Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Ann McLane Kuster, Candidate for Congress (NH-02)

Next week I’m headed down to New York for WCF’s “Parties of Your Choice” Gala, and I thought it would be a good time to share here one of the reasons I chose to run for Congress this year – and why I think more women should run.

I’ve worked here in New Hampshire as an attorney and a public policy advocate my whole life, focusing on improving access to health care and affordable higher education.  But I’ve also worked as an adoption attorney for the past twenty-five years, and in doing so I have been reminded hundreds of times about the importance of trusting women to have autonomy over their lives.  It’s a lesson that has sadly often fallen on deaf ears in Washington.

As an adoption attorney I have dedicated my career to the autonomy of women - young and old, rich and poor, educated and illiterate - who have faced the daunting decision of an unplanned pregnancy.  I have represented birthmothers from age 14 to 44, from junior high school to a junior at a prestigious college, from living in a car to the nicest neighborhoods in town. I have witnessed the courage and grace of teenagers facing emergency Caesarians and women showing up at the emergency room in labor having never told anyone about being pregnant. I have represented women pregnant from date rape, incest and abusive relationships and women who thought pregnancy would bring happiness to a failed relationship.  We laugh together, we cry together and in the end, we make our way together to another day.

Most birthmothers come to me late in the pregnancy, often just a few weeks before delivery. My role is to offer them legal support and guidance through the adoption process. Most birthmothers choose to receive counseling about their decision to place their baby for adoption. All of the birthmothers choose the prospective adoptive family who will parent their child and many choose to meet the parents before the birth. Some birthparents and adoptive families choose to visit in the hospital and exchange photos and letters as the baby grows up. Occasionally, they may even meet again later in life and now, after 25 years, I am asked to arrange birthparent reunions with grown children.

Witnessing these courageous women make difficult life decisions, and supporting them through the adoption process, has been the honor of my life.  When I hear politicians in Washington argue over how far they can restrict reproductive rights in pending health care legislation – and when I see special interests poised to kill reform entirely – I can’t help but think that having a Congress made up of only 17% women is, in effect, shortchanging the American people.  We deserve to have our entire nation, and all of its challenges and experiences, represented in Washington.

So I’m putting my money where my mouth is – I’m running for Congress.

Running for office for the first time isn’t easy, but more than 1,600 supporters have contributed to my campaign since I began last summer, helping raise over $650,000 and making our race one of the most competitive races in the nation.  We have a long way to go, but I know that I am doing my part to amplify women’s voices in Washington, and I know that more than 1,600 supporters are doing their part as well.  Please join us! Together, we can make a difference.

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF Communications Fellow

Although the country remains deeply divided about how to accomplish health care reform, there are few who would dispute the great need for it. However, it seems only a fraction of people have a true grasp on just how sexist our current system is. And with women holding only 17% of the seats in Congress, there’s certainly no guarantee that this disparity will be properly addressed.

Adding insult to injury, last week’s White House health care summit included only six women out of 42 attendees. Dan Rather knows this is ludicrous:

“If more women were in the room, might the debate have been different? If there were more women in Congress (which is around 17 percent female), might our politics be less rancorous and might our elected officials get more accomplished? There’s a school of thought that is emerging that suggests the answer is yes.”

Luckily one congresswoman spoke up for women’s health. Rep. Louise Slaughter (NY-28) made a dramatic call for healthcare, touching upon a wide array of issues that relate to our broken healthcare system and women. Calling the pre-existing conditions regulations cruel and capricious, she said:

“Eight states in this country right now have declared that domestic violence is a preexisting conditions on the ground, I assume, that if you’re been unlucky enough to get yourself beaten up once you might go around and do it again”.

Yes that is correct. If you live in Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming, or the District of Columbia and you’ve been abused by your husband or significant other, you will probably be denied health insurance.

Furthermore, Slaughter called upon the importance of having a higher percentage of women in government  in order for our voices to be heard:

“In 1991, women were not included in any of the trials at the NIH because we had hormones. It wasn’t until we had a critical mass of women here that said this will not do for more than half the population of the United States, who pay taxes, that we made certain that diseases like osteoporosis, mainly a woman’s disease, cervical cancer, only a woman’s disease, uterine cancer and others were really looked at”.

In time when crucial legislation is constantly being debated, most of which affects women directly, it is unacceptable that only 17% of Congress is women. Without increasing the number of women we have in elected office, we leave ourselves open to more legislation that restricts our reproductive choices and endangers our health.

A clip of Slaughter’s statement can be found here.

It took strong women such as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Sen. Barbara Boxer to narrowly defeat the Nelson-Hatch Amendment last December.

Women know what’s best for women, but 90 out of 535 in our federal government not nearly enough. Perhaps fixing our lopsided government is the first step in fixing our broken health care system.

Ladies, you didn’t want an equal voice in health care reform, right? Good - because holding 17% of Congress won’t do it for you, and being only 10.5% of today’s special health summit certainly won’t either.

Yes, out of the 38 congressional leaders invited to today’s White House health summit, only four were women. That doesn’t even accurately reflect our sad 17% in Congress.

So, when given the chance to actually create a group with and equal number of men and women, both the White House and members of Congress chose not to? Awesome.

No wonder our government’s broken.

It’s like an endless montage of network news gaffes on the Daily Show: Broken government, broken government, broken government. Only this isn’t so hilarious.

As Americans scramble to make ends meet and wait on bated breath for health care reform, they’re bombarded by accusations of who’s to blame for this mess. Democrats? Bush? Obama? The GOP?

Well, how about men? Considering they’re 83% of Congress, that’s a large group to blame. But it seems our Congresswomen would tend to agree with this sentiment. As Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (NH-1) shared last month:

“We go to the ladies room and we just roll our eyes at what’s being said out there. And the Republican women said when we were fighting over the health care bill, if we sent the men home, we could get this done this week.”

Shea-Porter has been raked over the coals for this comment, with many calling it sexist. But PunditMom on MOMocrats asks,

“Is it sexist if it’s true? For the most part, women are the ones dealing with care-giving issues for children, parents, in-laws, sisters, and extended family. How can lawmakers really weigh in on what’s needed to address these issues unless they’ve got first-hand experience with some of them?”

With men being over 4/5 of Congress, doesn’t math prove that they’re responsible for the majority of the deadlock? After all, it was the women who stood together against the Stupak and Nelson amendments. It’s the women’s organizations banding together to ensure that health care reform actually helps women and doesn’t strip away any existing rights.

With research rising about women’s positive impact on corporations, boards, and elected offices, it seems some are embracing the need to add more women to government…just not the U.S. As Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand alluded to in 2009, women tend to run for office because they want to get something done, while men just assume they can do the job and enjoy the blood sport of politics.

In a Washington Post article, Katty Kay and Claire Shipman pointed to research showing that Fortune 500 companies with more women at the top outperformed those that didn’t.

“Gender stereotypes aren’t politically correct, but the research broadly finds that testosterone can make men more prone to competition and risk-taking. Women, on the other hand, seem to be wired for collaboration, caution and long-term results.”

Research from the National Council for Research on Women confirms this, saying that women consider different issues and are more collaborative while making decisions, which leads to more win-win outcomes. But this can’t happen when there aren’t enough women at the table.

“When women do reach decision-making positions, it is not until they constitute a critical mass upwards of 30% that they are no longer perceived as representative of a special interest, but rather as full members of the group.”

And the current state of Congress proves this perfectly. With women only holding 17%, their thoughts and suggestions can easily be marginalized and ignored. We have 90 amazing women between the House and Senate, but despite their exemplary ideas and leadership, they can’t overcome their minority status.

So yes - maybe we should send the men home if we want to emerge from this quagmire any time soon. You don’t have to send them all home - just 355 to make it even: 90 women and 90 men.

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF Communications Fellow

What will it take for our country to realize that the lack of diversity in our government is severely impeding our progress? And how do we inspire more women to run for office to fix this problem? Research? Statistics? A heartfelt plea?

Well, I’ve got all three for you. Swanee Hunt, Former Ambassador to Austria and Founding Director of Women and Public Policy Program; and Kerry Healey, former Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts and co-chair of the Political Parity Project, have something to say: Women, start your campaigns.

Hunt and Healey, both seasoned political figures, use the concept of critical mass to support the need for more women: When at least 30% of any group is made up of women, the dynamics and workings of the organization changes, in many cases, for the better.

“Women collectively bring a broader perspective to the political debate, based on their different social roles and life experiences. That breadth is crucial in order to solve the many challenges society faces, including the current economic crisis, national security issues, and health care reform.”

