Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF Communications Fellow

Who needs more women in government? Everyone. Women make up 51% of the U.S. population; shouldn’t the federal government reflect that population in its elected officials? Sadly the U.S. Senate consists of only 17 women senators.

With the primary season already well underway, it is evident that 2010 will be a competitive election year for women. Current New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is facing a possible challenge by former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford Jr. in the September Democratic primary.

But will New York voters accept this out-of-state candidate, when they already rely on Gillibrand’s leadership on issues like women’s rights?

Probably not. Harold Ford Jr. has proven that his stance on choice is anything but clear. Ford claims that he is “not pro-choice” and “pro-life” and his voting record on these issues show no clarification on his views. He has consistently supported stem-cell research and opposed the global gag rule but voted “yes” twice to ban partial-birth abortions. In addition, he supports the failed abstinence-only programs.

So Gillibrand, the incumbent, who has a strong record fighting for reproductive freedoms faces a challenger who cannot seem to differentiate between the two ends of the reproductive rights spectrum? The choice is pretty clear to me.

After being appointed to fill Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s seat in the Senate early last year, Sen. Gillibrand has been nothing but a powerhouse on women’s issues. She has sponsored and voted for various legislation that helps working mothers and their families. In addition, Gillibrand has been a strong supporter for President Obama’s healthcare plan and has fought to ensure that women’s reproductive freedoms are not excluded from healthcare coverage. In December of last year, Gillibrand was amongst the many outspoken leaders against the Stupak-Pitts amendment. Gillibrand is a proven leader and is the clear choice for New York State Senate.

Leaders of many women’s organizations agree with this sentiment. WCF President/CEO Sam Bennett was recently quoted in an article in the popular online news magazine The Daily Beast saying:

“Gillibrand has been a “trailblazer” on women’s issues, and that her organization and its donors will do ‘whatever’s necessary’ to get her reelected. I was just with a donor in New York the other day who said, ‘I supported Ford when he ran in Tennessee, he has a lot of nerve coming to my state now and asking me to vote for him instead of Kirsten.’”

It is no secret that women lack representation in the U.S. government. The narrow defeat of the Nelson-Hatch Amendment in December would most definitely not have happened if it weren’t for the outspoken women representatives in Congress. Electing women such as Kirsten Gillibrand is absolutely necessary to ensure that women’s issues are a priority in the U.S. government.

The post was written by WCF Fellow, Stephanie Glover

Women stand to gain a lot from health care reform and women in Congress are leading the charge to make comprehensive health care a reality for all Americans. Responding to the Stupak amendment is a top priority for many legislators; the Stupak amendment drastically reduces the availability of reproductive health care and any law that includes such an amendment can no longer be considered comprehensive.

Not surprisingly, the women of Congress are leading the movement to oppose the Stupak amendment. Over 40 House Democrats have signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi pledging to vote against any health care bill that includes the Stupak amendment. Who’s circulating this letter? Why, yes, it is a woman. Representative Diane DeGette of Colorado. The signatories have not yet been released, but I’m willing to bet there is a high percentage of women on that list, too.  The letter states:

As Members of Congress we believe that women should have access to a full range of reproductive health care. Health care reform must not be misused as an opportunity to restrict women’s access to reproductive health services…We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.

Other leading women in the House of Representatives have echoed this sentiment. Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz “threw the down gauntlet” on MSNBC when she said she’s “confident” the amendment will not be attached to the final bill. And, she plans to work hard to make sure this is the outcome.

This amendment specifically targets health care that applies to women, so it makes sense that women are leading the opposition to it. If only there were more women in Congress, perhaps we wouldn’t have an amendment to oppose.

Hearing Representative Wasserman-Schultz say that she is confident makes me confident that the women and men in the House and Senate will do their bests to ensure that we have real, affordable, comprehensive health care reform.

Michael Savage: “Jezebel is Olympia Snowe.”

Jim Quinn: “‘Stupid Girl’ by Garbage ‘probably fits pretty well.’”

Rush Limbaugh: “Dare I say, Women, damn it.”

‘Tis the season for misogyny, it seems. These are recent comments made by sexist radio show hosts about Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

What did they do to illicit such sexist rhetoric? They had an opinion about health care reform. And, apparently, having a different opinion than these radio hosts means you get attacked—not for your views—but for your gender.

Instead of discussing the reasons why he disagreed with Olympia Snowe’s Senate Finance Committee vote on health care reform, Michael Savage decided it would be better to liken her to a female devil:

“If ever the devil was born without a pair of horns, it was you. Jezebel, it was you.”

