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!

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.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Women hold only 17% of the seats on Congress.

With the health care debate raging now in the Senate, women’s health is on the potential chopping block. And as we saw with the anti-choice Stupak-Pitts amendment, our reproductive choices are being attacked.

Congresswomen have been leading the charge against such restrictions, but they can’t do it alone—17% isn’t strong enough to fully defend women’s health.

Women may only be a fraction of those in elected office, but they are over 50% of the population and deserve to have their health needs supported.

Women can’t shouldn’t be the only ones defending reproductive health.

Click here to tell your member of Congress that you oppose any amendment or bill that endangers women’s health and restricts their reproductive choices and options.

Welcome to the first day of the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearing races. Looking out at the track, it looks like they’re trying to round up a few anti-choice protesters. The Senators have reached the gate, they’re at the post. And…they’re off!

First out of the gate is Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, praising Sotomayor as an extraordinary woman and citing past hurdles of other minority nominees. He calls her a “justice for all America” and adds, “let no one demean this extraordinary woman.”

And now coming up quickly on the outside, Jeff Sessions (R-AL) opens up the Republican arguments against Sotomayor. We’re not seeing any new tricks here: he pulls out the empathy, “wise Latina,” and prejudice cards.

As we round the bend, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) calls Sotomayor a special woman who has overcome adversity, but is cut off by an anti-choice protester! Patrick Leahy takes swift action and has them removed.

Coming into the final stretch, we’ve got two Republicans neck and neck: Charles Grassley of Iowa and Jon Kyl from Arizona, once again citing Obama’s so-called “empathy standard.”

And coming up on the inside, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) fires back against the “judicial activist” argument, saying:

The term “activist” is only a “code word” they use to seek judges who will rule in ways they want. Says John Roberts and other “right-wing” judges are the ones who have disregarded precedent in making political rulings that always favor prosecutors and business interests.

And as the Senators cross the finish line of this first race, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) is interrupted by another anti-choice protester, but states that the court must take real life into account. He crosses the finish line and calls recent rulings “a triumph of ideology over common sense,” citing conservatives supporting strip-searches of high school girls.

The hearing now breaks for lunch, but stay tuned as this exciting week at the Sotomayor confirmation hearing races continues. Will Sonia Sotomayor receive the fair hearings that many have called for? Or will the opposition continue to use sexist and racist arguments against this experienced nominee?

And when did empathy become a bad word?

This post was submitted by Jamie Bence, one of WCF’s Summer 2009 Fellows.

Though we may not agree with Sarah Palin’s policies, her resignation draws attention to the frighteningly low number of female governors in the United States.  Out of fifty governors mansions across the country, just seven are occupied by women.  On July 23, when Palin’s resignation becomes official, that number will drop to six.

The all-time high for female governors was nine, when Palin was inaugurated in December 2006.  However, that peak lasted just over a year, ending when Kathleen Blanco left office as governor of Louisiana  in January 2008.

More than half of all states- 27- have never had a female governor.  That explains why just thirty-one women have served as governor in the United States history.  Once they are in office, they can expect to undergo far more scrutiny than their male counterparts.

Whether or not you support Sarah Palin, its time for those numbers to change.  Do you know a woman who should be in office?  Tell her She Should Run.

One of the big stories this week has been around anti-choice conservatives blocking confirmation of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). She has over 20 years of experience and has been elected in Kansas four times - yet once again, anti-choice dogma is getting in the way of progress. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) delayed the vote yesterday.

WCF PAC endorsed candidate Jennifer Brunner spoke up in support of Sebelius today:

“We must ask ourselves-why is her nomination being stalled? She is an expert on health policy, a strong advocate for health care reform and has a proven track record of increasing access to affordable care. She has a solid record of supporting common-sense prevention policies that help keep families healthy. And she has an impressive record of supporting a woman’s right to choose.”

Take action here to tell the Senate to confirm Sebelius by April 30th.

And to paraphrase John Stewart responding to the GOP’s recent objections over, oh, just about everything: you’re not in power anymore. It’s not supposed to feel good. This is what happens when we have pro-choice leadership.

Speaking of pro-choice victories - the FDA approved over-the-counter Plan B access to 17 year-olds. This is a big step in the fight to put science and women’s health before politics.

Amidst the Plan B and Sebelius chatter, we also learned that Ellen Moran decided to step down from her White House Communications Director position. Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post wrote an interesting article about what this means, and doesn’t mean.

And to leave you on a high note before the weekend, check out Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s remarks about reproductive rights in her congressional testimony yesterday. As TAPPED, The American Prospect’s blog says: this is what a feminist secretary of state looks like. Love it.