Women and Politics

In the past two decades, I’ve often found myself asking, “Where are all the pro-choice Republican women?”

But today, despite her second place finish in the GOP primary for Congress in KS-04, I’m inspired by Jean Kurtis Schodorf’s dedication to public service and record of defending women’s reproductive health choices. And as always, I want to thank Schodorf for running for higher office, and encourage her to run again - because we only lose when women don’t run.

In her near decade of service as a State Senator and 12 years as a school board member, Schodorf has proven her commitment to both traditional Republican values and women’s rights.

While pushing for fiscal responsibility and responsible governance, she simultaneously defended women in the Kansas Legislature by opposing legislation to limit women’s access to comprehensive sexual healthcare. This past July, Schodorf received the Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice Barry Goldwater Award for her efforts in supporting and protecting women’s health.

Unfortunately, Schodorf has become a rarity in today’s political climate. Since the GOP’s platform turned extremely anti-choice in 1992, the number of Republican women candidates who support the entire spectrum of reproductive health choices (publicly) has dwindled drastically.

Before this, organizations like WCF were able to endorse Republicans and Democrats alike–and neither was more difficult to come by.

But as we know by today’s divisive environment, defense of choice has become an almost absolutely unacceptable quality in a Republican candidate–as we saw last year with Dede Scozzafava in NY-23.

Schodorf should serve as a role model for all women public servants–but especially for those Republicans courageous enough to challenge the party’s anti-choice tenets and stand up for women’s rights.

Schodorf is also an inspiration for mothers serving in public office. A mother of three, Schodorf served on the Wichita School Board for 12 years and is now serving her third term in the Kansas State Senate–supporting women’s reproductive health choices all the while. Now that’s my kind of Mama Grizzly.

Women’s health should not be a divisive issue in party politics. We need more candidates like Schodorf who are willing to make a difference by fighting for what is right, no matter what adversity they may face because of it. I commend Schodorf on being such a strong, persistent, and inspiring leader, and look forward to supporting her throughout the entirety of her public life.

I’ll also continue to encourage more women–from both parties–to follow her example.

Crossposted from the Huffington Post.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

In 2009, our political team at WCF identified Beth Krom, the former Mayor of Irvine, California, and current City Councilwoman, as a promising candidate for California’s 48th district. WCF endorsed her candidacy early on, and we’ve been helping her gain national attention ever since. This morning, we were thrilled to hear that Krom was named Democracy for America’s Grassroots All-Star.

Here at WCF, we’ve fought for Krom because she is committed to the advancement of women in leadership, and has proven to be a strong and capable representative of Irvine’s interests. During her tenure as Mayor, Irvine was named the “Safest City in America” four times, and also as one of the “Greenest Cities in America.” Running in a Republican area, Krom has won the past five elections in which she has participated, showing that she knows what it takes to run an effective campaign.

As a former teacher, business owner, volunteer, and mother, Krom’s political and life experience is well suited to address the complex needs of her constituents. While we’ve known all along that Krom has what it takes to be a great leader, this impressive victory shows that she has the grassroots support necessary to provide a tough challenge to the incumbent, John Campbell.

John Campbell is one of the most anti-woman candidates currently serving in Congress. In a recent blog post, he suggested eliminating family planning funding under Title X, and his votes speak for themselves: against equal pay for women and for employee discrimination.  Although Republicans have historically held this seat, Krom has what it takes to convince Orange County that she’s the right choice.

Krom has already convinced numerous organizations across the country that she’ll fight for what matters. In addition to WCF, she’s received endorsements from the American Federation of Teachers, Human Rights Campaign, National Organization for Women, Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, and National Women’s Political Caucus. And most recently, Krom convinced the over 66,000 voters in DFA’s Grassroots All-Star Competition that she has the most effective team on-the-ground to fight for progressive leadership in Congress.

DFA Chair, Jim Dean, shared his impressions of Krom’s campaign:

”She has 300 volunteers on the ground (many of them local DFA members) who are door knocking, phone banking, and helping get her message out to the district. She also has city leaders who support her and volunteer to coordinate community events. These leaders have helped ensure Beth reaches each and every community throughout the district.”

Krom’s ability to reach out to her community and her strong record in California are major reasons why WCF has supported her for so long. We’re glad to see that more national organizations are getting on board, and we’ll keep fighting for her until November—and beyond!

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

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!

This week in Oklahoma, two radical anti-choice laws were passed by the legislature over the Governor’s veto—and the collective outcry of women across the country. These shocking laws invade women’s privacy and clearly violate medical ethics.

And they would never have passed if Oklahoma had more women in their state government.

Oklahoma ranks 49th in the nation for women’s representation in their State Legislature. There are only 12 women serving out of 149 Oklahoma State Representatives and Senators. These numbers make even the paltry representation of women in U.S. Congress seem progressive.

With only 12 female voices in the state government, what hope did women in Oklahoma have that their human right to responsible medical care would be respected?

The first of these laws is a classic move from the anti-choice playbook. Women seeking an abortion in Oklahoma not only have to undergo an invasive ultrasound, they must also listen to a coercive lecture on the fetus’s development. If the pregnancy is still in the earliest stages, the ultrasound must be performed vaginally, which is an intrusive and often painful procedure. No exception is made for survivors of rape or incest. Laws like this do not educate: They only try to shame women, put up barriers to choice, and impinge upon a doctor’s discretion as to the best ways to inform her patients.

The next law is even more horrifying: Doctors in Oklahoma are now protected from malpractice suits if they withhold information about fetal birth defects from their patients.

Let me repeat that: A doctor can lie to a patient and purposefully withhold life-changing medical facts with NO repercussions. According to the state legislature, women in Oklahoma cannot be trusted to make their own medical decisions, and they must be subject to the personal beliefs of their doctors. This law is medically and morally unethical in the extreme.

Would it be acceptable for a doctor to withhold information from a patient in any other setting? Why do pregnant women lose their human rights? I stand with Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry, who said,

“It is unconscionable to grant a physician legal protection to mislead or misinform pregnant women in an effort to impose his or her personal beliefs on a patient.”

It’s crystal clear that women cannot expect anyone else to defend our rights: We must stand up and represent ourselves. Changing the political climate in Oklahoma will start with ensuring that a critical mass of women are on the ballot each election year. Only when women have equality in public office will our voices be heard over the din of politics as usual.