>> the president of the national organization for women terry o'neill recently spoke at the annual meeting of the association of american law schools about the relationship between economic status of women and reproductive rights. her remarks are just under one hour. >> i want to welcome you all i want to welcome you all to the 2015 aals annual meeting program of the section on social economics. this is the socioeconomics

luncheon welcome yoga. i have a few announcements, a fewfewdiscretionary announcements and then it will be my pleasure to announce and introduce our speaker. a cle attendance sign up sheet for the session is located at the rear of the room. if you scientists sheet the aals will verify your achievements at the program for cle purposes. please refer to the sign up sheet for more details. the aals also want you to know we value your feedback. please take a minute to complete a section of evaluation form that you were handed when you walk into the room and please leave it with the student proctor at the door. so those are the announcements. a few discretionary announcements. this is the 20th year of the aals section on social economics. founding forum in 1996.

we are dedicated to a set of principles, that time 120 law teachers and 50 member schools of the aals signed it and our dear guest speaker, terry o'neill, now president of n.o.w. was a founding member of that. she has a long history in the nation. i'm not going to take a long time to describe socioeconomics but i can describe essence in a couple of sentences. the first news is good news for economists, and that is you cannot do important public policy without economic analysis. the second principle is good news to some economists and that is but you cannot do economic analysis without drawing up on all disciplines necessary and giving them the same dignity that you give to economics and performance reynosa. with those two principles is widely accepted, i think costs such as those nobly championed

by the national organization for women would be much more readily achievable than we are dedicated to that. it is a fledgling organization called the society of social economists. you can get that by going to society of social economics.org. members should is a free sign know you can't afford it and everybody is welcome to. for our beloved luncheon speaker, terry o'neill she was elected the president of the national organization for women in 2009 and was reelected in 2013. she oversees n.o.w. ambitious multi-jet program including reproductive rights and justice economic justice, ending violence against women, ending racism and homophobia and guaranteeing women's equality under the u.s. constitution. what a noble set of goals. before this, she was an academic

teaching both at tulane university, and before that the university of california at davis. she is a respected expert in the law, corporate social responsibility. she also taught feminist legal theories and international women's rights. as i mentioned before, she is a founding member of the aals section on social economics. her title which is social economics -- "socioeconomics and feminism: what does the minimum wage have to do with reproductive rights?" and a way her title is generic. wanted to socioeconomics and blank, fill-in the blank environmental justice economic justice. you could almost, then what does. but rather than see it in a general form, let's hear terry

o'neill speak particularly about what does the men which have to do with economic rights. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you so much, robert. and thanks everybody for being here. it's really a pleasure for me to be back among academics. it's been a while. i guess i let tulane in 2001 so it really has been quite some time. so the title of my talk actually is what does the men which have to do with reproductive rights and so sounds a little as if it should have that much to do one with the other. but as robert said my organization the national organization for women come as six core issues right that we address. and so they are reproductive rights and justice for all women, ending racism, ending

homophobia, ending violence against women economic justice for all women, and giving women into the constitution at last. the reason that n.o.w. has these six issues at the core of its agenda is because we do view those issues as deeply intertwined and interrelated. and i think it's really intuitively easy to steal all of those issues economic justice and reproductive rights and violence against women and racism and homophobia, how they all interrelate, if you just think about it this way. in politics, right, who are the candidates that we think would probably be opposed to same-sex marriage, opposed to women's access to reproductive health care, opposed to serious funding of the violence against women act? which find it is the same, the

same crowd over and over again that are more or less in opposition to so they get into relationship of all of these issues, and so i think it's very important that we understand how they are interrelated. the issues are also and this is different. those issues are also intersectional. which is to say that he did any one particular issue that comes up, let's a reproductive rights, access to reproductive health care looks very different for an immigrant woman in what we call downtown in montgomery county maryland, where i live, a suburb of washington, d.c., access to reproductive health care looks like one thing in immigrant communities in my county versus looking like something in a wealthy, predominantly white

upper middle class community which again looks very different from what it might look like in a middle-class african-american community. the point is that issues surrounding the immigrant community play into women's access to reproductive health services in very different ways. so immigrant women face of this intersecting realities of anti-immigrant bias, of the fears of being picked up for having family members or neighbors being picked up by immigration and customs enforcement. so that plays out one way whereas access to reproductive health at any african-american committee plays out in a very different way. we have a long and sordid history in this country of taking children away from african-american single mothers

