Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

I hope all of you read WCF President/CEO Siobhan “Sam” Bennett’s most recent op-ed in the Huffington Post. She does an excellent job refuting Sarah Palin’s claim that her “mama grizzlies” represent the majority of American women. I completely agree with Sam that while we love how women are getting engaged in politics, this vein of political activism is actually detrimental to women’s rights and equality.

Unfortunately, Adrienne Royer at Cosmopolitan Conservative doesn’t seem to have understood this message. She read Sam’s article and declared that:

“Sam Bennett, who happens to be the executive director of the Women’s Campaign Forum, decided to issue her decree that conservative women aren’t real women.”

However, Sam’s point was that these women’s views don’t include protecting women’s rights and equality for all people. Sam actually made the argument that:

“Although most, if not all, of Sarah’s followers are Republican, that doesn’t mean they speak for all GOP women.”

Indeed, here at WCF, we’re proud to endorse Republican women that recognize the importance of allowing women to make their own health decisions. As the Republican party has become more anti-woman in its platform, this brand of Republican woman has been harder and harder to find; however, WCF has a proud history of endorsing hundreds of Republican women that were not afraid to stand up for women.

This was the crux of Sam’s argument—that anti-woman policies do not need to define conservative women. Sarah Palin’s attempt to co-opt feminism for herself and her radical followers is not a move that will serve women well.

In her post, Royer identifies herself as a pro-life woman who supports the use of contraceptives. While this is not the position that WCF has chosen, this shows the dynamic nature of this issue. Despite the experiences in her own family, Sarah Palin doesn’t support comprehensive sex education or access to contraceptives. I agree with Royer that abortion, contraception, and sex-ed:

“Are complicated issues, and ones that reflect a myriad of views even among conservative, pro-life communities.”

But I disagree with her contention that these issues don’t go hand-in-hand. The idea that access to comprehensive sexual education and contraceptives is somehow separate from other important health decisions is simply false. Conservative, anti-choice groups would like to believe that if we ignore the issue, by teaching abstinence-only sex-ed and limiting access to essential health resources, the problem will go away.

Royer criticized WCF’s use of a poll that showed that 81% of Americans support individuals making their own health choices—because it was 4 years old. I hate to break it to her, but women have needed to make these choices throughout history—and for a long time, they had to do it alone, and in a way that often endangered their lives. Perhaps she should take her own advice that:

“Women should be free to decide political views for themselves–whether they are liberal or conservative.”

I wholeheartedly agree. Women should be able to make all the same decisions that men can—including over their own bodies and health care needs. No one’s political views—Sam’s, mine, or Sarah Palin’s—should limit anyone else’s right to make their own important health choices.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

As a young woman working in the political world, I am often confronted by the assertion that my generation does not feel as strongly about reproductive choices as our predecessors. After all, Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, and we’ve grown up in an era in which women appear to be fully liberated.

But the truth is that my cohort is uniquely—and dramatically—affected by Roe and its aftermath. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to hear a panel of reproductive rights advocates discuss these issues at the Campus Progress National Conference. Shelby Knox, a women’s rights advocate who works to mobilize young people around the idea of “reproductive justice,” described young people as:

“The generation that has been scared away from contraception.”

She was referring to the years of systematic weakening of the rights that were identified by Roe, which have limited women’s access and knowledge about contraception and abortion. In addition to numerous laws requiring parental consent and lack of public funding, reproductive choices have been severely affected by poor sex education in schools. Knox’s personal story of growing up in a small town in Texas with abstinence-only sex education classes was made into a documentary that attempted to explain how vital comprehensive sex-ed is to reducing pregnancy (and abortion) rates, as well as sexually transmitted infections.

Another panelist, Khadine Bennett, a Staff Attorney for ACLU of Illinois, pointed out that:

“If you are in a middle-to-upper class school, you are more likely to get comprehensive sex education than if you are low-income.”

Essentially, access to information about contraceptives and reproductive health options is based now, more than ever, based on one’s socio-economic status. While this is hardly new, it upends one of the main problems that Roe attempted to address—poor women in the United States have a much greater need for affordable and safe reproductive options.

Since Roe, conservative, anti-choice organizations have been attacking the foundations of the decision, and while they have not succeeded in overturning it, yet, they have made things much more difficult for women across the country. Part of the problem is that the women who fought for Roe in the 1960s and 1970s thought that they had won—and stopped pushing for further protection of their rights. As Bennett described her work in Illinois:

“We’re countering years and years of anti-choice work. We were tired of fighting… of being in this defensive position.”

That’s why the ACLU in Illinois, and more and more women’s groups across the country are working to stop anti-choice bills—and to create proactive legislation in anticipation of the next attack. According to Elizabeth Nash, from the Guttmacher Institute, of all the reproductive health proposals adopted in the past decade, 27 have been anti-choice and only 4 protected women’s reproductive choices.

And in the past year, anti-choice conservatives have found a new battleground in which to limit women’s rights; the health care bill reminded American women that their health choices are still not totally theirs to decide. Indeed, since the passage of the bill, as Nash says:

“Anti-choice legislators at the state level have seen an opportunity to restrict abortion in insurance.”

Just as comprehensive sexual education now seems to be a luxury, anti-choice advocates are attempting to make it harder for low-income women to have access to a necessary health service. Men and women deserve to have equal coverage of their medical needs, and to have an equal opportunity to make their own health decisions.

These changes will have the most serious impact on young women—who will have to live their entire lives with these restrictions. But women of all ages have a responsibility to fight these measures in any way they can. While the debates in Congress and the Supreme Court garner the most attention, the battles for reproductive choices are often fought in state legislatures. Jordan Goldberg, from the Center for Reproductive Rights, made the argument that:

“On a day-to-day basis, when a woman tries to get an abortion, [she] is affected by the laws of her state.”

And, individuals can also have a more decisive impact at the local level. That’s why, here at WCF, we endorse women candidates at every level—because we know that it is not only a stepping stone to higher office, but also an essential arena for women’s issues.

Perhaps women my age are less aware of how their lives are affected by their access to reproductive choices—but if the anti-choice conservatives get their way, I think they will quickly realize how important these rights are. I challenge women everywhere—and of every generation—to spread this message, call their local, state, or federal representatives, or even run for office, because we can’t afford to lose these battles.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

Terri Sewell, WCF-Endorsed Candidate for Alabama’s 7th District, just announced new fundraising numbers that show her with a steady lead over her opponent Shelia Smoot. The numbers suggest that in May and June, Sewell raised at least $250,000 more than Smoot—confirming our opinion that Sewell is the strongest candidate to represent Alabama.

Indeed, Sewell’s story is one that reflects her deep roots in the district— growing up in Selma, Alabama, she is the daughter of a high school basketball coach and librarian. Although Sewell’s talents gave her the opportunity to attend some of the most prestigious universities in the world, she ultimately chose to return home to share her talents with the people of Alabama. As she says herself:

“I have exactly the skill set in Washington that this District needs, and the passion and desire to make sure that other have the same opportunities that I had.”

Sewell’s candidacy is so exciting because she also applies that same passion and desire to women’s rights. Her record as an Attorney shows that she is genuinely interested in the well-being and girls and women—she has worked to prevent domestic violence and has mentored young girls of color from disadvantaged backgrounds. Sewell also recognizes the importance of having women in leadership positions:

“I know that when women are at the table, issues of families and children really get decided and discussed… Just watching the health care debate, and the fact that the Stupak amendment got defeated is a very good example of how having effective women legislators in Congress makes a difference.”

And in Alabama, electing a woman to office is especially significant. Alabama is ranked 48th in the nation for the number of women in public office, and if elected, Sewell would be the first woman ever elected to Congress from the state. Shelia Smoot, Sewell’s opponent in the Democratic runoff, is also a talented African American woman who supports women’s rights, and its reassuring to know that, either way, Alabama voters are likely to make history this November. However, Sewell has proven throughout her campaign—and professional career—that she has the knowledge, skills, and courage to stand up for her constituents and her ideals.

Let’s wish Sewell the best of luck in her runoff on Tuesday, July 13, and celebrate the shattering of another glass ceiling in Alabama!

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

Throughout the first few days of hearings to confirm Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the next Supreme Court Justice, the women on the Judiciary Committee, Senators Amy Klobuchar and Dianne Feinstein, have repeatedly brought up Kagan’s gender as a reason to support her nomination.

Eva Rodriguez at the Washington Post asked her readers yesterday whether this was appropriate—or necessary.

“Yes, Kagan was the first woman to serve as dean of Harvard Law School. Yes, she broke the glass ceiling to become the first female solicitor general of the United States. So what? Would anyone on the panel have praised a white, male nominee for being a great role model for young men? I seriously doubt it.”

While I admire Rodriguez’s perspective that women no longer need to fight to get access to the same opportunities as men, I can’t help but think we’re not there yet. As Sen. Feinstein noted during the hearings, recent cases such as Ledbetter prove that women still make less money than men—decades after women began to challenge the status quo.

And women are still seriously underrepresented in government, making up only 17% of Congress. Yes, we have made progress. But that does not mean that women have won the war.

Rodriguez also claimed that Kagan has not received special attention because of her gender as she has risen in political life.

“I was pleased that little attention was paid to the fact that she is a woman when she was nominated as solicitor general and then to the Supreme Court.”

Clearly, Rodriguez wasn’t taking into consideration the sexist attacks on Kagan’s appearance, sexual orientation, and marital status since President Obama announced his selection. Indeed, the question should not be whether male nominees would be described as role models for young men—but whether a man would be questioned about his sexual preferences just because he has chosen not marry.

I think we should all hope—and work to create—the world that Rodriguez described. But we’re just not there yet. Three women on a Court of nine Justices is not equal representation. And the cases heard by the Supreme Court have an enormous impact on the day-to-day lives of American women. Protecting women’s reproductive health choices and fighting for pay equity are not issues that men in government have often prioritized.

So yes, it does matter that Solicitor General Kagan is a woman, because she will set a good example for young women, make one more crack in the glass ceiling, and bring her unique knowledge and experiences to the Court.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

Yesterday marked the beginning of Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s confirmation process to become the next Justice of the Supreme Court. Despite her high office in the U.S. government and extensive legal experience, the fact that Kagan is a progressive woman has attracted a great deal of controversy—leading social conservatives to criticize her lack of judicial experience, appearance, and position on women’s reproductive rights.

Sound familiar? The eminently qualified Sonia Sotomayor was questioned about her experience as well. But in fact, many of the most famous and well-respected Justices were not judges before being appointed to the Court. Senator Dianne Feinstein defended Kagan by reminding the Senate Judiciary Committee that:

“The Roberts court is the first to be comprised entirely of former federal Court of Appeals judges.”

On Monday, through thinly veiled compliments about her academic expertise, social conservatives on the Committee hinted at the type of issues they will try to use to block her nomination. One of the major criticisms leveled at Kagan involved her history of involvement with political issues—AKA, Judicial Activism.

But let’s remember how social conservatives approved countless politically-minded judges while President Bush was in charge of the nominations—but now that progressives have an opportunity to simply maintain the balance of the Court—activism is considered a major issue. As Senator Chuck Schumer eloquently put it:

“Judicial activism now has a new guise—activism to pull our country to the right.”

And one of the issues that the right is most ardently concerned with is that of a woman’s right to make her own health choices. In fact, there were anti-choice protesters outside of Kagan’s hearings yesterday—and conservative Senators frequently alluded to their fear that Kagan would uphold Roe v. Wade.

But despite their supposed fear of judicial activism, these anti-choice politicians would most likely celebrate the active upheaval of the 30 years of jurisprudence that is a woman’s right to choose.

That is precisely why it’s so important that we have another woman on the Court. As Kagan said yesterday:

“I owe a debt of gratitude to two other living Justices. Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg paved the way for me and so many other women in my generation. Their pioneering lives have created boundless possibilities for women in the law.”

Their careers have also created opportunities for all American women. By standing up for the values that allow women to freely pursue careers and achieve equality, Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg have significantly affected countless women’s lives. Cases such as Ledbetter have proven that having women on the Court does matter, because their experiences and perspectives are different from the six male Justices.

With any luck, Kagan will soon be approved as the next woman who will fight for women’s equality and inspire others to follow in her path. Senator John Kerry described Kagan’s bipartisanship and equanimity, saying that Kagan is:

“The type of judge you would want if you weren’t sure what side you wanted to win.”

As we saw with Sotomayor, the hearings only heat up as we go along. But yesterday, Sen. Sessions called for more candor in the confirmation process—here at WCF, we agree. While Kagan herself has shown her commitment to thorough and open hearings, let’s hope that the Senators will do the same—these hearings should be about Kagan’s qualifications—and nothing else.

Ever since Sarah Palin declared herself a feminist and anti-choice conservative women began winning primaries across the country, there has been a debate raging about whether these women can be considered feminists.

I’ve made my position clear. Here at WCF, we love that more women are winning races. It helps create an environment where it’s normal for powerful women to hold leadership positions on both sides of the aisle.
I’m also glad to see that these women candidates are spurring a national debate over feminism. Allan Bradley at the Harvard Political Review commented on my Huffington Post piece after being on the Laura Ingraham Show, when I called Palin’s term of “Conservative Feminism” an oxymoron. Bradley writes:

“What Bennett should have written was, ‘We congratulate the women who have won these high-profile primaries in races across the country.  We hope that their obvious and sincere commitment to women’s freedom and equality will force them to re-evaluate their pro-life views.’”

I completely agree. In fact, that’s why after the many victories in the June 8 primaries, I wrote:

“Though some of these women don’t share WCF’s views on reproductive health choices, I am encouraged. This sudden deluge of victories has forced the country to stand up and take notice of women’s political power… That said, I want to ask these candidates one question: If elected, what will you do to advance women’s rights?”

While I understand that Bradley was not trying to defend conservative women’s definition of feminism, his uninformed criticism of women’s groups that are willing to fight for equality in all aspects of life, shows a clear bias. WCF is certainly not alone in stating that feminism is about more than just women succeeding in politics or business. That may be the end goal, but those of us who have been working in this field for years know that reproductive health choices are crucial to protecting opportunities for women to thrive.

Indeed, Bradley acknowledges at the beginning of his article that the outlook for the “Year of the Woman” is not nearly as positive as the news media would have us believe. There have already been a number of losses for women in the primary, and the vast majority of candidates in the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “Red to Blue” program are men.

Although there have been a few high-profile races in which women candidates have been victorious, the fact is that it is still incredibly difficult for women across this country. And I don’t just mean for women candidates—all women are affected by the laws passed that limit women’s freedoms. The more anti-choice, anti-woman candidates we elect—regardless of their gender, or whether they call themselves feminists—hurts American women.

Women’s groups around the country are being attacked for trying “take possession” of feminism. Actually, it was these organizations, like WCF (which has been around since 1974), that helped create and build on the concept of feminism, and are still working hard today to make that dream a reality. Feminist icon Gloria Steinem has even come out against the new conservative pseudo feminism:

“You can be a feminist who doesn’t agree with abortion, would never have an abortion, but you can’t be a feminist who says that other women can’t, and criminalizes abortion.”

Regardless of what the anti-choice movement would like to believe, feminism and reproductive rights go hand in hand. I’m excited about the women who won elections in the past month, and I hope that they keep winning. But I also hope that they will choose to use their new positions to work to help—and not limit—other women’s access to opportunities and success.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

With Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings set to start next week, the media has been buzzing about potential areas of weakness, conflict, and utilizing the sexist language that seems to be the accepted discourse around women in politics.

Surprisingly, previously rejected Supreme Court nominee, Robert Bork, has entered into the conversation. Bork, who was also serving as Solicitor General when he was nominated, faced one of the most controversial confirmation processes in U.S. history, and was ultimately rejected by the Senate because of his adamantly anti-choice stance.

And now it appears that Bork would like to make Kagan’s confirmation process just as contentious. Now working with the Americans United for Life to oppose Kagan, Bork claimed that:

“The one thing the republicans would gain by making an issue of the Kagan hearings is a little integrity for future battles…[they would lose] their reputation for rolling over any time a woman or a liberal is nominated.”

Clearly, anti-choice conservatives are determined to focus Kagan’s confirmation on the most controversial issue as possible. While Kagan has made clear her position on women’s reproductive health choices and maintaining the legal precedent set in Roe v. Wade, getting more women on the Supreme Court should not be isolated to a single issue.

Not only does Kagan have years of experience as U.S. Solicitor General, Dean of Harvard Law, and as a law clerk for Chief Justice Thurgood Marshall, there are also numerous documents released from her time in the Clinton White House—displaying her views and expertise on several topics.

I would hope that someone like Robert Bork—who endured a humiliating confirmation process despite his numerous qualifications—would not want to subject another talented candidate to the same experience. Indeed, Kagan herself has complimented Bork for his openness during his confirmation:

“Not since Bork has any nominee candidly discussed, or felt a need to discuss, his or her views and philosophy.”

Instead, Bork and his fellow social conservatives seem determined to keep another “woman” or “liberal” off the Supreme Court—at all costs. Despite this, the sitting members of the Court seem not to mind that Kagan has worked in politics, and in fact, even conservative members have come out on her side. Justice Scalia, one of the most right-wing members of the Court, recently said:

“. . . I am happy to see that this latest nominee is not a federal judge – and not a judge at all.”

Justices Kennedy and Stevens have also expressed their admiration for the Solicitor General. Considering these numerous endorsements by sitting members, a former President, and several previous Solicitors General, among others, it will be remarkable if the anti-choice, anti-woman movement succeeds in derailing her nomination. However, we can almost expect that they will turn the confirmation process into a misogynistic circus.

Already this year we’ve seen many examples of extraordinary women rejected by the Old Boys’ Club—and we don’t want to see that happen to Elena Kagan. The Supreme Court needs more women—and it needs more Justices who will fight for a woman’s right to make her own reproductive health choices.

Sexism has no place in politics or Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Get ready to stand up for Kagan as she starts her hearings on Monday!