herald)
I am writing in response to John Hudson’s letter about Judge Samuel Alito being a shoo-in on the Supreme Court.
Because of the danger he poses to privacy rights, Chicago NOW urges everyone who cares about these rights to contact their senators and urge them to filibuster against Alito in order to save our court.
If confirmed, he will replace Sandra Day O’Connor, the swing vote in the last three major privacy rights cases to come before the Court.
Several of his opinions in the area of privacy rights — especially regarding reproductive freedom — indicate he would use his seat to undermine a woman’s right to choose and overturn “Roe v. Wade.”
Judge Alito’s record shows that he wants the government to be able to interfere in personal reproductive decisions that the Court has already recognized as constitutionally protected as private. In “Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey,” he wanted to uphold a provision of Pennsylvania’s restrictive abortion law that required women in certain circumstances to notify their husbands before obtaining abortions. Writing the lone dissent in the case, he took this position despite the large body of evidence presented, which demonstrated that many women in abusive relationships would be put at risk of physical and emotional harm if required to do so.
Luckily, the Supreme Court overturned the provision. While reproductive freedom is just one issue in Judge Alito’s long paper trail, the rest of his record is equally troubling.
Again, I urge everyone to contact their senators and tell them to filibuster.
Man surrenders in plunge at CHA - Parolee questioned about woman's fall, by James Janega, Jeff Coen and David Heinzmann
Chicago Tribune, Published May 18th, 2006
NOW Chapter Seeks Probe of Police Role
A man sought by Chicago police turned himself in Wednesday in the case of a Los Angeles woman who fell last week from a 7th floor apartment at the Robert Taylor Homes, law enforcement sources said.
The man, a parolee and reputed gang member, turned himself in at the Wentworth District station, 51st Street and Wentworth Avenue, a block from the housing complex, the sources said.
He has not been charged, and a woman reached at his family’s home declined to comment Wednesday night.
Sources said a DNA sample had been taken from him to compare to evidence from the scene. He was being questioned Wednesday night, sources said.
“We’re progressing with the investigation and we continue to talk to persons of interest,” said police spokeswoman Monique Bond. She would not confirm if the man detectives had sought was in custody.
The 21-year-old woman was injured after she was released from police custody May 8. She had been arrested a day earlier at Midway Airport after a heated cell phone conversation led to a disturbance, law enforcement sources said.
After being held overnight, she was released from the Wentworth District women’s lockup and was briefly seen at a nearby fast-food restaurant. Hours later, she fell to the ground partially naked outside the Taylor Homes apartment building.
The woman had massive internal injuries and remained in critical condition Wednesday at Stroger Hospital, law enforcement sources say.
Police have been investigating whether she was sexually assaulted and whether she jumped or was thrown from the building.
Investigators have been searching since last week for the man who turned himself in Wednesday.
Witnesses had told police they heard the woman screaming for help while the man held her against her will in the apartment. He was alone in the room with her when she fell.
Police later found the woman’s clothes in the room. Investigators also found a used condom, which is being tested for DNA evidence.
Meanwhile, the Chicago Chapter for the National Organization for Women voiced concern over the way the woman’s arrest and release were handled. They have asked for an independent investigation into the incident and to meet with Chicago police officials to review policies for releasing women in custody.
“Our biggest concern is the Chicago Police Department didn’t follow procedure and released this woman in an area that was dangerous. The whole situation is somewhat sketchy,” said Kim Mongoven, an executive board member for the Chicago chapter of NOW. “What we’re looking for is an independent investigation into how police handled this case.”
Police Supt. Philip Cline responded with a statement saying the department “has every intention of investigating this matter thoroughly. Once the investigation is complete, if it is determined that any wrongdoing or disregard for department policy was not followed, the appropriate disciplinary action will be taken.”
Internal affairs investigators are looking into how police handled the case, including allegations the woman’s family called during her incarceration to warn officers that she suffered from bipolar disorder.
The Police Department has guidelines for dealing with the mentally ill that would have provided medical treatment for the woman if officers followed protocols and delivered her to a nearby hospital.