by presuming that they're not very good at being mothers. that's an asset other reproductive health care that intersects with both the reproductive function and the race. the interrelationship piece is more theoretical is intertwined, sort of in service of a society that is headed by one group, you know, and where others are kept in places, right. that's the the relationship peace but the intersectional piece i think is harder to grasp unless you really think of it as the lived experience of the individual woman who are impacted by these policies. all right. i said is going to talk for 15 or 20 minutes and then throw it open for cuba day, absolutely intend to do that so robert i'll count on you to not let me ramble too much.

so that's what i wanted to talk about today, was to look at and what does the minimum wage have to do with reproductive rights and justice. so i think the easiest way the easiest answer of course is the minimum wage is a woman's issue, and reproductive rights and justice, that's really an economic justice issue. so i will sort of unpack that a little bit and explain why we get to that point. on minimum wage two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women. into progressive community in washington, d.c. that has become a mantra that the democrats and progressive community have been pushing for so when here's very hard to raise the issue of the minimum wage to increase the minimum wage. i know that my chapters in new jersey and it was activists from

many parts of the country, came to new jersey in 2013 to help has a minimum wage law at the state level. we didn't get barbara buono elected governor a we did get the minimum wage law passed. in 2014 we got a minimum wage law passed in arkansas and alaska, even though those same voters voted for united states senators who don't support an increase in the minimum wage. so that's a whole i guess of the conversation. so why were n.o.w. chapters come by the way let me just pause for a moment and say the national organization for women is actually an the grassroots arm if you will, of the women's movement. we don't do research. we don't provide services, and we don't have a lobby shop in washington, d.c. like a lot of other women's organizations. all of our lobbying is done grassroots. we have 250 chapters around the country. they do grassroots lobby to

their senators and representatives and also to their state elected officials and local elected officials. so why is it that n.o.w. wasn't interested in the minimum wage as a women's issue? are one thing, two-thirds of minimum wage workers it turns out are women. here's another piece of the. the reason that two-thirds of minimum wage workers in the united states are women is because over 70% of the tip of minimum wage workers in the u.s. are women. kept minimum wage, people don't know this but the federal tip the minimum wage is $2.13 an hour. $2.13 an hour. these are servers in restaurants that are other service providers to mostly servers in russia. and to be clear the vast majority of tipped minimum wage workers in a work at rubes state

has making the chips. they work at denny's, ihop, the olive garden and the vast majority of them are women and their very disproportionately women of color. so the minimum wage actually is a huge women's issue. if we were to increase the minimum wage or everyone, men and women, to whatever to $15 and by the way $10 an hour is a poverty wage. it does not pay the bills. and our gear friends on the hill in washington are very fond of patting themselves on the back with $10. it doesn't pay the bills. it remains a poverty wage. it is much better than the current $7.25, but it is not acceptable. it needs to be like between 15 and $20 an hour. the reality is if you bring the minimum wage up from what it is right now to 15 or $20 an hour across the board for men and

women, he will go along way towards actual closing the gender wage gap. because a significant part of the gender wage gap that has women paid 70 i think right now it is 78 cents for every dollar paid in it for latinas it's more like 59 cents to the dollar. and for african-american women it's roughly 64 cents to the dollar. that's the gender wage gap. that wage cap would not be eliminated but we would be significantly narrowed if we sent to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. that's what it's in that sense it is a women's issue. it's also a reproductive justice issue, and here's why. rock unite the restaurant opportunity center united taste in new york city, and it's run by a teacher at berkeley. she came out with a study that absolutely floored her. she was astonished by the

results of her research that shows that sexual harassment on the job is skyhigh for women who are trying to workers, working in restaurants. well, and about why that is. the women are not working at the high-end restaurants with a big bills and the big kids. they're working at the malls ruby tuesday and so forth. their base pay is $2.13 an hour. not quite enough to pay their taxes. so 100% of the money that they get to pay the babysitter, a childcare worker pay the rent pay the food and so forth is actually paid by their customers. the restaurant industry is the only industry on the planet where the owner of the companies get customers to pay the wages to the workers in that company. that's what's going on

throughout the restaurant industry because the tipped wages have remained at $7 -- $2. so as a result of the fact that these customers are paying the wages of these tipped workers they have to put up with a shockingly high level of sexual harassment on the job, being groped, being touched, being hit on, having inappropriate sexualized comments made to the constantly all day long because they can't afford to be fired. and they can't afford, and the bosses are always telling them the customer is always right. never get in the face of the customer. the customer is always right. so right there you can begin to see how this plays in.

