law Archives - Independent Women's Network

In 60 Seconds: The Equal Rights Amendment

*PDF Download: In 60 Seconds – The Equal Rights Amendment

Women and men are equal, but we are not the same. The Equal Rights Amendment would harm women and girls by eliminating separate spaces for women and making it impossible for the law to recognize situations where women’s unique vulnerabilities matter.

Here’s the issue of the Equal Rights Amendment in 60 seconds:

What’s at Stake:

The ERA would jeopardize hundreds of laws designed to specifically address the unique needs of women and the demands of motherhood, including:
- The Women, Infants, and Children program
- Spousal Social Security Benefits
The ERA could take away women-only spaces such as:
- sports teams
- bathrooms and locker rooms
- detention or prison centers
- single-sex dormitories at public colleges and universities
- sororities and other female-only clubs, singing groups, or health centers at state colleges and universities
- shelters for the homeless / battered

It could enshrine the right to an abortion in the Constitution, even requiring taxpayer funding of abortion.

We don’t need the ERA:

Women have the same rights under the Constitution as men.
• The 14th Amendment protects women from unfair discrimination.
• Various federal and state laws protect women from workplace discrimination and guarantee equal pay.

Women are experiencing unprecedented prosperity, freedom and success.
• Lowest unemployment rate since 1965
• Opening new businesses at high rates
• Earning the majority of higher degrees
• Comprising the majority of voters in nearly every election

Ratification faces legal hurdles:

While Congress approved the ERA in the 1970s, only 35 states had ratified it by the extended
ratification deadline in 1982 (38 are needed).
Nevada and Illinois have since ratified the amendment. But four states have rescinded their
ratifications, and another’s expired.
In ERA proponents’ conception of the amendment process, there is no way for an amendment ever to be rejected by the American people.

Addressing Concerns:

In 60 Seconds: The Gun Control Debate

*PDF Download: In 60 Seconds – The Gun Control Debate

We all want to see fewer mass killings and less gun violence.

Here’s the issue of gun control in 60 seconds:

What’s at Stake:

We all want to see fewer mass killings and less gun violence.

Bad Solution:
New federal gun control legislation would:

Not change criminal behavior. It only creates a false sense of security.
Make law-abiding citizens less safe, especially victims of domestic violence.
Turn law-abiding citizens into instant felons for ordinary, safe behavior.
Be cost prohibitive for the poorest families to protect themselves.

In short, gun control legislation does not focus on the root causes of human behavior, including violence, crime and untreated mental illness. At the heart of gun control initiatives is the hope that criminals will obey the law, but in fact they rarely do.

Instead, ordinary law-abiding gun owners would bear the burden of the proposed laws. For example: A woman who has recently left a violent relationship would be placed in a far more vulnerable position, reducing her ability to protect herself or her children.

A Better Path Forward: Allow Choice in Self-Defense

There is no one-size-fits-all solution for anyone’s choice of how to keep him/herself and loved ones safe. Some people choose to own firearms:

Concealed carry permit holders are the most law-abiding segment of society.
The CDC reports 500,000 annual uses of firearms in defense of self or others.
States and cities with the least restrictive laws on gun ownership are safer than those with the most restrictive laws on gun ownership.

Adding new restrictions on firearms will not change criminal behavior, but could make law-abiding people less safe:

The law-abiding are already making good decisions about buying firearms. Keeping their choice in place keeps them as safe as they can be.
Vulnerable people, including women in unsafe homes or neighborhoods, should not have to beg for permission to defend themselves.
Law enforcement should not waste valuable time on those who otherwise comply with the law. Their focus should be on those who are actually committing crimes.

Addressing Concerns:

In 60 Seconds: Net Neutrality

*PDF Download: In 60 Seconds – Net Neutrality

The Internet has always been free and open. It developed independent of heavy-handed government regulations for decades with little or no evidence of anti-competitive, anti-consumer behavior.

Here’s the issue of net neutrality in 60 seconds:

What’s at Stake:

The Internet has always been free and open. It developed independent of heavy-handed
government regulations for decades with little or no evidence of anti-competitive, anti-consumer behavior.

Bad Solution: Net Neutrality regulations
In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released the Open Internet Order. It:

Reclassified broadband Internet access service as a utility under Title II of the
Communications Act of 1934 and shifted oversight authority from the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) to the FCC.
Opened the door for new regulations to be imposed on Internet providers (Net Neutrality).
Specifically, the Order prohibited companies from:
- Blocking access to legal content, applications, and services;
- Throttling or impairing lawful Internet traffic;
- Offering paid prioritization or preferential treatment to their content or services (also
  known as “Internet fast lanes”).

Net Neutrality resulted in:

Stifled innovation amid new regulatory burdens.
Reduced broadband expansion: Building infrastructure to expand to rural areas is expensive and Net Neutrality made it more expensive.
- Broadband network investment declined by $3.6 billion— more than 5 percent, the first
  time investment declined outside of a recession.
- Small providers delayed or reduced network expansion/services.

A Better Path Forward: No Net Neutrality Regulations

In 2017, the FCC passed the Restoring Internet Freedom Order to start repeal of Net Neutrality.

U.S. Internet speeds jumped from 12th to 6th fastest in the world.
Download speeds increased nearly 40 percent; upload speeds jumped over 20 percent.
In one year, the number of Americans lacking basic high-speed connections fell over 25
percent, from 26.1 million to 19.4 million.

The Internet should be free, open and accessible to all, but Net Neutrality regulations run
counter to this goal.

Addressing Concerns:

In 60 Seconds: Policing Reform

PDF Download: In 60 Seconds – Policing Reform

Communities throughout the country have enacted police reforms following the death of George Floyd.

The vast majority of Americans agree that cases of police brutality must be addressed. There is strong bipartisan support for policing reform that encourages fair and respectful treatment, and holds police officers accountable.

Here’s the issue of policing reform in 60 seconds:

What’s at Stake

Communities throughout the country have enacted police reforms following the death of
George Floyd.

The vast majority of Americans agree that cases of police brutality must be addressed. There is
strong bipartisan support for policing reform that encourages fair and respectful treatment,
and holds police officers accountable.

However, defunding the police is not the answer:

The push to reduce police funding is unpopular. Only 15% of Americans support
defunding the police.
Reduced funding would mean fewer police officers on the street and responding to calls.
Community engagement programs—which have actually proven to be effective at
improving community-police relations—are often the first things cut when funding is
reduced.
Already, 93% of police officers today are concerned for their safety and three out of
four report a reluctance to use force, even when they think it’s appropriate.

Better Ways To Address Police Reform

Review Management Systems and Add Accountability Measures
Lawmakers should support common-sense police reform, such as:

changes to management, training, and hiring practices
accountability measures, such as body cameras and transparency in disciplinary
records, and
community-based alternatives.

While officers who commit wrongdoing should face consequences, the vast majority of police
officers are good people who play an important role in keeping our communities safe.

All Americans Should Feel Safe In Their Neighborhoods

We should work to ensure the right to feel safe in our communities.
Rioting, looting, or the destruction of property cannot be tolerated.
We must ensure that officers have the resources they need to respond to domestic
violence calls and other crimes.
Studies show that a strong police presence in communities deters crime.

Addressing Misperceptions:

In 60 Seconds: Judicial Qualifications

*PDF Download: In 60 Seconds – Judicial Qualifications

Progressives want judges to decide cases based on modern notions of fairness and social justice, rather than on the law as written. But it is not the job of a federal judge to establish public policy priorities or to create new rights and remedies. Those jobs belong to the political branches of government, which are accountable to the people.

Here’s the issue of judicial qualifications in 60 seconds:

What’s at Stake:

Progressives want judges to decide cases based on modern notions of fairness and social
justice, rather than on the law as written. But it is not the job of a federal judge to establish
public policy priorities or to create new rights and remedies. Those jobs belong to the political
branches of government, which are accountable to the people.

Because progressives view the courts as “super-legislatures”, rather than neutral arbiters of
law, they oppose nominees to the federal bench who do not have an explicit record of support for their favorite causes and who are not willing to legislate particular policy outcomes from the bench. A system in which a judge can decide any case however he or she sees fit—where the outcome of the case depends not on the law but on the judge assigned to the case—puts everyone’s freedom at risk.

Judicial Qualifications
The most important qualifications for nominees to the federal bench are:

1. Legal experience and credentials.

Nominees to the federal bench should have distinguished themselves professionally as lawyersor legal academics. Because every litigant has the right to representation, nominees should notbe judged by their clients or on the basis of legal arguments they made on behalf of clients.

2. A commitment to the principle of judicial restraint

Judges must interpret the law as written in the U.S. Constitution or in statutes passed by
Congress and must restrain themselves from bending the law to achieve certain objectives. So
long as a nominee is committed to this principle of restraint, his or her personal policy views
are irrelevant.

3. Judicial philosophy

A demonstrated commitment to originalism and textualism provides important evidence that a
nominee will practice judicial restraint, rather than impose his or her morals or worldview from
the bench.

Addressing Misperceptions:

In 60 Seconds: The Tax Reform Debate

*PDF Download: In 60 Seconds – The Tax Reform Debate

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) reduced taxes for American workers and businesses, but the individual tax cuts and provisions will expire in 2025.

Congress should make the TCJA provisions permanent for individuals. This would give taxpayers certainty that their taxes will not suddenly rise in 2026 and empower them to budget and plan for the future.

Here’s the issue of tax reform in 60 seconds:

What’s at Stake:

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) reduced taxes for American workers and businesses, but the
individual tax cuts and provisions will expire in 2025.

Bad Solution: Repeal the tax cuts or allow the individual tax cuts to expire.

The TCJA:

Delivered a tax cut to 90 percent of taxpayers. (IRS tax withholding tables)
Cut income taxes for individuals across all income levels—by more than $500 for almost half
of taxpayers. (Joint Committee on Taxation)
Saved households $1,400 on average and married couples with two children $2,917 in 2018.
(Heritage Foundation)
Cut taxes for taxpayers in every state in 2019. (Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy)
Increased taxes for only 6 percent of taxpayers. (Tax Policy Center)
By 2025, will allow the typical American household to keep $26,000 more in take-home pay,
or $44,697 for a family of four (Heritage Foundation).

Companies passed tax savings from the TCJA on to workers:

At least 3 million U.S. workers received wage increases and bonuses.
New parents in low- and middle-income jobs now have paid parental leave at companies
including Chipotle, Dollar Tree, Lowes, and CVS.

The tax cuts boosted economic growth to 3.2 percent and are projected to add 1.5 million
cumulative full-time jobs to the economy by 2025.

A Better Path Forward: Make the tax cuts permanent.

Congress should make the TCJA provisions permanent for individuals. This would give
taxpayers certainty that their taxes will not suddenly rise in 2026 and empower them to
budget and plan for the future.

Extending the tax package would also have a positive long-term impact. It’s projected to
increase long-run GDP by 2.2 percent points, increase wages by nearly 1 percentage point, and
add 1.5 million full-time jobs.

Addressing Concerns: