Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Caitlin O’Brien, WCF Development Fellow

It has been a long and tiring year for health care legislation. And just when we thought the Senate bill would make its way to President Obama’s desk for signing, the Stupak Amendment rears its ugly head, once again.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) announced yesterday that he will vote against the Senate health care bill with its current reproductive rights language—which, by the way, already makes it nearly impossible for insurance companies to provide abortion coverage. He, along with 11 other members of Congress, has vowed not to back down on his anti-choice decision. But guess what? Neither will we.

And by ‘we’ I really mean ‘the American people.’

In a recent study done by the Women’s Donor Network, 56% of the American public agreed that people should be allowed to buy plans that cover abortion even if they bought said plan with partial government subsidies.

What’s more, 47% of people said that the reproductive rights debate should not keep us from passing important health care legislation.

So, when Congressman Stupak claims that this is what the American people want, he is flat out lying. What the people want is a more thorough conversation on reproductive health issues. In the same Women’s Donor Network study, 89% of the American public agreed that,

“There is a much broader discussion that needs to happen that includes issues such as birth control, comprehensive sex education, maternal health and childbirth issues.”

Interestingly enough, this same poll suggests that over 40% of people would not be pleased with their member of Congress if they voted a piece of legislation like the Stupak Amendment through. But Rep. Stupak and his band of loyal followers are so determined to restrict a woman’s control over her own body that they think it’s worth risking their congressional careers.

Even if health care is passed without Stupak’s own brand of anti-choice language, it is possible that the Congressman will attempt to pass a separate piece of restrictive legislation.

So this is where you come in. We need to band together to make sure that Stupak does not have the opportunity to pass a piece of legislation that is not only oppressive, but unpopular. Vanessa at Feminsting.com makes a compelling call for action:

Someone, anyone has got to be courageous here and call Stupak out on exactly what he’s trying to do: use health care reform as a vehicle to make abortion even more difficult and more inaccessible than it already is for millions of women. If no one does, we may have ourselves a brand, spanking new restriction to access on our hands.

Here is a list of the 11 ‘no’ voters on the health care bill. Flood their inboxes, overflow their mailbox, and ring their phones right off of their hooks. Urge them to reconsider their vote on health care and their position on reproductive justice:

Joe Cao (R-LA)
Jerry Costello (D-IL)
Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Steve Dreihaus (D-OH)
Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Dale Kildee (D-MI)
Dan Lipinski (D-IL)
Jim Oberstar (D-MN)
Charlie Wilson (D-OH)

Also take action via NARAL Pro-Choice America by MIDNIGHT Sunday. Enough is enough!

As if Focus on the Family’s Super Bowl ad hasn’t already sparked harsh criticism and anger, they decided to go ahead and double down.

Yes, the extreme anti-choice group has produced yet another commercial gem, which will be aired…wait for it…four times during the pregame show.

So now we don’t even have a chance to heat up our queso before having anti-choice rhetoric shoved down our throats.

I find the outright bias and audacity of CBS hard to put into words. Despite my frustration, I find myself laughing at this scenario, as it is truly ridiculous that such a hateful and divisive group is airing five ads during the most-watched sporting event of the year. Five.

Not to mention that it turns out CBS has been in bed with this group for months—helping with the writing of the ad to ensure it was approved for air. Beautiful.

And now, the latest pièce de résistance: “In fitting with the Super Bowl theme, the ad was made with a bit of humor in it,” says Focus on the Family CEO Jim Daly.

I’m sorry, what? Let me repeat that. The organization that founds itself on the sanctity of human life and wholesome family values has produced a humorous commercial about abortion.

And again, I say—can you even imagine the backlash that would occur if Planned Parenthood were to produce a humorous ad about abortion…how pro-choice supporters would be called unfeeling, cruel, and soulless baby haters?

Never before have I seen such a blatant double standard. Never before have I wanted nothing more than to walk into a TV Executive’s office and scream at the top of my lungs.

How has the anti-choice, anti-woman movement managed to hijack public discourse? How have we gotten to a place where their hurtful ideals are eagerly displayed to an audience of over 100 million people?

How did we get here? Studies show we have wide support for a person’s right to make their own personal, private health care decisions across this country. We have many pro-choice elected officials and activists.

But why, despite all this support, do I feel like we’re losing the battle and drowning in hateful ignorance? How do we win the fight back? How do we effectively speak out?

