Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Bonnie O’Keefe, WCF Political Programs Associate

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.

On Friday, I had the pleasure of accompanying WCF President/CEO Sam Bennett to a taping of To the Contrary on PBS. The topics of the day were: healthcare reform and how it affects women, the retirement age increasing, and the recent Supreme Court ruling that the strip-search of the 13 year-old girl was illegal.

This all-female news analysis series is hosted by Bonnie Erbe - an exceptional journalist. Bonnie was honored by Women’s Media Center for her contribution to women in the media - a special and unusual honor since most journalistic awards are applied for - and this was just given.

Along with Sam, the panelists were: DC Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, The Heritage Foundation’s Genevieve Wood, and Former Labor Dept. Assistant Secretary Victoria Lipnic. It was an honor to meet Eleanor Holmes Norton - now in her tenth term as a DC Congresswoman, she’s a powerful leader for women. Appointed in 2002, Victoria has an impressive track record as a moderate Republican - a very difficult path to walk. And though we may not agree when it comes to issues of reproductive justice - in particular, taking the pro-choice language “choices” and using it to the opposite end - I was impressed by Genevieve’s articulate and gracious nature.

Though each had their own unique perspective on healthcare reform and women’s retirement trends, they all seemed to agree that the Supreme Court strip search ruling was correct. Sam stated that, ”We can’t have schools be Constitutional dead zones.” You can watch that special online segment here.

Bonnie asked the panel if healthcare reform would help or hurt women, which drew differing responses. Genevieve Wood feels that putting bureaucrats in charge of our health decisions would negatively impact women. (I would argue that this is exactly what anti-choice laws do).

The details of Obama’s proposed healthcare reform plan are still being ironed out, but Sam Bennett points out that it’s essential for women and our country that the system be fixed:

“We spend more on healthcare than any nation and yet are ranked 37th by the World Health Organization in quality of care delivered to its citizens. Women bear the brunt of this inequity and stand to benefit the most.”

Be sure to catch To the Contrary on PBS - women’s perspectives are so often overlooked, and this show raises them to the forefront of today’s important issues. We look forward to future opportunities to participate in this fabulous series.

This post was submitted by Julia Burke, one of WCF’s Summer 2009 Politics and Education Fellows.

Following the tragic murder of Dr. George Tiller less than two weeks ago, the debate over abortion – specifically the late-term abortions that Dr. Tiller provided – has reignited across the country. Earlier this week, we posted this article on our website. Writer Connie Schultz summarizes a few of the main arguments that have arisen since the murder and provides her perspective on the debate over government regulation of abortion – trust women. I was especially glad to see her apply this response to Ross Douthat’s June 8th article in the New York Times, “Not All Abortions are Equal.” Douthat argues that by returning the debate over abortion technicalities to the “democratic process,” we as a nation will somehow avert these “inflamed” cultural debates, which he clearly sees as unnecessary.

What Douthat fails to recognize is there is not and never will be a consensus within the abortion debate, especially with the many exceptional cases in which abortions are necessary. When this level of discord exists in a populace, how can a government decision possibly address all parties equally? Additionally, what is a “democratic process” without the input of public debate? (answer: undemocratic.)

In terms of democracy and government involvement with abortion, the only clear answer is that choice is a necessity for all women and should be guaranteed by the government. At WCF, we believe in choice for women, and are grateful to provide pro-choice women candidates the chance to bring their perspective to whichever office they seek.

Since the announcement of Justice David Souter’s retirement, everyone’s been buzzing about the question of the day: will President Obama nominate a woman to the bench? And should he?

Our answer? YES! And we’re not alone. Several top women’s organizations are urging the President to add another woman to the Supreme Court. Why? Here’s just some of the reasons why the Supreme Court needs another pro-reproductive justice woman:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is lonely. She’s the only woman on the nine-person Court.

The Supreme Court currently holds four anti-choice men.

Justice Souter stood on the side of women many times. His replacement should do the same.

Women constitute over 50% of our population - and only make up 17% of Congress and hold only one Supreme Court seat.

Roe v. Wade. Reproductive justice.

Obama’s pick will serve a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, affecting our country even beyond his presidency.

Equal representation of women in all levels and branches of our government is essential to the success and health of our nation.

WCF President/CEO, Sam Bennett, had this to say in reaction to Souter’s retirement:

“It is unacceptable that the United States currently ranks 72nd in the world for women holding elected office. America should serve as a leader in gender parity, instead of lagging behind.”

“President Obama has the chance to lead us into an era where women have equality in power and representation in the United States.”

Join us in asking President Obama to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court. The President has made strides toward gender parity in the women he’s chosen for his administration. Let’s keep the momentum going. It’s time to bring the assumption that most people in power are men to a screeching hault. The bench and our country need more women in power.

Women and politics is about a whole range of issues - energy, health care, education, the economy, national security, and, of course, choice.

Reproductive rights is unfortunately the most divisive issue we face, and ultimately turns into a debate over personal beliefs. However, as WCF president Sam Bennett points out, the decisions made over choice not only deeply affect the woman, but also have far-reaching effects on our society as a whole.

Sam appeared on Business Matters - a segment on WFMZ News in Allentown, PA. The question being answered by the panel of four (two pro-choice, two anti-choice) was “should tax money fund abortions“? Watch the video here.

Inevitably, the anti-choice panelists lead the conversation out of the economic angle and into their usual territory of personal opinion. But Sam was able to steer the topic back to the show’s original intent:

“All research shows that access to reproductive options is the single most important indicator across the world in indicating whether a country is going to be economically successful or not.”

Meanwhile, Michael Ciccocioppo of PA Pro-Life said that having taxpayer dollars fund abortion in any way was like a “bailout” for the “abortion industry.” Yet I’m almost positive he has no objection to our hard-earned money supporting failed abstinence-only programs or fake crisis pregnancy centers. Hmm. Deb Sieger of PA NOW wanted to know where the federal dollars for prevention are? Well said.

The comments on the Business Matters blog are reflective of the unchanging ideals of the anti-choice positions given on this panel. What are your thoughts? Should taxes support services that provide women with the full range of reproductive options? Does individual decision-making power over personal healthcare influence our society and economy? Leave a comment below (as well as on the Business Matters blog) and tell us what you think.