Come Together to Inspire, Interact, Influence, and Impact.

x
Notifications
Log Out? Are you sure you want to log out?
Log Out

In 60 Seconds: How The Biden Administration’s Unlawful Title IX Regime Affects Women’s Sports

The Biden administration is using Title IX to require schools to allow males who identify as women to compete on women’s sports teams and to receive ...

Activate your membership to gain access to IWN content!

Unlock members-only content, resources and events by activating your Free Pass or gain access to additional features by selecting a monthly membership package. Join Now Already a member? Login

In 60 Seconds: AB5

*PDF Download: In 60 Seconds – AB5 Today, 1 in 5 jobs in America is held by an independent contractor. Over half of these workers say no amount of money could convince them to pursue traditional jobs instead. California’s law, AB5, sets strict guidelines for who may qualify as an independent contractor versus an employee. Proponents of AB5 argue that it protects workers’ rights. In reality, AB5:
  • Kills workers’ preferred flexible work arrangements.
  • Leaves businesses with less resources overall for wages and jobs.
  • Causes layoffs when businesses cannot afford the high cost of reclassifying workers as employees.
Here’s the issue with AB5 in 60 seconds: 

What’s at Stake

Today, 1 in 5 jobs in America is held by an independent contractor. Over half of these workers say no amount of money could convince them to pursue traditional jobs instead. Independent contractors value being their own boss. Flexible contract work is especially attractive to stay-at-home mothers, students, and those with health conditions that inhibit them from working in a traditional setting. California’s new law, AB 5, sets strict guidelines for who may qualify as an independent contractor versus an employee. Proponents of AB 5 argue that it protects workers’ rights. In reality, AB 5:
  • Kills workers’ preferred flexible work arrangements.
  • Leaves businesses with less resources overall for wages and jobs.
  • Causes layoffs when businesses cannot afford the high cost of reclassifying workers as employees.
Other states are considering legislation similar to AB 5, and the proposed PRO Act would adopt this misguided policy at the federal level.

Keeping Independent Contractors from Working

Fifty-seven million Americans have worked as independent contractors. Technology has greatly expanded the sharing economy including rideshares, deliveries, and tasks, but many workers across a wide variety of professions choose to work as contractors, including event planners, optometrists, artists, writers (freelancers), and so many more. This work is not simply a last resort for individuals, many of them seek it and prefer it. For example, 75 percent of freelancers are working independently by choice. AB 5 takes away this choice. For many, it takes their jobs and incomes away entirely. Reclassifying workers as employees raises labor costs for businesses by an estimated 20-30 percent. As a result, companies are either hiring a much smaller number of fulltime employees or reducing or eliminating their independent contractor workforce. AB 5 is a fundamentally bad policy that should be reversed and abandoned. Addressing Misperceptions: 

In 60 Seconds: The Equality Act

*PDF Download: In 60 Seconds – The Equality Act

Ironically, the Equality Act will treat some people less equally than others. It will harm women and girls, turn disagreements on issues of sexuality and identity into unlawful discrimination, and threaten parental and conscience rights.

Here’s the breakdown of The Equality Act in 60 seconds: 

What’s at Stake:

Ironically, the Equality Act will treat some people less equally than others.
In particular, it will:

  • Open women-only spaces (including locker rooms, battered women’s shelters, prisons, and bathrooms) to men.
  • Destroy women’s sports by requiring that biological males be allowed to compete with and against female athletes.
  • Limit freedom of speech for those who believe that biological sex is an immutable characteristic.
  • Threaten the rights of parents and doctors who do not approve of procedures to alter sex.
  • Force religious organizations to stop providing educational and other charitable services.

We should, of course, treat all people equally and with dignity, but the Equality Act would trample on the rights of some in favor of others and endanger vulnerable women and children.

Similar Laws Have Already Caused Harm

We don’t have to guess about the consequences of the Equality Act. Similar policies enacted elsewhere demonstrate its inevitable harm:

  • In Canada, beauty shops that refused to let their female spa technicians wax male genitalia have been sued by a transgender activist.
  • In Alaska, a battered women’s shelter was investigated by the state Equal Rights Commission after the shelter turned a transgender woman (biological male) away.
  • In Connecticut, two male-to-female transgender athletes are topping the list of champions at every track meet, denying opportunities to biologically female athletes.
  • In Maryland, bureaucrats excluded a Christian school from a state scholarship program because of the school’s stance on sexual identity and expression. As a result, six low-income students were forced to withdraw from the school.
  • In California, doctors have been sued for declining to recommend extreme sex-reassignment procedures in violation of their sincere medical belief.

Misperceptions vs. Facts:

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:

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.

  • 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 Pay Equity Debate

*PDF Download: In 60 Seconds – The Pay Equity Debate

We all want women (and men) to be treated fairly in the workplace, but the Paycheck Fairness Act would not be good for paychecks or fairness.

Here’s the issue of the pay equity debate in 60 seconds: 

What’s at Stake:

We all want women (and men) to be treated fairly in the workplace, but the Paycheck Fairness Act would not be good for paychecks or fairness. This bill would:

  • NOT outlaw sex-based wage discrimination, which has been illegal since 1963.
  • NOT boost women’s paychecks, but those of trial lawyers by:
    • Allowing unlimited damages against employers.
    • Requiring workers to opt out of (rather than into) any class action lawsuit.
    • Putting the burden of proof on employers to justify any pay disparity.

This increased legal exposure would:

  • Threaten workers’ existing flexible work arrangements. Businesses will be more likely to adopt more rigid, one-size-fits-all practices to protect themselves.
  • Discourage the hiring and advancement of women, who would be viewed as a legal risk.

The PFA also takes aim at “pay secrecy” policies in the workplace that ban employees from discussing pay. This will be ineffective because pay secrecy policies are already illegal, and most pay disparities are not the result of discrimination. Therefore, greater transparency is not likely to close the wage gap.

The raw wage gap is not a measure of “equal pay for equal work” or a sign of widespread discrimination against women.

The wage gap is largely driven by different career choices NOT discrimination.

Compared to men, on average, women:

  • Work fewer hours, in safer conditions, with greater flexibility.
  • Study/train for and work in lower-paying professions.
  • Take longer leaves of absence from the workplace due to childbearing and rearing.

When controlling for decisions men and women make about work, the pay gap shrinks to 2 cents.

This isn’t to say that sexism or bad bosses don’t exist, but discrimination is already illegal under the Equal Pay Act (1963) and the Civil Rights Act (1964).

We all want fairness in the workplace, but as the Washington Post editorial board wrote in 2009, the PFA “invites too much intrusion and interference in core business decisions…Discrimination is abhorrent, but the Paycheck Fairness Act is not the right fix.”

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: