+

Family Protection(?) Act on Horizon

By Mary Walsh

The euphemisms of the right wing-right-to-life, right-to-work, traditional morality--always signal that some oppressed group is about to lose even more clout. The latest in the series of verbal wolves in 'sheeps' clothing is the Family Protection Act, first introduced in Congress in 1979 by Senator Paul Laxalt of Nevada, Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign manager. This omnibus bill was then shunted off to die a -deserved death in committee, but is due to be reintroduced this month.

The Family Protection Act contains 38 far-ranging provisions, dealing with education, welfare, First Amendment rights, labor, domestic relations and taxation, that propose to reconstruct American society according to "traditional" values. The avowed intent of the FPA is to "strengthen the American family and to remove those Federal government policies which inhibit its strength and prosperity." This laudable purpose is to be achieved primarily by defining the role of women along strictly patriarchal lines, giving them incentives to remain at home and removing protections against sex discrimination in education and in the workplace. In short, the family which the Act attempts to protect is straight out of Ozzie and Harriet-a wage-earning father, full-time homemaker mother and one or more children. However, U.S. government statistics show that only 17 percent of American households fit this description; both father and mother are wage earners in 28 percent of American families, and more than 7 percent of American households are headed by single parents, most of them women. Two out of five marriages end in divorce, and one child in eight is born out of wedlock.

The FPA would ban the use of federal funds to purchase or prepare any educational materials which "tend to denigrate, diminish, or deny the role differences between the sexes as it [sic] has been historically understood in the United States," or for programs which "directly or indirectly inculcate values or modes of behavior which contradict the beliefs and values of the community." Further, it would be unlawful for educational agencies not to provide parental review of textbooks prior to their use in the classroom.

The FPA would also ban the withholding of federal funds to enforce Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally assisted education programs, and would affirm the right of states and localities to "limit or prohibit the intermingling of the sexes in any sport or other school-related activity." Federal funding would also be denied to any agency or program that provides contraceptives, venereal disease treatment or abortion counseling or services to unmarried minors without first notifying the minor's parents.

Tax incentives would be enacted which would encourage women to remain at home. Full-time homemakers filing a joint tax return would be allowed to deduct up to 15 percent of the wage earner's income (up to $1,500 for each spouse) and place it in a non-taxed Individual Retirement Account. In many cases, couples in which the wife works would, as a result, be unable to save as much for retirement as when the wife does not work, since the deduction is based on 15 percent of each individual's income and the majority of working women make less than $10,000 annually. However, women would be en... touraged to "volunteer", since the FPA provides a credit for child-care expenses necessary "for any period during which he [the taxpayer] is employed in charitable, civic, political, or religious activities for which he receives no compensation." Such volunteers will now be considered "gainfully employed" for purposes of claiming the child-care credit, clearly

1

an institutionalization of the idea that women need not be paid for what they do. These credits are particularly insidious since the Administration is simultaneously planning to reduce the amount of child-care expense that welfare recipients can subtract from their job earnings without losing their eligibility for welfare benefits. The FPA also would enact a tax deduction of $1,000 in a year that a married person has or adopts a child, thus encouraging

TALOFER

Jean Calogero couples to have larger families and increasing childcare responsibilities, which fall largely on women.

Another provision of the FPA would provide a $250 tax credit or a $1,000 tax deduction to a married person who maintains a household which includes as a member a dependent over age 65. According to Senator Laxalt, government health and welfare subsidies have "actively encouraged placement of the elderly in outside institutions away from their families...[and] have contributed to lessening concern by the younger generation for their parents." However, the FPA encouragement of home health

care-the burden of which, of course, would fall primarily on women-ignores that many older people prefer to be independent, and that the constant care of a disabled or chronically ill older person may put strains on a family which it cannot withstand.

The FPA also plans to protect the family by prohibiting any entity receiving funds through the Legal Services Corporation (Legal Aid) from using such funds for divorce litigation. Congressman (now Senator) Steven Symms of Idaho in 1979 justified this provision as follows: "Government policy should discourage divorce, not.....encourage divorces by providing them free....In some areas, divorces make up 40 percent of the caseload of the Legal Aid Society." And of that number, the vast majority seeking divorces are women.

The FPA would also extend itself to labor, exempting from the worker-protective legislation of the National Labor Relations Act hospital workers and all non-teaching employees of private or religious schools, such as cooks, janitors and clerical workers, employees who are overwhelmingly female and lower income. Also, no state which permitted unionization of teachers in the public school systems would be eligible to receive federal assistance under the General Education Provisions Act, nor would such funds be available to states which refused to allow prayer in public buildings, including schools.

In the education provisions of the act, racial desegregation is repeatedly attacked as a violation of individual freedom; further, religious and private schools will no longer be scrutinized for their racially discriminatory practices. Finally, no Legal Services funds could be used for school desegregation litigation.

The domestic relations section of the FPA embodies sweeping changes in the areas of child and spouse abuse. Specifically excluded from the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act would be physical punishment administered by parents or their designees. Also, the FPA would require state legislative approval of all programs dealing with such

New Tactic By Anti-Abortionists

(HerSay)-An anti-abortion group in Calfornia's prosperous San Mateo County says it plans to use its influence to cut off tax dollars for. birth control counseling to minors in the county where it operates. The group, called United Parents Under God, is collecting signatures to pass a county ordinance which would prohibit the use of county tax dollars to

Arms Race Opposed

(HerSay) The Women's Party for Survival, a political party formed by anti-nuclear activist Dr. Helen Caldicott, reports that just within the past six weeks, its petition campaign to call a halt to the nuclear arms race has gathered 15,000 signatures.

Caldicott, a former Harvard pediatrician, formed "the Women's Party last year as a national political organization for men and women who believe a nuclear holocaust is inevitable unless the arms race is stopped. Party spokesperson Janice Trickett reports that the fact that the party gathered 15,000 signatures within just six weeks shows that it represents a "broad-based movement" against nuclear war. In addition, Trickett says, the Women's Party has already at least 3,000 members, both men and women, who joined since the group's inception last

fall.

ecesara (er) bas messig laveck out

(continued on page 8)

BITS & PIECES

counsel minors about contraception or abortion. The proposal would affect schools, health agencies and county-sponsored charities such as Planned Parent-

hood.

Margaret Scott, Director of United Parents, says parents have a right to train their own children in matters of faith and morals, and the county should let them do it as they see fit. Scott adds that church groups across the country are considering launching similar grassroots drives.

As the Deadline Nears

(HerSay)-The National Organization for Women (NOW) says next year will see an all-out drive to pass the Equal Rights Amendment before time runs out. The Amendment, which requires the approval of 38 ⚫states to become the law of the land, is still three states short of that goal.

Next spring, according to NOW President Ellie Smeal, will be the last chance for legislators to change their minds and endorse the amendment. NOW volunters will go door to door in key districts to drum up support for the measure during the crucial spring sessions. The deadline for approval of the ERA is June 30, 1982.

***June, 1981/What She Wanta/Page:5