that, in fact discrimination against women in employment very often takes the form of sexualized behavior. then you can really begin to see a direct connection between the minimum wage or wages or economic justice and the reproductive rights and reproductive health of women. so that's one piece of it. that's a minimal age really is a women's issue. the other piece is the reproductive rights really are an issue of economic justice. i think the easiest way to encapsulate that is it was really given to me by a man who left a message on my voicemail years ago. i think it was 2011 and 2012 when, in washington, d.c., there was this huge effort to shut down planned parenthood and to

define all of the title x family planning clinics, most of which do not provide abortion services. they actually provide birth control and std screenings and hiv screenings and so forth. but the effort was to shut down the family planning clinics and defund planned parenthood and timely. and so we were all working very hard and trying to get the word out that this was possible, we needed to stop it. in the midst of all of this i get a voicemail from a man identifies himself, and i don't member his name now, but what he said was, i'm just calling to thank you for all the work that your organization is doing to make sure that planned parenthood stay strong. he said you know i know birth control is really important for my wife's health. i get that, but i've got to tell you, is really about our family finances. he said, i got laid off six months ago and am i'm having a really hard time finding another

job. we've got two kids and we can't afford another drag down right now but if she was able to go to planned parenthood and get her birth control at an affordable price, i don't know what we would do. it's in that sense that reproductive justice is absolutely a matter of economic justice. now this year you're going to see that plant at a slightly different context in the united states supreme court in young versus ups. a woman is pregnant, told by her doctor to i think she had lost a pregnancy previously under doctor said okay get to a certain point in pregnancy and can't lift more than 20 pounds. she was a driver for ups and the mud and some boxes that were more than 20 pounds but she works about with her coworker that she would take the lighter loads and the coworker will take this other thing and she mentioned to her supervisor she's got to set up and she wants permission to make a sort of formalized so she won't have to lift the 20 pounds. and the supervisor goes and

looks for all the h.r. documents that she can't think the supervisor was one of them looks to all the h.r. documents can looks to the union contract and says you don't fit any of our categories. you weren't picked up on drunk driving. we could accommodate for that. if you lost your license commuter traffic of if you lost her license for drunk driving we could put you on desk duty are something for a period of time. but you don't fit there. you are pregnant. that's not you. so you don't get into the americans with disabilities act because pregnancy is not covered by the americans with disabilities act, and you also do not fit within the pregnancy discrimination act, says the supervisor because you're looking for an accommodation. and an accommodation is not spelled out how that might work under the pregnancy discrimination act. so you don't get any of the categories that i have in my

h.r. manual, and we can't accommodate you. she said fine, fine, whatever. i will just keep working. the supervisor says no no actually that you've told me your doctor says you can't lift more than 20 pounds i'm going to put you on unpaid leave. because we don't want you working if your doctor says you shouldn't be doing that. so she was forced on unpaid leave which caused her to lose her health insurance. so now she and her husband had to tip into the own pockets to pay all over prenatal care and her childbirth expenses until she could get back to the job and get back to work. so there again, actually accommodating pregnancy, you know, and newsflash, where do we think the next generation of workers is coming from? accommodating women who are pregnant is very much a matter of the economic justice afforded those women come and actually she's lucky. this woman was fortunate because she had a partner another adult

bringing money into the household. most of the women, i say most, a very large number of women who faced pregnancy discrimination in the workplace are single moms, and they're the ones who can least afford not to have accommodations. and the kinds of accommodations that women are denied, and let me just say, ups is actual a very good workplace and a lot of boys, and they have since the case is going up to the supreme court but ups actresses have now changed and pregnancy is accommodated by the ups for workers. but there are places where women are not allowed to have a bottle of water with them come although their doctor has said just dehydrated and you will be fine. at your not allowed out a bottle of water with you as you're doing the job after the job is factory worker or whatever. so it's absolutely a problem of

