Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

Today, Kansas State Senator Jean Schodorf faces a tough primary for the Republican nomination for the 4th Congressional District. After months of dirty campaigning between most of the Republican candidates, an extreme anti-choice, anti-woman group has now inserted itself into the debate.

Common Sense Issues, a radical conservative group focused on limiting personal freedom—especially for women—produced radio and TV ads that attacked Schodorf and Hartman. The ads suggest violent threats toward the two politicians because they do not represent Common Sense Issues’ idea of what a Republican should be. Namely, Schodorf was criticized by the group for her commitment to women’s rights—and her refusal to sign a made-up petition that would ban public funding for abortion.

These ads, of course, completely ignore Schodorf’s many qualifications for public office. In her third term as State Senator, she has quickly become a leader in the Ways and Means Committee, fighting for the fiscal conservatism that is central to the Republican platform. In addition, she has earned the endorsement of the United States’ first elected female Senator, Nancy Kassebaum Baker. Kassebaum, a fellow Republican woman from Kansas, indicated that she chose to support Schodorf because:

“The ability to collaborate with members of Congress from both political parties has always been a key to successful and effective legislation… [Schodorf] has demonstrated strong leadership on intricate education and budget issues, particularly the ability to negotiate with all factions on an issue to solve real problems with real solutions.”

Kassebaum, an icon for female politicians, knows firsthand why we need more women in government. Specifically, Kansas needs more women: The state legislature is only 29.7% women, and only one of the state’s six federal offices is filled by a woman.

These statistics make it even more upsetting that special interests would use violence and anti-choice rhetoric to threaten a female candidate. Perhaps Common Sense Issues is concerned that a strong, conservative candidate would also choose to stand up for women’s rights in addition to Republican policy priorities.

Certainly, the voters seemed to have noticed that Schodorf is committed to the interests of the 4th district. In recent polls, Schodorf has been edging up on Pompeo. According to SurveyUSA:

“If Schodorf can motivate her base of more moderate, pro-choice Republicans to vote, Schodorf may ride her wave of momentum to victory when votes are counted.”

Schodorf is a competent leader with proven political experience—who is not afraid to stand up for women. Here at WCF, we’re hoping that voters will make their choice based on the candidate’s credentials, and not an advertisement aimed at taking away the rights of women.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communcations Fellow

This November, women in American politics have the opportunity to break yet another glass ceiling. According to the Center for American Women and Politics, eight states have the potential to elect their first female governor ever. 26 states have never had a female governor, and, currently, there are only six women serving as governors in the entire country. These statistics, in conjunction with women’s 17% representation in Congress, paint a dismal picture of women’s participation in the political system.

In many ways, women’s representation at the state level is actually more important than at the federal level. While Senators and Congresswomen tend to make more impressive role models, state legislators and governors often have more impact on women’s day-to-day lives. Indeed, Governor Charlie Crist’s brave decision last month to veto a bill that would require pre-abortion ultrasounds is just one example of governors providing the first line of defense for women’s rights. Here at WCF, we work to elect women up and down the ticket to ensure that state legislatures and governments are also filled with female candidates that are willing to fight for women.

But there’s another reason why we’re working to get more women into governors’ mansions. In fact, over half of the U.S. presidents elected in the 20th century were former governors. The executive and leadership experience that governors gain while serving in the highest state office is invaluable—and is seen as the path to the presidency. If we someday hope to elect a female president, we have to work today to secure female governors.

And it appears that 2011 could be a groundbreaking year for women governors. In addition to the eight states that may elect their first female governors, two of the sitting governors don’t face re-election this cycle, and another ten states have female candidates, many of which look to be likely winners in November. If elected, these women will beat the 2004 and 2006 record of nine sitting female governors.

Here at WCF, we’ve endorsed five of these outstanding women: Libby Mitchell (ME), Margaret Anderson Kelliher (MN), Diane Denish (NM), Deb Markowitz (VT), and sitting Governor Bev Purdue (NC). We’re also supporting Linda Chavez-Thompson and Yvette McGee Brown who are hoping to become Lieutenant Governors, a great stepping-stone to governor and beyond.

While we’re thrilled that so many women are taking a chance and choosing to run for office, it’s a shame that WCF cannot endorse every woman who chooses to run for governor. We’ve selected these candidates because they’ve shown their commitment to promoting women’s rights, through their political, professional, and personal lives.

