Obama Signs the Lilly Ledbetter Act!

Woo hoo! Obama has officially signed, The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, fair pay legislation! In Obama’s own words:

It is fitting that with the very first bill I sign … we are upholding one of this nation’s first principles: that we are all created equal and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness. If we stay focused, as Lilly did, and keep standing for what’s right, as Lilly did, we will close that pay gap and ensure that our daughters have the same rights, the same chances, and the same freedom to pursue their dreams as our sons.

Full remarks here.

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. kmd89
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    WOO HOO!!! :D

  2. kmd89
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    WOO HOO!!! :D

  3. Ariel
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    *tear* It’s so beautiful.

  4. Bebekah
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    A landmark day, to be sure.
    Is there some significance to all of the women in this picture (except one, maybe?) wearing red jackets? If not, that’s a lot of coincidences.

  5. leah
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    I thought the same thing.

  6. LaFrontera
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    oh hells yes!
    speaking of “no second class citizens” how bout we get around to legalizing gay marriage so that my decision to opt out is entirely by my own choice!?

  7. Lelah
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    I was so excited he did this, I took a photo of him signing it on CNN. :) I think that he is doing a great job as president so far.

  8. Femgineer
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 1:50 pm | Permalink


  9. lizriz
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    Somebody should contrast the awesome picture you’ve included in this post with that one of Bush signing anti-abortion something (I’m sorry, I can’t remember off the top of my head what it was) while surrounded by men.

  10. Nettle Syrup
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    Did you see the video of it? At the end when he tries to sign it, the first four or five pens don’t work! He gives the faulty pens to the women in the crowd till he finds one which works, and Joe Biden whispers something unheard to Clinton which makes her snigger. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsl6za1Zspw it’s from about 7:42

  11. SaraLaffs
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think it was that…It’s customary for presidents to sign bills with multiple pens so that they can give them out as keepsakes. (Can you imagine what a pain that must be to write your signature one or two letters at a time?)

  12. Ashley
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    This is exciting. But did everyone forget about the Paycheck Fairness Act, which passed with Ledbetter in the House, but was not taken up in the Senate? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.12:
    Work’s not quite done yet…

  13. Posted January 29, 2009 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    Red is worn to signify women “being in the red when it comes to pay.”

  14. urbzen.com
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    This is long overdue, but I’m not sure it’s going to make much of a difference. As a society we need to start raising our daughters to ASK for what they want rather than politely waiting for someone to notice them.

  15. p0w3rful
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    Right, the work isn’t done yet, but we can still celebrate this victory! HOORAY!! What a difference 10 days makes :)

  16. DBinMD
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    Right, and that takes making them aware of the issues. We know that if McCain had won this would never have happened, and if a Republican gets back in office they would probably try to overturn it.
    I used to be an Inpendent, but after this last election, and with the Republicans all but formally making Limbaugh the spokesperson for the party, I expect I won’t consider voting for a Republican for a long, long time.

  17. Ariel
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    At the inauguration, I was concerned about whether the rhetoric would match Obama’s actions. But his consistent dialogue on women’s rights and his wishes for his daughters make me a believer.

  18. Katie
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    You’re thinking of this photo
    Warning: Do no google “president bush” and “abortion” right after lunch.

  19. male work ethic
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

    Yeh, whatever it takes! No more ‘glass ceiling’ excuses for all those lazy ass victim-feminists – whatever will they blame next? Time to get a career like the grown ups? Oh wait, that’s right, the economic downturn is now officially to blame for women’s receding economic activity, not women’s poor work ethic – stupid sociopolitical scientists and their findings. Housewhores of the world unite, then get a job!

  20. Cassius
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

    Do you know the story about the man who invented the drydock ? Ships used to be to built nearby water. A slave got the honor to remove the last restrains from the ship. If he was fast enough he was a free man, if he wasnt he would be squished by the ship.
    This man witnessed it all and came up with the idea of the drydock, so those men would not have to suffer anymore.
    Well they were not pleased, he removed their chance to become free.
    Same thing with this act. It will be a good excuse for companies to pay everyone EXACTLY the same and guess what they will tell you when you ask for a raise. Exactly, not gonna happen, because they have to conform with that act.

  21. Cassius
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

    I mean all you have to do is make sure the lowest payed person on your plant is male. Those acts are a joke, if women want decent pay, if Americans want decent pay they need unions, cus companies only understand strike. Too bad the companies who DO have good unions are weakend by countries whose workers position is far worse *cough* America *cough*.
    Who goes like yay over this bill did not think things through. It only means the company can pay you padly if it pays a man badly as well.

  22. Cassius
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    I meant the countries who do have good unions.

  23. Qantaqa
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 10:21 pm | Permalink

    Of course the state of labor in this country isn’t exactly exemplary, but the significance of this act, even as a symbolic gesture of hope for women everywhere, means so much in the long run. Of course legislation can backfire, but think of this; say men and women are both paid badly through issues like corporate greed (which is certainly happening now). If the mindset that legislation such as this (i.e. the mindset of being paid fairly without regard for irrelevant factors such as sexuality) gets through to people, then labor reform as a whole is on the horizon. After all, we’re all a bit tired of how the financial sector is being run (into the ground).
    We’ve nowhere to go but up, people. Remember that ant and that rubber tree…um…plant…(cough).

  24. moonglow283
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 11:48 pm | Permalink

    It’s my birthday today and I feel like Obama gave me a birthday present!
    (I also live in Illinois and I feel like I got a new governor for my birthday too!)

  25. USArmy
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

    A man and woman join an organization at the same time. The man and woman make the same pay. However, the performance standards for the man are higher than for the woman. The reason given is the man is more physically capable. Is this equality? Is the man being discriminated against? If he has to do more than shouldn’t he be getting paid more? Happens everyday in the United States military. So much for the equality bill.

  26. Cassius
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 8:19 am | Permalink

    Everybody earning the same means nobody gets to negotiate something extra. Acts such as these are dumb at best, a Trojan horse at worst. The Deomcratic party is the party of lawyers, whatever will give them more buisness they will pass.
    But what will that mean for women ? Or workers in general ? If you excel at your job, congratulations you earn like everybody else, corporations will tell you we can only give you fixed incomes, raises would violate act X.

  27. sangetencre
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    No, that’s not equality.
    It’s benevolent sexism (much like draft registration only being required for men) and it needs to be stopped.
    The assumption that men are physically more capable, therefore, little lady we’re not going to have these performance standards for you because you might harm your poor womanly muscles?
    It’s bullshit.
    If you hire someone to do a job, male or female, that someone needs to be able to perform to the same standards. If you can’t, you don’t get the job.
    And women, in general, are capable of performing the same physical tasks as men.

  28. llevinso
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    Do you even understand this Act at all? My guess is no.

  29. Jessica
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    Troll gone folks, thanks for the heads up.

  30. Cassius
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    Yes, it means women get to sue for past discrimination even if the one who negotiated the salary is gone from the company, I think. I was talking about the whole equality concept in general. Firtly it is a 2 edged sword if men would sue at the same rate as women, because it would mean nobody gets to negotiate a higher pay if he she thinks they are in a position where they could do so. Secondly companies can avoid lawsuits by making sure that the worst payed worker is a man, that does not mean you will be payed good.

  31. CassieC
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 11:28 am | Permalink

    Does it bother anyone else that Obama seems so comfortable talking about gender equality as something that only the next generation should aspire to? His remarks during the convention, on Hilary’s candidacy, were also along the lines of “she’s an example for my daughters, they can aspire to be president”. I say to hell with that: gender equality is worth striving for for all generations – especially the ones which are grown and working NOW.

  32. Liza
    Posted January 31, 2009 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

    That’s probably more effective than ipecac.

  33. Liza
    Posted January 31, 2009 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    Heads up: the White House link is broken.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

222 queries. 0.976 seconds