With recent narrow defeat of the Stupak-Pitts amendment and Martha Coakley’s loss in the Massachusetts special election, there is no better time than now for women to become involved in politics. President Obama is determined to pass his health care bill this year. But with women having much less than a critical mass—17%—in Congress, we could very well end up with legislation that puts women’s reproductive rights in jeopardy.

So why aren’t women scrambling to fix this inequity? The problem seems to be twofold: Women don’t realize how much their voices are needed for the strength of our government, and they are much more hesitant to run for office than men.

“Women candidates are also often less confident of their own qualifications to serve, and do not want to run until they have achieved higher credentials than a typical male candidate.”

Studies show that a woman must be asked six times before seriously considering a run for office. And oftentimes after making that decision, women face double standards and harsher scrutiny.

Hunt and Healey call upon women to shed their fears and run for elected office. At a time in which the voices of women are needed more than ever in the political arena, women must be asked and encouraged to run.

“Women in the arena don’t need a brief, polite round of applause for their efforts; it’s not enough when they often have had to work twice as hard just to get into the fight. They need to be recruited, supported, and coached. Our political parties need to encourage women to run, donors need to open their wallets, and the media needs to stop with the random critiques of female candidates’ clothes or hair or belabored debates about whether a tear is from empathy, grief, or exhaustion.”

In order to protect our reproductive health choices and ensure that future legislation fully defends and expands women’s rights, we must not be afraid to take action and run for office.

Remember, when women run for office, they raise as much money as men and win just as often. But, as Martha Coakley reminded us, you can’t win if you don’t run.

Written by WCF Fellow Kayla

What’s the answer we get from male Congressmen about the importance of health care reform to women? “I object.”

This past Saturday, members of the House Democratic Woman’s Caucus took the floor to speak out in favor of the health care bill because of its benefits for women.

They were greeted with nothing but bullying. Or, as ThinkProgress puts it, “Screams, Shouts, And Delay Tactics.”

Congresswoman after Congresswoman stood at the podium demanding health care for the sake of reproductive health choices for women. Again and again, Republicans interrupted every member of the women’s caucus—objecting over and over to their plea for health care for women.

Eventually it got to the point where none of the members of the women’s caucus could speak because they were interrupted so frequently and treated so unfairly.

These attacks on members of the female caucus demonstrate why we so desperately need women in office. We need women to stand up for women’s rights and stand up for women’s reproductive health choices.

We need women to be elected to Congress so they can stand up together against abusive men in the House and demand equal rights. Because apparently, it takes a woman to stand up for women’s rights.

Today is Women’s Equality Day - designated to celebrate the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution in 1920, which grants women the right to vote. Now, nearly 90 years later, where do we stand?

• 17% of Congress is made up of women.
• Only 10% of women have ever thought about running for office, compared with 20% of men.
• The United States is ranked 72nd for gender equality in public office.
• Women hold 24% of State Legislature seats.
• More than half of all states—27—have never had a female governor.
• Women still face sexist hurdles when running for and serving in office.

So, in sum:

“We’ve come a long way…maybe.”

Those words were spoken by blogger, author, and women’s activist, Gloria Feldt at this year’s Netroots Nation. She pointed out that the percentage of women in Congress is only up 3% from what it was in 1979. At this rate, it will take us about 70 years to achieve equality in Congress.

We can vote, but we’re not necessarily voting for women or considering running ourselves. Have we been aggressive enough in our quests for equality? Maybe the problem is in our follow-up:

“Women have historically made leaps like this only to step back ourselves. When we got the vote - we didn’t care how women voted, they just wanted the vote.”

Gloria has a point. I’m not disregarding the incredible work of the women who fought to get us where we are today—there is much to be celebrated. However, I think we can all agree that this is no time to sit back and be complacent. We need to carry the work of past women’s rights activists through to the end. They started us on the road to equality, but we have a long way to travel before actually reaching it.

If the crazy-low percentages of women in elected office don’t move you, perhaps this will:

“Today, women are the majority of voters, but men still largely decide the laws that govern our lives.”

Again, Gloria hits the nail on the head. We can vote, but we’re largely voting for men who will make decisions about our health care, environment, economy, reproductive freedom, and national security. Do these decisions always include an equal woman’s voice? No. Should they?

I say, absolutely. Otherwise, what have we been fighting for? Have we come this far to be content with only a quarter of our country’s leadership being women? I hope not.