It’s fantastic to see that progress is being made in state legislatures, governor’s offices and at the federal level. But perhaps we shouldn’t be so eager to celebrate the fact that women have the potential to make up—at most—24% of the nation’s governors in 2011. We’ll continue to do our best to elect our talented women candidates—but we all need to work harder to show how much we want and need more women in government.

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.

In case you didn’t think that the 2010 elections won’t be important, and that anti-choice forces wouldn’t pull out all the stops to unseat candidates who support healthcare reform and reproductive choices…

…enter the firey devil version of Speaker Pelosi. Yes, over one million dollars has been raised using a photoshopped image of our House Speaker with flames in the background. Let me also point out that the ridiculous amount of wrinkles added to her face is especially classy.

So out of all the other people they could have chosen to attack, they chose the woman. Shocking.

As Christina Ballantoni from TPM points out, their PollTracker shows that Pelosi is more popular than Republican Minority Leaders in the House and Senate. She also mentions,

“Pelosi, on the other hand, has a wide fan base being the first female speaker in history. What’s more is the GOP has attempted to demonize Pelosi for the last two election cycles to little benefit.”

And here’s a little gem from GOP pollster Wes Anderson:

“The only other person voters are as concerned about is President Obama. They find she shares his ideology but not his charm.”

Ah, yes. We can’t have a female leader who lacks charm! That must means she’s a devil woman worthy of being juxtaposed with evil flames!

What’s really sad here is that this over-the-top tact really works on social conservatives, since they have a tendency to embrace sexist stereotypes and reject powerful female leaders.

Make no mistake about it, folks—this November will be a knock down, drag out battle to protect pro-choice seats and defend against vitriolic attempts to elect more anti-reproductive rights candidates.

The time has never been more vital to ensure more female candidates are elected to protect women’s health and increase our voices at the decision-making table.

We’ve said it for a long time: We need more women in government who will fight the constant efforts of the far right to endanger women’s health, safety, and freedom. The Utah state legislature’s recent attempt to make miscarriage equivalent to criminal homicide is a particularly heinous example.

Under the original bill, which passed in the state legislature, a woman who suffered a miscarriage due to “intentional or reckless behavior” could be punished with life in prison. It should come as no surprise that the bill’s original sponsor, State Rep. Carl Wimmer, is male.

A woman might know that 15% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage for a number of reasons. She would also immediately see that the vagueness of “reckless behavior” could trigger a miscarriage-witch-hunt, and send us back to a time when pregnant women were considered invalids and barely allowed to leave home.

The bill came about as an extreme reaction to the case of a 17 year-old woman who paid a man to beat her in order to induce a miscarriage. A woman legislator would likely understand that the right reaction here is not to conflate the actions of one desperate young woman with a criminal homicide law that would affect all Utah women.

The right reaction would be to look at the underlying causes of this sad case: Why did this young woman feel so trapped? Why wasn’t there a safety net or support system for her? If she needed to end her pregnancy, why couldn’t she procure a safe, legal abortion? Perhaps Utah’s restrictive parental consent laws, 24-hour reflection period, and lack of abortion providers in 93% of its counties led this young woman to put her own life in danger.

Thanks in part to the vehement criticism of women across the country, Utah’s governor sent the bill back to the legislature for revisions, without signing or vetoing it. But the fight doesn’t end here: Across the country similar fetal homicide bills are being used in an insidious attempt to chip away at reproductive rights. These types of bills endanger and wrongly punish women. We need more women in government who will understand this, and fight back.

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 weekend, the House narrowly passed a health care reform bill after delivering a huge blow to women’s reproductive health in the Stupak amendment—thus demonstrating again how badly we need more women in power.

According to NARAL Pro-Choice America:

“The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system — a radical departure from the status quo.”

As Feministing points out, we thought it was clear “that reproductive health care is essential health care.”

But apparently not, because the Stupak amendment passed 240-194. How many women voted for it? 19. (2 Dems, all Repubicans). Allow me to do a little math:

Out of 435 members, we currently have only 73 women in the House. We should have 217.5. (OK, round that up to 218 I suppose). So, that means we need 145 more women to make it equal.

What do you suppose would happen with the anti-choice, anti-woman Stupak amendment if we had gender equality in Congress for this vote?

I dare to say that not only would it be defeated—it wouldn’t have even a whisper of a wish of passing. (That is, if it was even introduced at all).

Like many women around the country today, I’m feeling very bittersweet about the health care bill passing. Of course we need health care reform, but it shouldn’t have to come at the cost of rolling back our reproductive choices.

Sure, the Stupak amendment could be stripped out by the conference committee, but how many women will be part of that decision-making process? Most likely, not nearly enough.