The family allegedly told police she was not taking her medication. Internal affairs is looking into whether the officers involved had sufficient information to believe the woman was suffering from mental illness, and if so, what decisions were made about following the protocols, Bond has said.
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE (LETTER - Rape Victims) by Veronica I. Arreola Board Member of Northwest Suburban Chicago NOW and former Chicago NOW Vice President
Chicago -- Thank you for highlighting the disparities that rape incidents receive in the media ("Rapes in poor areas rarely get spotlight," Page 1, Jan. 4).
While I applaud the media for going all out on the recent rapes in the Wrigleyville area, it also reminded me that every day that rape is not in the news is a day that rape is being ignored.
Every woman should have the support of her alderman, community groups and neighbors when a rape occurs.
Whether it is support for her personal survival or support to prevent another attack, we all need it.
From Wrigleyville to Englewood, every rape is a crime and tragedy.
Abused women deserve U.S. asylum By Alison Neumer
Chicago Tribune, March 14, 2003
If he hasn't sufficiently angered civil libertarians, don't worry. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft is about to alienate another segment of our population: women.
Last week, Justice Department officials confirmed that Ashcroft will reconsider granting Rodi Alvarado asylum. The case carries implications for the future of all female refugees seeking to escape gender-based persecution. Alvarado suffered abuse for 10 years from her husband while in her native Guatemala. He raped her repeatedly, whipped her with electrical cords until she bled internally and threatened her with death.
Unable to find protection in her homeland, Alvarado fled to the U.S. in 1995, where she filed for asylum. In 1999, following a long immigration appeals process, Alvarado lost her case and risked deportation. Outgoing Atty. Gen. Janet Reno annulled the case in 2000 and proposed new regulations that would allow gender-based human rights abuses to serve as a basis for asylum. Alvarado was able to remain in the U.S. But the new measures were never finalized, leaving the door open for the next attorney general to change direction. Taking up Alvarado's case while Reno's proposed regulations hover in limbo allows Ashcroft to put his stamp on the matter.
Women in jeopardy of atrocities such as honor killings, sexual slavery and interpersonal violence deserve international protection when their own country is unwilling or unable to help. Forty-eight members of Congress have signed a letter to Ashcroft expressing their concern about Alvarado's case. Political asylum is a form of refugee aid. Under the rules of the 1951 Geneva Convention, a refugee is someone persecuted because of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Anti-asylum forces say Alvarado's complaints are not political and that she is not being persecuted as part of a social group. That characterization goes against precedent set in the 1996 case of Fauziya Kasinga, who fled her homeland of Togo to avoid female genital mutilation. That decision said the government's failure to protect her constituted persecution. Opponents also claim the definition of “social group” is consistently exploited.
“Asylum is slowly transforming into a sidebar immigration program,” says Dan Stein of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. But the idea that expanding asylum law would lead to an explosion in claims is an exaggeration, says Elisa Massimino of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. The grounds for asylum have broadened over the last 10 years, without an accompanying rise in applications, she explains. First, women have to reach American soil or a U.S. embassy, which can prove highly difficult. If women can actually make it here, then the legal process for refugees to win asylum is designed to weed out weak claims. Of all 60,778 asylum claims filed in 2002, about one-third, or 20,654, were granted. Gender-based requests number just a few hundred each year.
A decision to implement narrow asylum rules without gender-based protection would go against international sentiment, including the past recommendation of the United Nations. “Gender is a protected class in so many other areas of the law,” points out Chicago NOW President Jennifer Koehler. “Why has this not come to pass?”
Exactly.
