On Wednesday, the Senate voted to proceed on the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 2199). The Paycheck Fairness Act is an important step towards closing the staggering persistent pay gap between male and female workers, and thus is of major significance to Women of Reform Judaism and the Reform Jewish community at large. Accordingly, WRJ Executive Director Marla Feldman and Religious Action Center Deputy Director Rachel Laser have jointly released the following press release:
WASHINGTON, D.C., September 10, 2014 — In response to today’s Senate vote advancing the Paycheck Fairness Act, Rachel Laser, Deputy Director of the Religious Action Center, and Rabbi Marla J. Feldman, Executive Director of Women of Reform Judaism, issued the following statement:
We are pleased by today’s Senate vote to proceed on the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 2199). This vote marks a significant step toward addressing the longstanding obstacles to women's economic security and broader equality and participation in our society. The persistent lack of pay equity is offensive to all who believe in our nation’s commitment to the fundamental equality of women and men as well as equality of opportunity for all. This inequity is also offensive us as Reform Jews and as moral people who believe in the dignity of work and fair compensation (Leviticus 19:13). We look forward to the bill’s final passage in both the Senate and House and the day when all workers are paid justly for their work.Image courtesy of HerCampus.com
Related Posts
Reform Jewish Movement Marks Roe v. Wade Anniversary; Condemns Dangerous House Bill
January 22, 2015
Today, we commemorate the 42nd anniversary of the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established the constitutionally protected right of a woman to decide whether or not to have an abortion. In an affront to the legacy of Roe v. Wade, the House of...
An Arizona Congregation Forms a New Kind of "Israel Bonds"
September 2, 2014
by Bonnie Golden This article originally appeared at the Arizona Jewish Post. It highlights the experience of one woman with the WRJ-Israel Twinning Program. Jews of a certain age might share similar early impressions of Israel. In Chicago, where I grew up, the young congregants at Lawn Manor Hebrew Congregation were inculcated with a firm commitment to the Jewish state. We saved our dime tokens to plant our trees, circle-danced Israeli-style, and practiced rudimentary Hebrew conversation. During and after the 1967 war, the Chicago area Jewish community held multiple events to raise money for Israel. All were urged to support the young state by holding Israel Bond drives. What follows are only a few of the new “Israel bonds” formed on Temple Emanu-El of Tucson, AZ's pilgrimage to Israel this past June.
Reform Movement Decries Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Decision
July 1, 2014
This piece originally appeared at RACblog. In their 5-4 ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court found that closely-held corporations – like Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties – may seek an exemption under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate. Although Justice Samuel Alito attempted to curtail the decision to apply only for exemptions to the contraception mandate, this ruling could be construed down the line to allow other closely-held corporations to seek other exemptions under RFRA from further health insurance requirements and civil rights laws. In response to the ruling, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, President of the Union for Reform Judaism, Rabbi Steve Fox, CEO of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, and Rabbi Marla J. Feldman, Executive Director of Women of Reform Judaism, and Rabbi David Saperstein, Director and Council of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism jointly issued a statement: “We bemoan the Supreme Court’s decision today, which, in ascribing the same religious free exercise rights to closely-held for-profit corporations that are essential to individuals and religious associations, allows countless numbers of corporations to limit women’s access to reproductive healthcare that those women seek. We also acknowledge the Court making clear that this ruling applies only to the contraception mandate and does not provide for exemptions for coverage of other health care needs or from statutes barring illegal discrimination.” You can read the statement in its entirety here.