Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Rebecca Freedholm, WCF Communications Fellow

Although recent polls suggest that Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina is garnering support rivaling that of incumbent Barbara Boxer, Fiorina’s anti-woman beliefs may ultimately thwart her endeavors towards becoming a California representative.

Fiorina remains staunchly opposed to a woman’s right to choose, and threatens to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. This strong resistance to women’s reproductive health choices, however, does not sit well with the vast majority of the people she seeks to represent:

“A full 71 percent of Californians favor either keeping the state’s liberal abortion laws intact or making abortion easier to obtain, according to new data from the Field Poll. The same percentage said they support the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade.”

Although Fiorina’s spokeswoman Andrea Saul maintains that reproductive rights won’t be a significant issue for voters this year, she vastly underestimates the importance of choice to constituents. This issue is bound to be a huge hurdle for Fiorina “as she attempts to become the first anti-abortion candidate to win a California race at the top of the ticket since 1986.” California democrats are not the only ones who value reproductive health choices, a large percent of republican and independent voters do as well. Fiorina cannot adequately represent California when her beliefs are so intensely at odds with the majority of constituents.

If Fiorina continues to run an anti-woman campaign, she will likely end up isolating herself from California voters—especially female voters: “A Field Poll released in early July found that women prefer Boxer over Fiorina, 51 percent to 40 percent.” Strikingly this poll also indicates that among independent female voters, who offer a crucial pool of support for GOP candidates running for office in such a Democratic leaning state, “Boxer led Fiorina 49 percent to 35 percent.”

There’s no question as to why Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer is favored among California women; throughout her career, Boxer has remained deeply committed to women’s health care issues and has been unwavering in her mission to protect a woman’s right to choose. While Fiorina may be unwilling to stick up for the issues most important to Californians, Boxer has proven to be a representative who fights for the rights most valued by the California people. Boxer’s campaign manager, Rose Kapolczynski, put the situation into significant perspective when she begged the question,

“Are we going to have a senator who defends a woman’s right to choose when it’s under attack by the right wing, or a senator who will join forces with the most extreme anti-choice groups to try to make abortion a crime?”

Sen. Barbara Boxer understands the causes that her constituents care deeply about, and has valiantly fought to preserve the reproductive health care choices that many, including opponent Fiorina, seek to take away. At WCF, we commend Boxer’s efforts in upholding the values significant to Californians, and support her as she continues to be a wonderful representative of her state.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

In a recent attack ad, Carly Fiorina accused Senator Barbara Boxer of being an ineffectual representative, with her name on only three bills in the past 18 years. This prompted Rod Pennington to conclude that virtually all female Senators are essentially:

“Empty pants suits keeping chairs warm and taking orders from their male party leadership.”

I’m trying to figure out which Senate Rod Pennington and Carly Fiorina are watching. In the U.S. Senate, Barbara Boxer is the first female Chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and simultaneously, Chair of the Select Committee on Ethics, making her the only Senator in charge of two committees at the same time. Also, a quick online search reveals that, in the current Congress alone, Boxer’s name is on over 500 pieces of legislation, including an international effort to combat HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, and an important taxpayer protection amendment to the Wall Street Reform bill.

Despite Pennington’s claim that women take their direction from male power-brokers in the Senate, he seems to have forgotten that, in addition to Boxer, who serves as Chief Deputy Whip, Sens. Patty Murray, Blanche Lincoln and Debbie Stabenow all hold leadership positions. In fact, the 4-to-10 ratio among the majority leadership is actually much higher than the actual percentage of women in the Senate (17%)—showing that these women are excelling in their political careers.

The recent health care reform debate also made it clear why we need women in Congress. Senator Barbara Mikulski, a leading member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, played a key role in ensuring that women received equal treatment in insurance plans.

The Supreme Court’s rejection of Ledbetter shows why having women in Congress—and on the Court—is essential to promoting women’s equality. After Justice Ginsburg’s inspirational dissent, Congress quickly stepped up to remedy our unfair pay systems. Boxer was one of the first to co-sponsor the bill, and was soon followed by Sens. Debbie Stabenow, Olympia Snowe, Patty Murray, Barbara Mikulski, Claire McCaskill, Amy Klobuchar, Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton and Maria Cantwell. Although the final bill was not passed until 2009, it seems unlikely that we would have the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act today without the support of these influential women.

Last year, Sen. Boxer was named the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Human Rights, Democracy, and Global Women’s Issues. This is the first subcommittee to ever focus specifically on women’s issues, and I’m certain that Boxer’s many years of service on the Foreign Relations Committee were instrumental in its creation. In response to her appointment, she eloquently stated that:

“Too often, we turn our eyes away as women are persecuted, abused and treated as second-class citizens. But even the most conservative historians have noted that when women are given the freedom to live up to their full potential, society as a whole flourishes. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress and with Secretary Clinton to stamp out violence against women in the world.”

This is an observation that many men would never make. Just as it took Justice Ginsburg to point out that our pay systems were unequal, often we need women to be part of the conversation to show what men choose not to see. In his article, Pennington poses the question:

“Could it be political correctness and the desire to have a woman, any woman, in a high office is to blame?”

The women that I’ve come to respect and admire in the U.S. Senate have fought for women’s rights, equal opportunity, and justice for all. I’m very proud to have these 17 women in the U.S. Senate, and hope the rest of America doesn’t share Pennington’s ridiculous and archaic assertions.

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.