Copyright 2003 Chicago Tribune Company
Chicago SunTimes, Letters to the Editor - September 23, 2004
Steinberg Misses the Point
Both the condescending tone and the (scant) substance to Neil Steinberg’s column (Aug. 27) perfectly illustrate the pervasive ignorance many have regarding sexual violence. Responding to the new rape allegations against William Kennedy Smith, Steinberg exploits many rape myths before sanctimoniously declaring Smith’s innocence. But one wonders why Steinberg is musing on these inconsequential points in the first place, when they are irrelevant to what Audra Soulias’ case is about. Soulias did not file suit because Kennedy Smith forced her into a cab. Nor did she file suit because he forced her into his condo. More important, contrary to Steinberg’s implication, she did not sue him for rape. She filed suit against Smith for harassment that allegedly occurred once Smith discovered she was cooperating in a separate lawsuit against him -- a suit filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by two other women who worked with Smith at the Center for International Rehabilitation, and which recently has been settled. The ‘‘new’’ rape allegations by Soulias are part of the filings representing a larger pattern of harassment of Soulias by Smith.
Steinberg wonders whether the alleged victim is nothing but a ‘‘rag doll’’ because of her claims that Kennedy Smith forced her into a cab and then into his condo. In 80 percent to 85 percent of all sexual assault cases the victim knows the attacker -- and the assailant often uses the victim’s trust in him to overpower her. While ‘‘calling 911’’ and ‘‘screaming’’ could certainly help assault victims preserve important evidence that might improve the odds of successful prosecution of assaults, there are many reasons -- including the obvious victim-blaming and skeptical reactions of people like Steinberg -- that many women do not take this step.
Jennifer Koehler, president, Chicago Chapter, National Organization for Women
Social Security Rally
Kaiya Iverson Executive VP Illinois NOW & President DuPage NOW
The last time I protested at Speaker Hastert’s office, we had to shovel a couple feet of snow to do so. I’m delighted we don’t have to do that today. However, I fear we must use our shovels to reveal the truth buried by Speaker Hastert and the White House.
The truth is: Social Security is precious. Social Security saves lives. Social Security gives hope.
The truth is: Social Security was never meant to be ‘Investing 101’. Social Security can not be allowed to devolve into a political tool. Social Security can not be handed over to the same sort of people that brought us Enron, Worldcom, and Global Crossings.
The truth is: The Social Security system does much more than supplement retirement. It steps in to help families when loved ones die. It provides a life-line to the disabled and to children. It helps when all else fails.
Social Security helped my friend Barb. She suffered not one but two devastating auto accidents that left her unable to walk, unable to work, unable to support herself. Social Security programs helped her fight cancer. Social Security kept Barb from becoming an unbearable financial burden to her two 20-something sons.
Social Security made it possible for me to even know Barb. She couldn’t write big pledge checks to our church, but Social Security enabled her to give deeply of herself, nonetheless. She chaired committees, taught Sunday school, organized events, sang in the choir. All because Social Security was there.
Barb was one of the 4 million disabled workers under 65 to receive Social Security benefits every year.
Social Security, also, made a difference to my grandmother. For many years during her retirement, it was well over half of her income. In fact, Social Security provides 50% or more of retirement income for two-thirds of the elderly; for elderly women Social Security constitutes 90% of their income. 90%. In 1965, 35% of older persons in this country lived in poverty. In 1996, 11%. While that’s 11% too many, that’s a lot better than 35%. Well done Social Security. Well done.
Now, I have to wonder. Doesn’t the White House know this? Doesn’t Congress know this? Don’t they care? How can George Bush and Denny Hastert be so oblivious to the millions of Americans that Social Security has saved. Or didn’t those Americans make big campaign donations.
The story for women, in particular, is grave. Only 38% of women receive employer-provided pension benefits, compared to 57% of men. Even fewer women of color receive private pension benefits.
George, Denny, you remember the gender gap, dont you? Why do you want to make women’s lives so much more difficult? Why do you want to gamble with our financial security?
The truth is: under privatization, a woman's retirement benefit would depend on her contributions to a private account, even though she probably earned less due to pay discrimination and time out of the paid workforce. Under privatization, family benefits for death and disability would be lost as would inflation-proofing and guaranteed lifetime benefits.
Now, George, Denny, who benefits from privatization? The truth is your campaign donors benefit. Rich Americans will benefit. The rest of us, however, will suffer from privatization.
Denny, come back home and listen to the people you serve. George, in the words of your daddy, privatization just wouldn’t be prudent.
Call the Speaker. Call the White House. Tell them not to bury Social Security. Tell them.