women economic stability to get this to a final thought i want to leave you with is on birth control, right? the effort to defund planned parenthood has failed, at least for now but there's an ongoing effort in washington and around the states but especially in washington, d.c. to remove birth control from the standard health insurance contract. so you know under the affordable care act every insurance company has to provide a list of standard services thinks they can't weasel out of. its heart disease and diabetes and surgery for broken legs, and it also includes about well over 50 or 60 preventive services, screenings for high blood pressure, screening for heart disease and so forth, and birth control is on that list of preventive health care services. 98% of women in the united states have utilize birth control at some point in their

lives. 99% of sexually active women utilize birth control at some point, go into any catholic church, look around at the families, they've got two kids. what do we think they are doing? right? 98% of sexual active catholic women report utilizing birth control at some point. it's a smaller percentage for evangelicals, it's like 96%. 96% of evangelical women who are sexual active report utilizing birth control at some point. for surprisingly large figure, i don't know what it is but a surprising large number of women just hormonal birth control for purposes other than preventing pregnancy. so make no mistake preventing pregnancy is key to women's health. unintended pregnancy is deadly. unintended pregnancy is highly correlated with infant

mortality, with maternal mortality, and with domestic violence homicide. highly correlated with those three things. the united states has the highest rates of infant mortality and maternal mortality of any other country in the developed world, and all rate is higher than that of some developing countries. nearly half of all pregnancies in the united states are unplanned. and the huge number of women before the aca, had no consistent access to the birth control that was right for them because they worked, where? in a minimum-wage job that didn't provide health benefits to which minimum-wage employees. so under the affordable care act we have made some real progress. the act doesn't cover all people in this country but it covers a great number of women, and they'll get birth control as part of their ordinary preventive care under the ax

standard contract. and here you have the incoming leadership of both the house and the united states senate who have already indicated that they intend to bring up a law that would strip birth control out of the standard health insurance contact. they're saying it because for religious reasons. just lean my name is o'neill. i know that's the bishops are post-birth control. the bishops, the catholic church teaching also considers the second me to be a sin a sin. -- vasectomy. udacity cap of bishops up and down the halls of congress demanded criminalization of vasectomies but you do see them walking in to represent his offices and sitting down with them and talking about the way the law should be drafted to criminalize reproductive health care for women or to prevent women from getting access to. and that's not okay.

my organization is taking the position that basic health care, like birth control, cannot be blocked. there is no religious excuse for it. there is no constitutional rights to be and employ the you have a constitutional right to be a mother superior, but you don't have a constitutional right to own and operate a nursing home. and if you do decide to own and operate a nursing home or a university or hospital or even a church, and you decide that you need janitors and secretaries and other people working in there, not clergy, other people working in there you must follow the law with respect to the health care that you provide your employees. it's one law for all the employers, and we don't believe there should be any religious exceptions because it is a matter of basic economic survival for women and their family.

so that's where we are at with the way we understand these issues of reproductive services for women, and i think this is a good point at which we can stop and maybe take some questions. [applause] >> thank you. >> i think you could probably do your own moderating speed that sure fine. >> what does the landscape look like for the repeal of roe v. wade in the next two, four secure? >> that's a great question but it's the repeal of roe v. wade in the next number of years. folks would like to repeal or overturn roe v. wade are extremely well-positioned right

now. in the 113th congress, last year, the house of representatives past the so-called 20 week ban. it criminalizes abortions, all abortions at 20 weeks just nation, which is well before viability. significantly before viability. we think by build the summer around 24 weeks, and 20 for-36 weeks, and under planned parenthood v. casey, it's the point government can ban abortion. the 20 week ban passed the house and block and civic dissent is not under the control of individuals who have expressed support for a 20 week ban. there are currently 10 states less than a dozen more than a half a dozen, states around the country that the past 20 week bands. arizona is one. the ninth circuit ruled that