Savage played this line of the song “Jezebel” by Frankie Laine, and then added, “Jezebel is Olympia Snowe.”

Let me be clear: I’m not saying that no one dare ever disagree with or even attack a woman elected official for her policy or votes. But if you’re going to, at least do it in an intelligent and somewhat respectful way. Basically, don’t simply insult her for being a woman.

I know respectful isn’t the mantra for these particular radio hosts, but that doesn’t mean they should get away with it. The more people hear misogynistic language used, the more we perpetuate the acceptance of this kind of harmful sexism.

Click here to email these sexist radio hosts and tell them their language is unacceptable.

By  WCF Fellow, Trish Calvarese

In the bill to reform the current health care system, written by the Chairman of the Finance Committee Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), as it stands, no tax credit could be used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape or incest or if the life of a pregnant woman is in danger.

But those restrictions aren’t strict enough for committee member Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Another white male, Hatch authored an amendment that said no money provided under the legislation could be used to pay “any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion.”

In the 13-to-10 vote rejecting the amendment, committee members voted with their parties, with two exceptions: Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) voted for the restrictions, while female Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME) voted against them.

Let us now take a moment to reflect on the fact that of the twenty-three member committee, only four are women: three democrats, and one republican. All four women voted against the amendment.

Now let’s consider this: had even just one more democrat jumped ship on the party and voted for the amendment (as Sen. Conrad did, shame on him), and had Sen. Snowe voted with her party, then Hatch’s disturbing audacity to legislate choice in a health care bill would have been successful.

Essentially, had not all three female democratic committee members voted against Hatch’s amendment, without Sen. Snowe voting against her party, in favor of women, it was very possible for the Senate Finance Committee to produce a health care bill refusing to provide funding for abortions, even in the case of rape, incest, or if a woman’s life depended on it.

Thank you Sen. Snowe, for putting women first. Thank you ladies of the Senate Finance Committee.

This is why we need more women in elected office, women who will put the rights of women and girls before party politics.

…what would be different? Probably a lot.

Just some food for thought—if women had an equal voice in our country’s leadership, would we:

• Be in our current financial crisis?
• Have started all these wars?
• Still be fighting about health care reform?
• See all the backlash against women’s reproductive health choices?
• Continue to ignore the impending ramifications of our environmental impact?

Last night, my karate sensei said some of these very words to me. That’s right—my male karate instructor who is a human lethal weapon and spends 90 minutes yelling at us to be stronger and faster—pointed out that we might not be in all the trouble we’re in if women had an equal leadership role in this country.

If he and my 93 year-old grandfather can see the clear, common-sense, and urgent need for more women in public office, why can’t the rest of the country?

Why has our progress of electing more women stagnated in the past few years? Why don’t more women support women candidates? These are questions we all must answer and work to fix if we truly want to see our country choose a path of strength and prosperity for our future.

We are deeply saddened by the news of Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s passing. He will be remembered for his dedication to so many important issues, including his advocacy for women.

Senator Kennedy supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Rights Amendment, Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, and fought his whole career for health care reform. As Ezra Klein of the Washington Post points out,

The cause of Kennedy’s life was not, after all, praise or compliments. It was, as he said, to “guarantee that every American…will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not just a privilege.”

It’s our sincere hope that Senator Kennedy’s vision for health care will be carried though—ensuring that everyone, including women, are taken into consideration.

One of the nice things about covering the Democratic convention from the comfort of my own laptop in a home office, is that there are plenty of opportunities for the convention to come to me!

I was sad to miss the EMILY’s List events at the DNC. But conference calls are a pretty good substitute, especially when I realized that I probably wouldn’t have been able to ask EMILY’s List President Ellen Malcolm any questions with a thousand other people around, but quickly got in the queue by phone!

She and Denise Singiser, the Women’s Vote Director for the Obama Campaign, started off talking about how Barack Obama is a long-time advocate of equal pay for women and supports legislation to accomplish that, including the Lily Ledbetter Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act.

That’s great, but my longstanding question has been how much will he really do if he is elected to ensure their prompt passage, rather than seeing them shuffled to the bottom of the list, only to languish.

I know that no candidate is going to pledge a time-line for any agenda item — the Clintons learned the hard way with their health care plan that maybe that wasn’t the best way for a new administration to get moving.

But Malcolm had a great answer about how to get legislation passed that will give workers a fair shake when it comes to pay issues, one that addressed it from a different angle…

[The rest of this post can be found at Pundit Mom.]