As the Pigford I Settlement comes to a close: The Network of Black Farm Groups and Advocates stresses its positive impact on society

ATLANTA, April 26, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Pigford consent decree on April 14, 1999 marked a productive first step toward compensating thousands of black farmers who faced decades of discrimination from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) over a 16-year period. Fourteen years later, as the commitments in the settlement are complete, the Network of Black Farm Groups and Advocates claim the lawsuit succeeded.

"The Pigford settlement righted some of the racial injustice and wrong-doings from the USDA that have been definitively documented throughout history. It is not an easy task, and there will certainly be bumps in the road," said Ralph Paige, Executive Director of the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund.  "But no compensation from this lawsuit can account for the loss of thousands of acres of Black-owned farmland valued at billions of dollars. At the same time, we can't overlook the encouraging progress made to remedy injustices faced by thousands of Black farmers who told bitter truths of unfair treatments in the past. When we overcome racial injustices like this, society benefits as a whole."  

The Pigford settlement spurred the USDA to place new emphasis on moving beyond its many past mistakes and welcoming Black and other minority farmers as its clients and partners. Clearly, the USDA is on the right track to righting these wrongs.

For more information on the history of injustice, view this recent piece on The Nation.

NETWORK OF BLACK FARM GROUPS AND ADVOCATES

Arkansas Land and Farm Development Corporation
Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association
Federation of Southern Cooperatives/ Land Assistance Fund
Land Loss Prevention Project
Mississippi Family Farmers Association
Oklahoma Black Historical Research Project
Rural Advancement Fund
United Farmers, USA

Contact:
Heather Gray
404 765 0991
heathergray@federation.coop

SOURCE Network of Black Farm Groups and Advocates

View the original article here

Groups sue to block Arkansas' 12-week abortion ban

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A pair of advocacy groups went to federal court Tuesday claiming that Arkansas' legislators violated the constitutional rights of two doctors, and their potential patients, by banning nearly all abortions beginning in the 12th week of pregnancy.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas and the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the suit on behalf of Dr. Louis Jerry Edwards and Dr. Tom Tvedten, who provide abortions at a Little Rock clinic, say Arkansas' ban clearly contradicts the standard of viability established by the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

"We are asking the court to block an attempt to essentially outlaw all abortions past 12 weeks, so early that a woman might not know the complete health and status of her pregnancy," Rita Sklar, executive director of Arkansas' ACLU chapter, said at a news conference.

When the Republican-led Legislature passed the law last month, it was briefly the most restrictive abortion law in the country, including a near-ban at 20 weeks that it passed a week earlier. In each case, lawmakers overrode a veto by Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe, who predicted that neither law would stand up in court and that Arkansas would waste money defending them.

North Dakota has since passed and even tighter restriction: 6 weeks.

The lawsuit contends that Edwards and Tvedten could lose their licenses if they provide abortions starting at the 12th week of pregnancy, meaning the law denies "patients their constitutionally-guaranteed right to decide to end a pre-viability pregnancy." It names members of the State Medical Board as defendants because the board is responsible for licensing medical professionals.

Arkansas' 12-week ban is tied to the date at which a fetal heartbeat can typically be detected by an abdominal ultrasound. The ban includes exemptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother and highly lethal fetal disorders.

The lawsuit filed Tuesday does not challenge Arkansas' 20-week measure, as challenges to similar laws in other states are already pending. The 20-week ban is based on the disputed claim that a fetus can feel pain by the 20th week and therefore deserves protection from abortion. It includes the same exemptions as the 12-week ban, except for fetal disorders.

Rose Mimms, the executive director of Arkansas Right to Life, said anti-abortion groups like hers are hopeful that the new abortion restrictions being passed in conservative-leaning states will land before the U.S. Supreme Court and be considered against new discoveries regarding fetal development.

"They didn't have that kind of information when they decided Roe v. Wade," Mimms said, referring to the 1973 decision that legalized abortion until a fetus could viably survive outside the womb. A fetus is generally considered viable at 22 to 24 weeks.

Arkansas' ban on abortions at 20 weeks took effect immediately when legislators overrode Beebe's veto. The 12-week ban is scheduled to take effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns, which could occur late this week or early next week.

Sklar said the Supreme Court has recognized that the Constitution protects a woman's ability to make her own decision regarding abortions.

"But our state Legislature ignored the law and voted to take a woman's decision-making ability away," Sklar said.

A lead sponsor of the 12-week ban, Republican state Sen. Jason Rapert, said he hadn't seen the lawsuit yet, but he said it wasn't a surprise.

"We definitely are planning to defend it," he said. "It's a law duly passed by the state of Arkansas."

___

Associated Press writer Andrew DeMillo contributed to this report.

___

Follow Jeannie Nuss at http://twitter.com/jeannienuss

View the original article here

Construction Groups Concerned Senate Plan Repeats Mistakes of Previous Failed Immigration Reforms

WASHINGTON, April 3, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, trade associations representing all aspects of the commercial and residential construction industries issued the following joint statement regarding the Senate "Gang of 8" deal on a temporary guest worker program:

"The construction industry is committed to finding U.S. workers to fill open positions in our industry. Unfortunately, that is not always possible. For many years, our industry has advocated for comprehensive immigration reform that addresses the needs of our economy and border security, and does not repeat the mistakes of previous reform efforts.  

"However, we are deeply concerned with the size and the scope of the temporary guest worker program in the proposal now being drafted by the Gang of 8 Senators. Capping the amount of visas for the construction industry at only 15,000 in an industry that currently employs nearly 6 million workers is simply unrealistic and destined to fail. A guest worker program that fails to provide a sufficient number of visas to meet market demand as the construction sector recovers will inevitably make it harder to fill critical labor openings and make it impossible to secure the border. For these reforms to be successful, we believe the cap on visas should be determined by labor market demand, the only measure that truly reflects the needs of the economy and our industry.   

"Without an effective and workable guest worker program, the construction industry will not be able to meet the future demand of both the public and private sectors once economic recovery takes hold."

Associated Builders and Contractors
Associated General Contractors of America
Leading Builders of America
National Association of Home Builders
National Electrical Contractors Association
National Roofing Contractors Association

SOURCE Associated Builders and Contractors

View the original article here