that man was clearly unconstitutional it actually as a facial meta. facially unconstitutional to did and even have to be attacked on and apply basic because there's no set of circumstances under which a criminalization of abortion pre-viability could be considered constitutional. so it's been struck down in their zone and it has not been challenged in most of the other states where it is. i think in idaho it was challenge but that was a weird case. there were other things going on there. so what you have actually is a 20 week ban in place in a number of states moving forward, not challenged and you have movement in both houses of congress to pass the 20 week ban. the only way you can uphold a 20 week ban is to overturn roe v. wade. in fact, i've seen at least some opinion out there that you can't draw a principled distinction

between once it's a non-viable fetus, there's no principled essential between 20 weeks and 18 weeks and 15 weeks and 12 weeks and six weeks. the justification for the ban by the way is fast making. it's that fetuses feel pain. that's just like and it's been shown to be justified in response. another justification is that abortion is much more dangerous for women as the pregnancy proceeds. that's just an astonishing claim. you have to ask yourself more dangerous than what? actually terminating a 20 week pregnancies safer for women than childbirth still. childbirth tends to be traumatic and can become is always dangerous. so yes, of course as a pregnancy proceeds, a termination is more dangerous than if the terminations were done earlier. determination is still safer than childbirth itself.

so what's fascinating to me is that the only justification that has been brought forward for this criminalization of abortion are both demonstrably false. and yet we have, i think that it's very possible we could see a 20 week ban. if it gets passed at the federal level i think it has a much greater chance of going all the way to the supreme court of course. >> i want to build a bit on the comment you made about the gendered nature of -- [inaudible] one thing that i thought was compelling from diane ravitch is the influence of the billionaire boys club of tech executives and finance executives sort of coming in and saying to teachers, to teachers generally we know a lot more than you do about how to measure outcomes, and we really don't care about the professional autonomy. we want to sweep aside and we will impose one best way of teaching whatever.

and also of course there are takeoffs on this great book of how women are kept out of position. i'm wondering, your position on the new digital economy the hierarchy from finance. >> that's a great question, and the tech industry is a real problem. and it's not just on gender. it's on race. rainbow/push coalition did some really great research and got google and facebook and then tumbling, another set of tech industry to start revealing what their workers of color look like and where are they. indeed, the workers of color are kept down. women of color, white women and men of color as well as cap down. it's replicating what we see in other venues. we have actually been working with our friends in the teachers

union to try to stop what we, we have really taken a different, we are concerned about a different set set of things i think it plays into what you're talking about. and that is easy real attacks on publicly funded education carried. and the attack on teachers unions. the attack on unionized teachers as there is specific part of prague in wisconsin that was one of the reasons for traveling on union rights was that these teachers were not doing their job and they were out of control. the best thing i ever saw there was an info graphic that said you remember when it was the teachers of wisconsin who drove the economy off a cliff? and then got a bailout? dot dot dot. me neither. so that's what we've been working on with that but you're right. it's a real problem. you had your hand up. did you have a question? [inaudible]

>> i'm curious how that intersects with which were talking about. [inaudible] >> you know, i think that's absolutely an economic thing. right, when you and naomi have talked about the fact that middle-class, the middle-class ideology goes very far deep into the low-wage population, way down into the low-wage population as well as going up into the upper regions. and on middle class ideology people love marriage. they respect it. they think it is an important institution. they want to give it all the respect that it is the which means they're not going to jump into marriage and start having kids until they're economically

secure. i think that's absolute the right. as a matter of this country be able to compete economically, we rely on immigration, the same as northern europe, and we're going to. i frankly don't have a problem with that. i think that the global village and so forth makes it less important for anyone country to keep reproducing its own workers, but that makes international trade agreements all the more important. and my organization, we're not taking the lead on any stretch but we are supporting our allies into opposing the ptt, the civic trade, yes. how about i go around? i so hands up there, too.

>> thank you for your inspiring and illuminating comments. the first 80% of what you said was particularly powerful because it was cutting across the divisions of gender and class and political ideology in which potentially really unifying, and coalition building, and so i was moved by that and think about how effective it was as a political matter. but in the last 20% of what you said or 15% was very potentially divisive i think and that you assorted -- you assorted it very strongly that there's no right, employers have no right no constitutional right and no moral right you know, no right to have any say about what kinds of benefits are

provided in connection with employment as it relates to health care and birth control and abortion. but for many people in our society, they feel very strongly in another direction about that. and so it seems to me that obamacare, obviously a compromise bill that nobody wanted right? but it would be just as responsive to the problems for your organization or for like-minded people to say, the reasons, we have seen the problem with employment dates ask him that it is divisive to our society, and so now is the time to take those lessons and turned to universal health care true single-payer health care right? so rather than digging in on obamacare and on implement dates to use of the division over employer mandates to pivot towards a true universal health

care. i just want what you think about that as a political matter and has a theoretical want? >> i think that's a great point but i don't think he will work at all. my organization for 25 years has not only supported single pill health care, we think that's what has to be. but what we are concerned about with all religious exemption debate that's going on which is impacted by the way to plug rights for the lgbtq community as well as nondiscrimination and employee benefits right, because you're not getting anything for them in figure only targeting women's health care for discrimination companies like hobby lobby want to do that. what we are concerned about is embedding that kind of religiously justified discrimination in law and and

here's the thing. we're going to have the aca for many, many many years before we get to single-payer. that's a political reality right? what kind of single-payer do we want to inherit from the aca? one that assumes that there are some types of people who just don't get the health care they need because they got the wrong anatomy? is that what we want to inherit from the aca? no. so we are attacking it from both angles. we absolutely are supporting the single-payer but we are very clear eyed that that is not could happen anytime soon. we've got where it is the ability to stop this business of religious justification for what i call flat-out gender bigotry. you are talking about birth control. you're talking about 98% of the women of this country. 98% of us needing access to this medication that is expensive and it needs and it's about our

health. so that's just basic and when you're attacking access to basic health care only for the women, that's bigotry. and so we don't allow bigots to use their religion to justify racism, and we shouldn't allow bigots to use their sexism to justify withholding birth control for women. that's where we're coming from. okay i see there and then i'm going to come back to you next. >> you are one supreme court decision away from losing roe v. wade, and yet the polls show that you shouldn't be losing. so what's wrong? why are you losing and what can you do to turn that around? >> i'm going to tell you, i think there are two reasons we are losing. one is absolutely at the feet of the women's movement but the progressive movement generally and i'll talk about that in the second. the other is not at our feet. what is at our feet?

this is not the comfort, those of us if you were part of the progressive movement, but it's not just the women's rights that are losing. the death penalty, opposition to the death penalty is not going anywhere. we are clearly losing unions. we are losing the environmental fight. we are losing those hand over fist. aspect after aspect aspect of the progressive agenda is really getting hammered right now that includes -- the only place we are winning is in the lgbtq fight for marriage equality. we are not actually winning on employment nondiscrimination and we're not actually went on adoption and we are not actually winning on family formation entirely yet. we are winning on marriage equality, which is huge absolutely enormous and effort important but that's one aspect of the progressive movement that's really going anywhere.

that brings me to the second piece, and let it tell you what i think the women's movement has not done well. we didn't go to the states but we didn't go to the states early in we didn't go to the states aggressive and we don't have the resources to go to the states. and we keep thinking that if we just hang in in washington, d.c. we can get federal law that will stop these silly states from passing all these laws are bad for women. and that's not working. my organization, i call it -- with two and 50 chapters around the country. we should have 1000. given the threats that are there. we should have really well-trained volunteer lobbyists in all 50 states and puerto rico in washington, d.c. we don't. we don't have the resources for it. before i became president of n.o.w. action i served as the

executive track of the national council of women's organizations. 200, 250 women's organizations nationwide. some of them are more regional, but really all of the women's organizations, and so my board was nine ceos of women's organizations. all across the board struggling for resources. the fact is report put out in 2006, where's the money for women's rights? it traces globally, put out by a canadian or cassation, traces how there's only been a restriction in funding for women's rights work globally. a lot of reasons for that. it has to do with the growth of religious extremism in the global south and global beast, and so the north, the global north and global west funders begin diverting resources to those stressed communities where women and girls were not getting basic health care at all and not getting water in their

