Thursday
Jan222009
Women may soon win the wage war
Thursday, January 22, 2009 at 3:52PM
By Kayleigh Harvey - Talk Radio News Service and Suzia Van Swol - University of New Mexico/Talk Radio News Service
“I will never see a cent for my case, but if this bill passes I’ll have an even richer reward because I’ll know that my daughters, my granddaughters and your daughters and your granddaughters will get a better deal. That’s what makes this fight worth fighting and it’s what makes this fight one we have to win,” said Lilly Ledbetter during a press conference to discuss the progress of the fair pay act.
Senators Barbara Mikulski (D-Md); Patty Murray (D-Wash); Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark); Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich): Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn); Jeanne Shaheen (D- N.H.); Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) appeared to discuss the “Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act”. According to Senator Mikulski, they hope to sign the act before Saturday. Marcia Greenberger, founder and co-president of the National Women’s Law Center was also in attendance.
Senator Mikulski said,“We are doing this in reaction to an outrageous supreme court decision in May 2007 in the famous case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear. their decision was bias and protects corporate interest over human interest.” The bill is expected to be signed within the next 48 hours, and would end discrimination for all categories. “Today, we hope it’s today, if not tomorrow, if not then Saturday, we’re not going to go home until it’s done. Lilly, we are going to get this passed in the United States Senate and I know that because of the courage of the women that stands next to me, that this new President will be signing this bill into law,” said Sen. Patty Murray.
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) had proposed an amendment that some said would weaken pay discrimination law and create a cloud on the real purpose of the bill. This amendment was voted on in the Senate this morning and was defeated 55-40.
Senator Murray is happy about the work that went into this bill, “I’m very proud that because of the work that has gone before us, today my daughter has the same ability as my son to have good pay, a good job, and a great opportunity.”
by Suzia van Swol, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service and Staff
“I will never see a cent for my case, but if this bill passes I’ll have an even richer reward because I’ll know that my daughters, my granddaughters and your daughters and your granddaughters will get a better deal. That’s what makes this fight worth fighting and it’s what makes this fight one we have to win,” said Lilly Ledbetter during a press conference to discuss the progress of the fair pay act.
Senators Barbara Mikulski (D-Md); Patty Murray (D-Wash); Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark); Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich): Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn); Jeanne Shaheen (D- N.H.); Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) appeared to discuss the “Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act”. According to Senator Mikulski, they hope to sign the act before Saturday. Marcia Greenberger, founder and co-president of the National Women’s Law Center was also in attendance.
Senator Mikulski said,“We are doing this in reaction to an outrageous supreme court decision in May 2007 in the famous case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear. their decision was bias and protects corporate interest over human interest.” The bill is expected to be signed within the next 48 hours, and would end discrimination for all categories. “Today, we hope it’s today, if not tomorrow, if not then Saturday, we’re not going to go home until it’s done. Lilly, we are going to get this passed in the United States Senate and I know that because of the courage of the women that stands next to me, that this new President will be signing this bill into law,” said Sen. Patty Murray.
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) had proposed an amendment that some said would weaken pay discrimination law and create a cloud on the real purpose of the bill. This amendment was voted on in the Senate this morning and was defeated 55-40.
Senator Murray is happy about the work that went into this bill, “I’m very proud that because of the work that has gone before us, today my daughter has the same ability as my son to have good pay, a good job, and a great opportunity.”
by Suzia van Swol, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service and Staff
Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of post trial DNA testing?
The issue of post-DNA testing is not a new one and is certainly not a resolved one. Currently 44 out of 50 states permit post trial DNA testing.
Today, Georgetown University Law Center hosted a discussion that heard from legal experts and the personal experiences of those who have suffered the injustice of wrong-imprisonment and have since been released due to DNA clearance.
Martin Anderson who was exonerated in 2002, after serving 15 years in prison for rape, said: “A lot of people don’t realize it, but when you are convicted of a serious crime, your name, your family name, your whole life stop, there is nothing you can do....there is evidence to prove someone innocent but the state refused to have it tested and have it done...once the testing was done it excluded me as being the rapist of the crime in 1982, but it also proved who the real attacker was. Today he is now in prison, for the crime I have spent 20 years trying to prove my innocence for.”
The discussion centered around the Supreme Court case of the District Attorney’s Office v. William G. Osborne, which will begin trial on March 2. Osborne is appealing for a DNA test to be granted, in order to prove his innocence against rape and attempted murder charges that he was sentenced to in 1993 in the state of Alaska. Alaska, is currently one of the six states that does not allow post trial DNA evidence to be submitted. Mr. Osborne is filing his appeal for DNA testing under the civil rights act.
Also speaking at the discussion was Michele Mallin, a rape victim whose accused assailant was exonerated posthumously by DNA testing. Mallin identified who she thought was her assailant, Timothy Cole, twice. Cole died whilst serving time in prison and DNA taken from his body proved that he in fact had not raped Ms. Mallin.
Ms. Mallin thought that Cole’s conviction had been based on DNA and her statement, but later found out that the conviction had been based purely on her testimony. Ms Mallin is now campaigning to clear Cole’s name. Ms. Mallin’s real attacker is serving time in prison for two other sexually motivated attacks.