It seems we’re no match for corporate greed and wealthy socially conservative donors. Our voices can’t match their indoctrinating dogma and full wallets. But we must find a way. It just can’t be all about the money.

We must regain our ground in the fight for reproductive health freedoms. We have come too far to be hurled into a place where we have no control over our own bodies…where the public has no respect for women or reproductive rights.

How we get there, I don’t know. But I do know it has to start now, with people across the country in all levels of power. This means, especially, that we need to ensure the election of more pro-choice women to public leadership.

Because I’m here to tell you, Jim Daly, that there is nothing funny about abortion or your vicious campaign to control women. And there never will be.

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF Communications Fellow

In response to the Tim Tebow Focus on the Family Super Bowl ad set to air during this Sunday’s game, former professional football player Sean James and Olympic Gold Medalist Al Joyner created an emotionally-moving response. Their message? Trust women with their own choices.

James and Joyner applaud Mrs. Tebow for making her own decision about what to do with her pregnancy.

Now let’s take a look at Focus on Family’s ad. This 30-second commercial is said to feature Tim Tebow’s mother talking about her decision to not terminate her pregnancy against the suggestions of doctors when she fell ill in the Philippines. The child she was carrying is Tim Tebow, one of the most well-known college football players in the country. The ad is said to end with the statement, “celebrate family, celebrate life.”

Any advocate for women’s reproductive rights should be able to see the glaring similarities between the two ads: choice. Mrs. Tebow was presented with a choice about whether or not to continue her pregnancy. She wasn’t forced by anyone to make a decision either way. She was in charge of her own health care decision.

Of course, Focus on Family completely disregards the ironic fact of Mrs. Tebow’s choice. It seems the existence of a popular football player should be evidence enough that all women should continue their pregnancies, despite any danger to themselves.

The not-so-coincidental elimination of the fact that Ms. Tebow chose to keep her child and the statement at the end which links “family” and “life” to not having an abortion is Focus on Family’s attempt to insert their anti-choice and anti-woman agenda into the minds of the millions of people watching the game on Sunday.

What if Ms. Tebow had decided her life was too much at risk to continue her pregnancy? Or perhaps she did not feel that she had the financial means to support another child? The reality of the situation is that one in every three women will be faced with the dilemma of whether or not to have an abortion at some point in their lives.

These decisions belong in the hands of women, not the government or socially conservative religious groups.

TAKE ACTION TODAY: Stop CBS from airing the anti-choice and sexist advertisement during the Super bowl.

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF Communications Fellow

We all expect outrageous commercials during the Super Bowl. But CBS has taken sexist advertising to a whole new level by choosing to air an anti-choice ad sponsored by Focus on the Family.

Jehmu Greene, President of the Women’s Media Center (WMC), recently wrote a piece on Huffingon Post, which challenges CBS’ use of Super Bowl Sunday to promote their socially conservative agenda:

“Super Bowl advertising has always been a showcase of overt sexism. This year the biased barrage also includes CBS’s and the NFL’s decision to air a seemingly subtle ad highlighting college football star Tim Tebow’s story, sponsored by Focus on the Family, which aggressively works to strip women of medical choices. This decision should be seen as a referendum on the status of women in the media and marks the first time the Super Bowl will be used to push a polarizing, political agenda”.

Read the rest of Jehmu’s post here.

The Women’s Media Center has also simplified the reasoning behind why CBS should remove this ad in their Top 10 Reasons the NFL Should Tell CBS to Scrap the Ad .

Jehmu and WMC echo the voice of WCF and many other organizations in demanding that CBS to pull the ad and refrain from injecting Americans with anti-choice rhetoric during the Super Bowl.

Take action: join the Women’s Media Center and add your voice now!

In deciding to air a Focus on the Family ad during the Super Bowl, CBS executives have effectively outed themselves as anti-choice and anti-woman.

If CBS is trying to avoid controversial issues in Super Bowl commercials, I think it’s safe to say that they’ve failed miserably. Even putting aside the negative frenzy the ad has already caused, let’s remember that Focus on the Family is one of the most contentious, intolerant, and extreme organizations in existence.

Not to mention that reproductive rights is one of the most controversial and dividing issues of our time.

To approve an anti-choice spot and reject an ad for a male dating site (among their past rejections of progressive organizations) shows blatant hypocrisy and bias.

We can’t show two guys making out, but we can talk about abortion?

Defenders of CBS’ decision say yes—that despite its divisive and political message, the ad itself is positive and uncontroversial. Bill O’Reilly asks, how can anyone be offended about Tim Tebow being alive?

But now I have to ask: What if a pro-choice ad had been submitted for the Super Bowl? What if it featured an uplifting story like Tim Tebow’s?

Picture this: Fade in. Moving music plays. Video of children playing. A woman talks about how happy she is that the birth control pill was available to her. She wanted to make sure she became a mother when she was ready. Because of her ability to make that choice, she now has two children who she’s fully able to support. End on picture of happy family. Fade out.

And what if this ad was for Planned Parenthood or National Abortion Federation? Something tells me CBS wouldn’t approve their message to over 100 million Super Bowl viewers. And I don’t think Bill O’Reilly would deem this a “positive message.”

It seems both are making this decision solely based on the ad—not its message, political connotation, or extremely divisive views of the creating organization.

Many organizations, including WCF, are demanding that CBS pull the ad.

TAKE ACTION: Join the Women’s Media Center and add your voice now!

The issue of women’s reproductive health belongs in doctors’ offices, family discussions, and women’s hands.

It doesn’t belong in our government or with politicians. And it most certainly doesn’t belong in the Super Bowl.

Thank heavens for women like Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.

Another long-time advocate for women’s rights, WCF-endorsed Sen. Gillibrand spoke out against the Stupak-Pitts amendment—separating fact from fiction.

Gillibrand pointed out, as so many other have, that this amendment would implement dangerous and sweeping change to women’s access to reproductive care. The idea that it is simply a continuation of current federal law is “simply false.”

“It establishes for the very first time restrictions on people who pay for their own private health insurance. This is not partisan spin, this is fact.”

Echoing Boxer’s sentiments from yesterday, Gillibrand said, “This is not the time nor the place to instigate a new battle over reproductive rights and reproductive freedoms.” Gillibrand also pointed out the hypocrisy in anti-big government advocates wanting to restrict women’s health options:

“This is government invading the personal lives of Americans and it puts the health of women and young girls at grave risk.”

On the subject of women having the option to purchase a separate rider for full reproductive health care, Gillibrand said it’s not only discriminatory, but it’s ridiculous. She also pointed out that the amendment would disproportionately affect low-income women, as is usually the case:

“The Stupak-Pitts measure poses greater restrictions on low-income women and those who are more likely to receive some kind of subsidy and less likely to be able to afford a supplemental insurance policy. Denying low-income women reproductive coverage in this way is not only discriminatory, but it is dangerous.”

In her closing remarks, Gillibrand said, “Women and girls in America deserve better.” Yes they do.

Thank you Sen. Gillibrand and Sen. Boxer for standing up to these atrocious attacks on our reproductive health choices. You are shining examples of why we so desperately need more women in public office.

So, ladies—how does it feel underneath the Senate bus? I don’t know about you, but I still have tire marks on my face from Stupak-Pitts running me over.

As we feared, another attack on women’s reproductive health choices was launched last night by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE). His amendment mirrors that of the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which was shamefully passed in the House health care bill.

Leading the opposition against this assault on choice was Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA). She summed it up perfectly when saying, “This amendment would be the biggest roll-back to a woman’s right to choose in decades. What have women ever done to deserve this punishment and lack of respect?”

Boxer also pointed out that we didn’t ask for this fight, we don’t want this fight, and this amendment is an unfair attack against women:

“We believe it is discriminatory to single out a procedure that only women can utilize, and say to the women of this nation, ‘Oh by the way, yes, this is a legal procedure but you can’t use your own private funds.’”

And perhaps my favorite point she made last night pointed out the insane disparity between men and women’s insurance coverage—men can get Viagra but women can’t get reproductive health services?

“The men who brought us this don’t single out a procedure that’s used by a man or a drug that is used by a man that involves his reproductive health care.”

“There’s nothing in this amendment that says if a man someday wants to buy Viagra, for example, that if his pharmaceutical coverage could not cover it, that he has to buy a rider - I wouldn’t support that. And they shouldn’t support going after a woman using her own private funds for her reproductive health care.”

“I support a man’s privacy just as I support a woman’s privacy.”

And again, I find myself asking the question, “Would we even be having this discussion if we had more women in Congress?” I don’t think so.

But until we have equality, we have to support the amazing women leaders we do have in the House and Senate. We cannot let these attacks on our reproductive health stand.

Because I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of being thrown under the bus.