communities and so forth. so there's a shift of resources. women in the north and west have really struggled. that's one piece, but the other piece is galloping inequality. i really think that the entire progressive movement has been hurt seriously by galloping inequality. and again it's a question of resources. the folks who are i think thomas in his work come the really points out, it's joseph stiglitz who points out that at the very very top of the income globally, you have stronger and stronger and stronger imperatives to prevent a reduction in the inequality. so it's a spiral going in exactly the wrong way which then makes all of us nonprofits weaker and weaker and less resources and less resources. but at the state level we are absolute getting kicked in the

teeth for women at the state level, we don't have the infrastructure at the state level to stop it. we are building. we are rebuilding. the unions have figured out that they need to work with all of the allies at the state level and so but you know but we are absolutely far from where we need to be. yes. >> in virginia, governor wallace has just passed -- [inaudible] one of our goals is to raise the visibility of these issues. and we are preoccupied with messaging some wondering if you could throw out old bit of the scope you didn't talk about and share your thoughts on the most persuasive narratives about the economics and economic access to health care? >> ashore. and i can give you more resources, to come afterwards, but here's the basics. one in three when will have an

abortion by the age of 45. one in three of us will have an abortion by the age of 45. it is a common and necessary aspect of women's reproductive health care. if we have to dip into our own pockets to provide that health care for us that's that much more money that we don't have to set aside for college for our kids, for a down payment for a house, or for our own retirement retirement. in fact, when you look at what's going on foreign economically, low-wage work, women cluster in the low-wage occupations that don't have health benefits come increasingly they will because of the aca but a lot don't what you see is women have less money coming in the door just because they are women and more money going out the door just because they are moms. the single most important factor in determining whether a woman will live in poverty after the

age of 70 is whether she had children. that's the reproductive health and economic justice thing right there. women are far more likely to be financially responsible financially responsible for their children and for their elders than men. and so you've got less money coming in because the wage gap and get your expenses are high because you get into your own pocket to pay significant aspects of the health care. if women get access which is been true for a long time, many women not being able to access birth control and have to pay for that out of pocket. and by the way, birth control the ability to control the number and spacing of their pregnancies dramatically reduces stress. and the more we learn about stress illnesses the more we

see a deeply connected that is cardio what is it health disease and high blood pressure and diabetes. so can reproductive health is out soviet essential to maintaining the kind of healthy body generally that allows you to go to work every day and get your damn 77 cents rights? yet, i hope that is a start. okay. yes. >> you already alluded to the problems at the state level. i wonder if you are considering trying to get more women elected as governors number one and number two exploiting the fact that in the national governors association, the republican governors often break with a national strategy and our more progressive and listen closer to home. i mean it seems some real leadership in the national governors association could

really, you know, neutralize some of the federal are you exporting that he never? >> not enough but we are involved with it. there are organizations that are taking the lead. there's a parity project being run by the alternative fund which is trying to get more women elected to the governorships and also to congress. they are stuck at the state executives and then u.s. congress. they do some really interesting research that suggests as follows, my organization works very hard, for example did the joint urged, right the hagy castrating candidate for senate. we failed. she won. from iowa. because she's wrong on all issues. so we are absolute an issue focused organization. there are other women's groups that will only endorse women candidates. we support men who support our issues just as we support women who support our issues.

but, but it does mean after we lose that election we don't work with all of the elected officials. we also did work with all of them that will work with us on various issues. one of the reasons i think it's so important to get women elected, even when they don't support our issues is that it needs to be a lot more research but if you compare a self-identified right wing female politician to a self-identified right wing male politician the woman generally will vote for issues that actually support women more often than this conservative men will but if you let itself identified moderates, the woman moderate will more often vote the way i would want her to dan the man. and even if you look at the self-identified progressive, the woman progress it will vote the way i would want her to more often than men and progressive,

or as one of my staffers call it the other day, our friends the brogressives. we are very much a part of that. i think that's it all the questions, okay. thank you all so much. [applause] >> the luncheon is hereby adjourned. we look forward to a wonderful afternoon. we thank president terry o'neill from the national organization for women for her inspiring speech, it would offer any help that we can in the future. thank you very much. >> today, the defense department hold a briefing on u.s. military installations in europe and the consolidation of military bases.

watch it live at 9 a.m. eastern time here on c-span2 and online at c-span.org. >> c-span2 provide live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events, and every weekend booktv, now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable tv industry and brought you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> now a discussion on global conflicts and instability. foreign policy analysts talked about what regions could be the source of conflict in 2015. this is just over one hour.

