Women and Politics

This post was written by WCF Fellow, Stephanie Glover

Yesterday, the Senate struck back in defense of women’s health. 54 senators voted to defeat the Nelson-Hatch Amendment to the health care bill—this bill paralleled the Stupak-Pitts Amendment in the House, which seeks to dramatically decrease the availability and affordability of reproductive health care.

A big shout out goes out to all the women of the Senate who worked so hard to defeat this measure. Women in the Senate voted overwhelmingly to reject the amendment—of the 17 female Senators, only two voted for the anti-choice measure. As you remember, earlier this week we heard Senators Boxer and Gillibrand make impassioned speeches in support of women’s health and against this egregious measure. Courageously, Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins crossed party lines as the only two Republicans to vote in support of women’s health.

Last week, we attended a rally on Capitol Hill where many members of Congress spoke in favor of women’s reproductive choices. Yesterday, the Senate responded to our demands for comprehensive health care reform. They signaled to the nation that women’s rights are worth fighting for and that good health care includes women.

Despite this promising vote, the outcome of health care reform remains uncertain. The Senate still has to vote on the overall bill (no date set yet) and once this is done the House and Senate must agree on a conference report that reflects the two bills. So, the fights not over. The status of women’s health under the new reforms could still remain in jeopardy! Take action: sign our petition, call your senators, and stand in support of women. Stupak-Pitts by any other name is still an affront to women’s rights.

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.

Thanks to Jessica Wakeman at The Frisky for reporting this story! It seems Carly Fiorina, who recently announced her intention to run against Barbara Boxer for her Senate seat in California, has already begun her attacks.

Disappointingly, her first jab at Boxer involves gender and isn’t based on any real issues:

“Barbara Boxer … disrespectfully demanded a Brigadier General refer to her as “Senator” instead of “ma’am” during a recent Senate hearing. I’m sure you’ll agree that Boxer’s arrogance and disrespect for our nation’s military leaders is way out of line.”

Fiorina was referring to the way blown-out-of-proportion “incident” where Sen. Boxer asked to be referred to as Senator instead of Ma’am. I hate to see another woman attacking Boxer for making a perfectly appropriate request, which wouldn’t have been an issue if it had come from a man.

While I should be psyched to see a Senatorial race between two women, it almost makes me want to jump into a hole and pull the hole in after me. I envision the dialogue becoming sexist and, of course, being spun as some kind of “political cat fight” by the media.

I truly hope this won’t be the case. I hope these female candidates will stick to the issues and have an intellectual debate, not sinking to cheap or gender-based attacks. (Especially since Fiorina spoke out against the sexism Palin experienced last election cycle).

But this preliminary comment doesn’t bode well for that scenario. And even if the candidates leave gender alone, we all know the media will be there to make the sexist remarks for everyone. Batten down the hatches, folks—this should be an interesting race.

Though I almost hate to draw more attention to this story, I think the recent “controversy” over Sen. Barbara Boxer needs to be discussed. Boxer has been slammed for requesting to be referred to as “Senator” as opposed to “Ma’am” during a Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing.

Now, Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh was just following military protocol when addressing Sen. Boxer as “Ma’am.” No biggie, Boxer simply asked that he use her official title, Senator. Had a male Senator made the same request (if he had been called “Sir,” let’s say), it wouldn’t be given a second thought - let alone become a controversy.

However, certain political figures, blogs, and news outlets have attacked Boxer’s request as “dressing down” the officer, having a big ego, being a “loose cannon,” despising the military, an embarrassment, and (putting it nicely) being uppity. The National Republican Senatorial Committee called it disrespectful and even went so far as to collect petition signatures reprimanding Boxer. Really? This is what we’re focusing our time on?

Many have come to the defense of Sen. Boxer, pointing out that her request was respectful and not out of line. And more importantly, Gen. Walsh told Sen. Boxer directly that he wasn’t offended by her request. Blogger Lindsay Beyerstein reminds us that the Senator was questioning someone testifying before her:

It’s irrelevant whether the general was wrong to call her ma’am, or whether Boxer was being polite. It’s not a Senator’s job to be polite when she questions witnesses, that is, unless politeness suits her purposes.

I think this serves as a reminder that, yes - sexism in politics is alive and well. Women face different and greater challenges while running for and serving in office simply because of their gender. They’re openly criticized for things that men never would be, and are forced to defend themselves against often undeserved assault. This can be a difficult hurdle for women to jump while entering or engaging in public life.

Whenever something like this happens, I think we need to ask: would people have the same reaction if she were a man? I think you’ll find the answer is overwhelmingly no.