OUR CRUCIAL SPRING CAMPAIGN IS NOW UNDERWAY
Please donate now to keep the mission and independent journalism of Common Dreams strong.
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
In late 2013, women accounted for slightly more than 21 percent of the representatives in the lower or popular chambers of national legislatures worldwide, according to the Geneva-based Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU). Filling one in five seats of national legislative bodies represents progress for women, but it is hardly rapid progress: 15 years ago, slightly more than 13 percent of the seats were held by women,write Atlas Corps Fellow Janice Pratt and Worldwatch President Robert Engelman in the Institute's latest Vital Signs Online trend (www.worldwatch.org).
Low levels of female participation in parliaments undoubtedly reflect similarly low levels of participation in other political institutions as well as in social, educational, and economic spheres generally. Data on gender gaps in these areas are less uniform and authoritative. The number of women in top national executive offices-including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf-may reflect changeable political scenes in the world's 193 United Nations member states more than actual trends in women's influence in governance.
There are great regional variations in the average percentages of women in parliaments. As of November 2013, representation was as follows: Nordic countries, 42 percent; the Americas, 24 percent; Europe (exclusive of Nordic countries), 24 percent; sub-Saharan Africa, 22 percent; Asia, 18.5 percent; the Middle East and North Africa, 16 percent; and the Pacific, 16 percent. Where national legislatures have two houses, women tend to be better represented in the lower than the higher house-the one that in many countries has a less influential role in legislative action.
Six of the 10 parliaments with the highest share of female representation are in developing countries. African nations ranked impressively among the top 25 nations, with the parliaments of Angola, Mozambique, Rwanda, the Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda having strong female representation. Andorra (50 percent), Sweden (45 percent), Finland (42 percent), and Iceland (40 percent)-the four industrial countries on the list of the top 10 parliaments with greatest female representation-were a huge contrast to other industrial countries, including France (25 percent), the United Kingdom (22.5 percent), Greece (21 percent), and the United States (18 percent), where female representation is still surprisingly low.
Despite the slow progress, the world today has the first-ever example of a woman-dominated national legislature: Rwanda, with almost 56 percent representation since 2008 and 57.5 percent in 2013. The post-civil war constitution of this small central African country specified that 30 percent of legislators must be women (by reserving seats, for example, that only women can contest). Rwandans are now within range of doubling that constitutionally mandated percentage, easily surpassing Cuba (49 percent) and Sweden (45 percent) in women's parliamentary representation.
"Although most countries now allow women to vote and stand for election, there is still a long way to go to achieve equal political participation," said Robert Engelman. "Trends show that at the current rate at which women enter parliament annually, gender equality in national legislatures may not be realized until 2068."
Several international decisions have helped legitimize the political involvement of women. Relevant treaties include the 1952 Convention on the Political Rights of Women and the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979 and entered into force two years later. All but 7 of the UN's 193 member countries have ratified CEDAW; the holdouts are the United States, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Iran, and the two small Pacific Island nations of Palau and Tonga.
In 1995, the United Nations sponsored the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China. With 189 governments and 2,600 nongovernmental groups in attendance, this was one of the largest UN conferences ever. Delegates agreed to a set of strategic objectives and actions, including efforts to advance the role of women in politics and environmental stewardship. The year 2015, the target year for achievement of the UN's Millennium Development Goals, will also mark the 20th anniversary of the Beijing Conference, potentially renewing attention to global efforts to empower women-not just in the world's legislative bodies but in every sphere of human activity.
Further highlights from the report:
The Worldwatch Institute was a globally focused environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C., founded by Lester R. Brown. Worldwatch was named as one of the top ten sustainable development research organizations by Globescan Survey of Sustainability Experts. Brown left to found the Earth Policy Institute in 2000. The Institute was wound up in 2017, after publication of its last State of the World Report. Worldwatch.org was unreachable from mid-2019.
"Our freedom to make decisions about our lives, bodies, and futures is at stake," said the head of Planned Parenthood, which supports the legislation. "Everything is on the line: abortion rights, voting rights, LGBTQ+ rights, our democratic institutions, and our bodily autonomy."
Citing a "crisis of legitimacy" they say is plaguing the U.S. Supreme Court, a group of congressional Democrats on Tuesday reintroduced legislation aimed at thwarting Republican attacks on democracy by expanding the nation's top court from nine to 13 justices.
Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) reintroduced the Judiciary Act outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., where they held a press conference.
"The nation's highest court today faces a crisis of legitimacy that began when Senate Republicans first abandoned norms and precedent to block the confirmation of then-President [Barack] Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, only to later ram through the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett a mere 10 days before Election Day 2020, and while millions of Americans were already casting ballots," the lawmakers said in a statement.
\u201cWe're live in front of the Supreme Court to reintroduce the Judiciary Act, our court expansion bill. It's past time to restore the American people\u2019s faith in our nation\u2019s highest court. https://t.co/rcse2pRgi2\u201d— Ed Markey (@Ed Markey) 1684253054
"The stolen, far-right Supreme Court majority has since ruled to destroy 50 years of settled precedent by rolling back the fundamental right to abortion care in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and has become the subject of scandal, including new and resurfaced reports of Justice Clarence Thomas' failure to disclose gifts provided to him by billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow and his spouse's more than $680,000 in unreported income from the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation," the statement noted.
Markey contended that "Republicans have hijacked the confirmation process and stolen the Supreme Court majority—all to appeal to far-right judicial activists who for years have wanted to wield the gavel to roll back fundamental rights."
"Each scandal uncovered, each norm broken, each precedent-shattering ruling delivered is a reminder that we must restore justice and balance to the rogue, radical Supreme Court," he argued. "It is time we expand the court."
Johnson said that "it's easy to take for granted that the number of justices on the Supreme Court must be nine. But it is not written in the Constitution and has changed seven times over the course of our nation's history."
\u201cWe can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to protect our constitutional rights. The Judiciary Act's provision to expand the number of seats on the Court is necessary to ensure an independent and impartial judiciary.\u201d— FFRF (@FFRF) 1684263917
"Thirteen justices would mean one justice per circuit court of appeals, consistent with how the number of justices was originally determined, so each justice can oversee one circuit," Johnson added.
Bush asserted that "the Supreme Court is a cesspool of corruption devastating our communities. Because of the decisions made by an unethical and illegitimate majority, my constituents are unable to access abortion care, have weaker labor protections, are more vulnerable to voter suppression, and are subjected to a racist legal system."
"As lawmakers, we have a mandate to ensure our rights are not stripped away by bought-and-paid-for judges trying to implement a fascist agenda," she added. "I'm proud to lead on the reintroduction of the Judiciary Act, which would expand the court and help us reclaim our democracy once and for all."
\u201cWe can\u2019t protect reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ equality, take action on climate, or end the pay-to-play that has broken DC with a rigged Supreme Court.\n\nWe must protect Democracy by passing the Judiciary Act to #ExpandTheCourt\u201d— Melanie D'Arrigo (@Melanie D'Arrigo) 1684254503
The bill's sponsors were joined at Tuesday's press conference by leaders of advocacy groups backing the bill, including Planned Parenthood Federation of America, NARAL Pro-Choice America, League of Conservation Voters, Demand Justice, and Stand Up America.
"The Supreme Court is facing a legitimacy crisis. In recent years, right-wing justices on the court have disregarded long-standing precedent and undermined Americans' fundamental freedoms," Sean Eldridge, founder and president of the advocacy group Stand Up America, said in a statement. "Now, reported ethics violations by conservative justices have raised serious questions about the Supreme Court's ability to impartially administer justice. It's no wonder 6 in 10 Americans say they don't have confidence in the Supreme Court."
"The American people need bold action to protect our freedoms and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court," he continued. "Sen. Markey and Rep. Johnson have heeded the call by reintroducing the Judiciary Act. This urgently needed legislation would rebalance the court to protect our fundamental freedoms and uphold long-standing precedents."
\u201cEnough is enough.\n\nIt\u2019s time for leaders in Congress to restore balance to SCOTUS and its 6-3 partisan supermajority. We urge all Congressional Dems to cosponsor this legislation to show that they're fighting back and working towards restoring our faith in the judiciary\u201d— Indivisible Guide (@Indivisible Guide) 1684255881
Planned Parenthood Federation of America president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson warned that "our freedom to make decisions about our lives, bodies, and futures is at stake. Everything is on the line: abortion rights, voting rights, LGBTQ+ rights, our democratic institutions, and our bodily autonomy."
"Our courts should function as the backstop to protecting and advancing our rights, but have, instead, been misused by people pushing deeply unpopular agendas to implement their dangerous endgame," McGill Johnson said. "Planned Parenthood Federation of America is proud to endorse this legislation and we are committed to standing shoulder to shoulder with our partners to achieve bold changes to our courts, and fight for real justice for all people."
House Bill 2127 "is undemocratic," said San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg. "It is probably the most undemocratic thing the Legislature has done, and that list is getting very long."
Republican state lawmakers in Texas are on the verge of virtually eliminating the ability of Democratic-led cities and counties to enact progressive policies.