>> welcome. welcome everyone. hi. my name is janine davidson. thank you all for coming today to what promises to be a fascinating conversation. aikido just by the looks on your faces and also by the people that we have here today. guesses become a bit of an annual event where we sort of take stock on the last year and look forward to the new year thinking about all the crises in the world and all the potential horrible things that could happen, or not. and debate a little bit. and also kind of think about what it means to the united states and for the rest of the world. so before we get started let me just say this is on the record. we do have some media here so for those of you who need to make sure what you're saying, especially government folks, we are on the record. also, could you please turn your cell phone off not just on

vibrate? because the sound system can get a little bit of interference okay? well it's my pleasure to introduce three panelists today. first we have mark schneider -- wrong order. first we have jim brooks, he is the ceo of control risks and you should have -- doesn't have any of the risk -- they recently published the risk map which is a pretty interesting interactive piece on line as well. gym is not just a seal of control risks against great expense as an operator. both in intelligence field as well as a navy seal. to his right is mark schneider senior vice president for the international races grew. he said many positions in government. you can read all their files in the handouts. who is also the director of the peace corps and it's great to have them here today to talk little bit about the handout for

his organization, and i think he will talk little bit about what's wrong and what's right with that particular assessment. and, finally, we have our own cfr paul stares was the director for the center for preventive action, and they have published the priorities survey. paul is the author of about 10 books, soon to be in love and i think -- >> hopefully. >> and extremes at u.s. institute of peace brookings and number of other places as well. what i would like to do actually is i'd like to have a vibrant discussion with the entire group but we will start off with each of our panelists giving a very brief sort of overview of the work that the organization has been doing to think about the crises in the world, and also if you could talk a little bit about the criteria that you use and the way in which you think through how to rank order things and your methodology.

but do all that really, really briefly. so we will start with you, jim. >> janine, thank you very much. it's great to be here. one weekend of january i consider quite a bit how to frame such a broad topic for what to expect in 2015. i initially thought i might delete off and say we can expect deflating optimism continued conflict and the breakdown of her global governance system. but then i thought that might be a bit heavy one week into the new year. control risk has recently published our 2015 version of risk map. each year we attempt to take a look on a global basis of what we expect to see principally from a security operational risk and integrity risk standpoint occurring around the world, both on the country level and on a schematic level. so what are those things that

are underlying the global governance system around the world itself. and i think what i'm going to focus on today is probably three principal themes. and the first one is really looking at politics without power in a resurgent nationalism, really occurring around the globe itself. and looking at this from the lands of international business predominately. if we looked really back over the last six or seven years certainly up until the financial crisis we really saw governments around the world thriving on performance legitimacy, rapidly growing middle class booming economies almost everywhere around the world, and that really is what gave them their political mandate. and since the financial crisis we have really seen a weakening of their power. we have seen the rise of the middle class when they moved beyond basic needs and start looking at things like

transparency and accountability and wanting to improve their lives, and then becoming more restless and having more demands on their government. welcome as the government performance legitimacy through economic change and growth has really waned over the last five six years, we are starting to see a huge resurgence in nationalism. so governments moving to very short term political agendas moving to nationalist and populist behavior in order to reassert their political legitimacy itself and appealed to the public. and who gets caught in the crosshairs of that is multinational business. we see it in terms of certainly increased regulatory framework targeting international business, campaigns to shore up a national identity. we've seen that across china certainly in 2014 quite heavily. we also see issues like we saw

in vietnam with the anti-chinese riots going after the manufacturing industry. and as they assert this power the trick is how do they get the little bark without having the economic bite that comes behind it, which exacerbates the problem for them? we're going to see in 2015 increasing, the nationalism drive it really bureaucratic red tape within a lot of countries around the world. more onerous competition favoring the domestic players who will have greater access to contracts who won't be delayed with the bureaucratic hurdles from these challenges moving capital and talent across borders, et cetera. we see this in western countries from canada to france connecting more domestic policies really to protect the

domestic economies, and we see it in energy markets around the world where we see increased constraints around international investment agreements, really becoming constructive as compared to the past when they were quite open and willing to let international forum investments flow quite freely. ..