Womenstake, NWLC's Blog

by Andrea Irwin

The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is up for reauthorization by Congress this year.  Did you know that SCHIP not only provides coverage to children, but also to some of their parents?

SCHIP provides health insurance coverage to approximately 500,000 low-income parents.  Opponents of family-based coverage in SCHIP have been threatening to cut off this vulnerable population, leaving them with no viable alternatives for obtaining health care coverage.  They claim that because there is no “A” in SCHIP, no adults should benefit from the program even though there has been bipartisan support for covering parents throughout the program’s history.  In fact, when SCHIP was enacted in 1997 to target low-income children, states that already covered these children through Medicaid were encouraged by both the Clinton and Bush administrations to expand SCHIP coverage to low-income parents, emphasizing this strategy as a powerful tool to reduce the growing number of uninsured.

In states with family-coverage programs, children were more likely to get enrolled, access health care services, and stay enrolled.  Not only is parent coverage good for kids, it’s good for the parents too!  It’s a win-win!

by Neena Chaudhry

With the Supreme Court's recent decision not to hear its case, the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) has finally lost the last round of a fight that has been going on for too long.  On one side of the ring: a group of parents and students fighting for gender equity in Michigan sports programs.  On the other side: an association that has for decades scheduled six girls' sports and no boys' sports in nontraditional seasons.

Seasons matter. If a sport is not played during the traditional season, athletes lose out on opportunities to be recruited for college scholarships, to participate in club programs that help skill development, and to be considered for All-American or other honors.  These are exactly the types of harms that the federal district and appellate courts repeatedly found in this case, which was filed in 1998.

But MHSAA refuses to accept defeat.

In Gonzales v. Carhart, we saw our newly constituted Supreme Court, with Bush’s picks Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, assert its “concern” for women.  How did they do that?  By allowing women who must terminate difficult pregnancies – because of their own health complications, like cancer of the placenta, or fetuses with grave medical conditions – to choose the safest medical procedure for them?  No.   

The Court decided to protect these women—not from the significant health risks that attend problem pregnancies—but from themselves. That’s right.  Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas decided to uphold a federal law that prohibits a medically-approved abortion method in every state across the nation with no exception to protect a woman’s health.  And they did it, according to their unique logic, for women’s own good.   

Let us explain.