At issue is House Bill 2127, which would prohibit municipalities from instituting new local ordinances that go further than what's already permitted under nine broad areas of state law and also overturn existing regulations that do so, thus preempting democratically elected policymakers from strengthening workers' rights, environmental protection, and more.
The Texas Senate on Monday voted 18-13 to tentatively approve the draconian legislation authored by state Rep. Dustin Burrows (R-83). Just one Republican, a former mayor, joined Democrats in opposition. The bill must clear a final procedural vote in the upper chamber, which is expected to happen on Tuesday, before it heads back to the Texas House.
"H.B.2127 is an unacceptable infringement on our right to have a say in how the places we live and work are governed."
The Texas House passed H.B. 2127 last month by a margin of 92-56, mostly along party lines. Lawmakers in the lower chamber must agree to amendments made by senators before the bill goes to the desk of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who has promised to sign it into law.
"The bill is undemocratic," San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg said Monday. "It is probably the most undemocratic thing the Legislature has done, and that list is getting very long. Local voters have created city charters, and I can't imagine that they will be pleased to have their decisions usurped by lawmakers."
The Gulf Coast AFL-CIO decried H.B. 2127 as a "dangerous attack" on democracy that "will fundamentally alter" Texas.
"It will roll back decades of worker protections and public safety measures, and ban new ones," the union declared. "Leaders we elect to serve our communities won't be able to pass policies that address our needs as working people."
\u201c#HB2127 will fundamentally alter our state. \n\nIt will roll back decades of worker protections & public safety measures, and ban new ones. \n\nLeaders we elect to serve our communities won't be able to pass policies that address our needs as working people.\u201d— Gulf Coast AFL-CIO #PassThePROAct (@Gulf Coast AFL-CIO #PassThePROAct) 1684194965
In a statement, Public Citizen denounced the legislation as "an egregious power grab" that does more to shift power "from communities to the Capitol" than any other measure "in recent memory." By threatening to weaken local democracy, the bill "ignores more than a century of home-rule precedent," the progressive watchdog added.
"When this bill goes into effect, cities and counties across Texas will have to rely on the state's part-time Legislature, which meets for only 140 days every two years, to address various issues and problems of local concern," Adrian Shelley, the advocacy group's Texas director, lamented.
"Texans elect local leaders to address local matters," said Shelley. "Lawmakers who voted for this must explain to their constituents why they gave away local authority to lawmakers hundreds of miles away in Austin who may have never even set foot in their community."
When the Texas House passed H.B. 2127 last month, Terri Gerstein, director of the Project on State and Local Enforcement at the Harvard Law School Center for Labor and a Just Economy, expressed alarm that the legislation would reverse and ban all sorts of local occupational health and safety laws, including ones that require construction companies to provides their workers with water breaks when temperatures exceed a certain threshold.
\u201cThe Texas House passed a bill to prevent cities from enacting a whole bunch of workplace laws including requiring construction employers to give their workers *water breaks* on hot days. (!!!) They're preempting cities from requiring WATER BREAKS.\u201d— Terri Gerstein (@Terri Gerstein) 1681904901
"Leaders in Dallas and Austin passed rest break ordinances to address heat illness," the Workers Defense Action Fund tweeted Monday. "Republicans, with H.B. 2127, want to undo them to help bad employers save a few dollars at the detriment of workers like Antelmo."
The group was referring to Antelmo Ramirez, a worker who died from hyperthermia in September 2021 while he helped build Tesla's gigafactory outside Austin. Telsa failed to report Ramirez's death to Travis County authorities as required by their corporate tax break, The Texas Observerrevealed last week.
Condemning Republican lawmakers for turning Texas into "a playground for billionaires," the Workers Defense Action Fund urged people to contact the state's senators and tell them to vote no on H.B. 2127.
\u201cRepublicans are making TX a playground for billionaires, and workers are paying the cost. HB 2127 is just the latest bill toward that goal. It's not "business-friendly." It's anti-worker, and the results are injury and death. Sign: https://t.co/Cx3BphTRpH https://t.co/HvSAlRtFmV\u201d— Workers Defense Action Fund (@Workers Defense Action Fund) 1684174503
Organized labor continued to implore voters to call Texas senators on Tuesday. The Texas AFL-CIO, which has denounced H.B. 2127 as "the 'Death Star' anti-worker bill," warned that Tuesday marked the "last chance" to stop the state GOP from taking away "years of hard-fought protections" along with the broader voice of the working class.
\u201cToday our legislators will give their final vote on HB 2127- the bill that will strip workers of years of hard-fought protections & take our voice away. \n\nThis is our last chance, call your State Senator NOW, tell them to vote NO on HB 2127: https://t.co/e7ZXymZgmJ\u201d— Texas AFL-CIO (@Texas AFL-CIO) 1684248220
In addition to barring mandated water breaks for construction workers, opponents of H.B. 2127 warn that "local governments would no longer be able to combat predatory lending or invasive species, regulate excessive noise, or enforce nondiscrimination ordinances," The Texas Tribunereported Monday. "But those changes might be just the start."
As the newspaper explained:
The bill is so broadly written that no one knows exactly how much it would ultimately limit local governments' power to make rules. Opponents say the bill's reach would likely be determined in the courts as businesses contest ordinances they dislike, one at a time. Meanwhile, they fear, local leaders would be powerless to respond to problems in their backyard—and left at the mercy of an uncaring Republican-dominated Legislature. Democrats predicted that lawmakers would be back in two years to try to rein in unintended consequences of the law.
[...]
Democratic senators brought amendments explicitly stating that the bill wouldn't nix local nondiscrimination ordinances—which its authors have said the bill wouldn't touch—and that businesses that sue local governments would have to prove state law substantively regulates the field of law that local rules seek to address. They also tried to allow cities to mandate water breaks for construction workers and enact "fair chance" hiring policies—aimed at giving formerly incarcerated people a better chance at landing a job and reducing the chance they will reoffend. But all of those amendments failed.
Texas Sen. John Whitmire (D-15), who is running to become Houston's mayor, said the bill would be the "final nail in the coffin" of local government and eradicate the notion of "local control."
The Gulf Coast AFL-CIO, meanwhile, characterized H.B. 2127 as "a hostile and sweeping power grab by partisan state officials designed to decimate our basic ability to govern ourselves, disenfranchise Houstonians, and block the passage of policies that improve the lives of working families and are popular with Houstonians."
It continued:
Houston and Harris County have turned the page on generations of underinvestment in our community. For decades, GOP leaders neglected investments in flood mitigation, outsourced pollution control to industry, and too many were trapped in poverty and unsafe jobs with no way out.
All of our progress has come thanks to the initiative taken by local leaders. By eliminating local control, this bill will cripple our ability to address ongoing local crises, like the epidemic of death of construction sites, and respond to natural disasters when they come.
Making matters worse, it will create chaos and confusion across our local government. It will trigger endless and expensive litigation as we fight for clarity over our basic right to self-govern our own communities.
"H.B.2127," the union added, "is an unacceptable infringement on our right to have a say in how the places we live and work are governed."
"In the absence of federal leadership, it's up to states like California to keep us safe from dangerous chemicals in candy, cookies, and other foods our families enjoy."
Food safety advocates applauded Monday as California took a major step towards becoming the first U.S. state to ban five chemicals—already prohibited in the European Union—that have been linked to cancer and childhood developmental issues.
The state Assembly passed A.B. 418 three months after it was introduced by Democratic Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks and Jesse Gabriel, who said the passage of the bill "is a major step forward in our effort to protect children and families in California from dangerous and toxic chemicals in our food supply."
"We don't love our children any less than they do in Europe, and it's not too much to ask food and beverage manufacturers to switch to the safer alternative ingredients that they already use in Europe and so many other nations around the globe," said Gabriel, who chairs the state Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection.
The legislation would ban the manufacture, sale, delivery, and distribution of food products that contain:
\u201cIt\u2019s unacceptable that the U.S. is so far behind the rest of the world when it comes to banning these dangerous additives.\n | @ewg | https://t.co/LGk1bxgSzL\u201d— Ken Cook (@Ken Cook) 1684210950
In the U.S., according to EWG, nearly 99% of chemicals introduced to the market since 2000 "were approved by the food and chemical industry, not the Food and Drug Administration, the agency tasked with ensuring our food supply is safe."
Since then, companies have exploited a loophole allowing them to classify the chemicals and the foods that contain them as "generally recognized as safe," or GRAS.
"A food additive petition triggers rigorous pre-market safety review of a chemical, which can only be used after FDA approval. The 1958 Food Additives Amendment intended this review to be the primary way new food chemicals are approved," said EWG in an analysis published last year. "This GRAS loophole was created in the 1958 law and intended to apply narrowly, to common ingredients like sugar, vinegar and baking soda. But as EWG's analysis shows, the loophole—not FDA safety review—has become the main way new chemicals are allowed into food."
New York lawmakers have also proposed a ban on the five chemicals that would close the loophole.
"For decades, the FDA has failed to keep us safe from toxic food chemicals," said Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at EWG. "In the absence of federal leadership, it's up to states like California to keep us safe from dangerous chemicals in candy, cookies, and other foods our families enjoy."