Women and Politics

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.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Women hold only 17% of the seats on Congress.

With the health care debate raging now in the Senate, women’s health is on the potential chopping block. And as we saw with the anti-choice Stupak-Pitts amendment, our reproductive choices are being attacked.

Congresswomen have been leading the charge against such restrictions, but they can’t do it alone—17% isn’t strong enough to fully defend women’s health.

Women may only be a fraction of those in elected office, but they are over 50% of the population and deserve to have their health needs supported.

Women can’t shouldn’t be the only ones defending reproductive health.

Click here to tell your member of Congress that you oppose any amendment or bill that endangers women’s health and restricts their reproductive choices and options.

By WCF Fellow: Trish

Martha Coakley’s opponent, Rep. Mike Capuano, said yesterday that his campaign for Massachusetts Senate had received a miraculous turn of good fortune, a “manna from heaven.” Perhaps he’s done something great for the Commonwealth?

Nope. Far from rising through the merit of his own achievement, Capuano is attempting to get a leg-up not just by stepping on women’s rights, but by trying to take Martha Coakley down for standing up for them.

“To pretend that now the House has passed this [health care] bill is real progress - it’s at the expense of women’s access to reproductive rights.’’

Martha Coakley said in an interview, after making similar comments yesterday morning on Boston radio station WTKK-FM.

Several dozen House Democrats vowed in a letter to vote against the final package if it includes the Stupak amendment, a provision reducing women’s reproductive rights and choices to less than the status quo. Capuano has not only not signed the letter, he’s lying when he says, Coakley “would have stood alone” in her opposition to passing a bill with the amendment.

If his lack of support and attempt to alienate Coakley in standing for women’s rights weren’t disturbing enough, hang on, his attacks continue:

• “If she’s not going to vote for any bill that’s not perfect, she wouldn’t vote for any bill in history.”
• “That is a classic example of the differences between us in this race: I understand how to make real serious improvements in the issues that are important to me, in this case, health care.”
• “She claims she wants to honor Ted Kennedy’s legacy on health care. It’s pretty clear that a major portion of this was his bill.”

Capuano is willing to sacrifice what grandmothers and mothers fought generations to achieve so he can claim victory, for whom?

Just like Ted Kennedy would never send African Americans to the back of the bus for a transportation overhaul, he certainly wouldn’t stand for legislation that mutilates the purpose of health care reform by sacrificing the reproductive choice of those who are most in need of options. If anything, Kennedy would see a lioness in Martha Coakley.

Capuano’s got one thing right: the difference between him and Coakley is their leadership (or lack thereof). It’s apparent that it is going to take a special kind of leadership to ensure that our nation gets the health care reform it deserves without budging an inch on women’s reproductive rights and choices. Coakley is that kind of special leader, Capuano is not.

Sen. Barbara Boxer said today that the Senate has the votes to block the Stupak amendment.

“When we sat down to do health care, I thought there was an understanding that we would be abortion-neutral,” she said. “In other words we wouldn’t change anything on abortion; that federal funds couldn’t be used but of course private funds could as long as this was legal. And Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.”

Coakley spoke out on this issue because it is critical that we stand up and fight against this provision. She is not alone. The greatest women leaders of our generation are with her, and no one can undermine that.

And no one, try as they might, can undermine women’s rights as long as we have leaders like Martha Coakley in office.
It is now up to the Senate to ensure that this fundamental inequity is rectified. You can help defend reproductive choices in long battle ahead by supporting Martha’s campaign for Senate today.

By WCF Fellow: Trish

It is undeniable that WCF-endorsed candidate Martha Coakley is a champion of affordable, quality health care. She has been for two decades. As Attorney General, she reached a historic $17 million settlement with an insurance company that unfairly denied coverage and mislead consumers.

During her bid for Massachusetts Senate, she was the first candidate to give more than a sound-bite stance on the issue—she delivered a comprehensive plan of action. She articulated support for a strong public option and provided necessary reform strategies to contain costs, including changing pay incentives and implementing systematic transparency.

But with the likes of the Stupak amendment putting women’s reproductive rights and choice on the table as a bargaining chip, Coakley has publicly declared that she sees this as taking a step backwards.

Let’s get real about this: the amendment bans abortion coverage in both private and public plans. Obama and a liberal congress promised that health care reform legislation would keep reproductive rights secured by the status quo. This legislation goes far beyond that jurisdiction; it’s absolutely regressive.

The amendment would disproportionably impact poor women who do not have access to private insurance. They are the group most likely to seek affordable options though the exchange.

In a Statement Coakley said:

The House’s vote is in many ways a significant step toward the goal of health care reform. However, I am deeply disturbed that the House adopted the Stupak/Pitts amendment, which would deny millions of women access to reproductive services.  The inclusion of the Stupak/Pitts amendment violates the very intent of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for everyone.  I believe that the Senate has a responsibility to fix this by eliminating the provision in whatever reform legislation moves forward.

Achieving real health care reform that does not compromise a woman’s right to choose will apparently, take a different kind of leadership. Coakley, in her unwavering stance to compromise on such a vital issue, had demonstrated she is that kind of leader.

It is now up to the Senate to ensure that this fundamental inequity is rectified. So hurry up ladies, let’s get WCF endorsed candidate Martha Coakley in that Senate seat.

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.

(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

All eyes have been on Republican Senator Olympia Snowe (Maine). Her vote on the health care bill in the Senate Finance Committee has been highly anticipated, speculated, and courted. As the only women Republican on the Committee, she was the wild card.

After rejecting Sen. Orrin Hatchs’ attack on women’s reproductive health choices, Sen. Snowe then voted in favor of the Committee’s bill, which was approved in a 14-9 vote yesterday. Although many consider her to be the “canary in a coal mine” to determine bipartisan support, others are warning that her Committee vote won’t necessarily translate into support of the next bill.

From here, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will have to meld and combine the bills from different Senate committees, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will continue doing the same with House committee bills.

So what does Sen. Snowe’s bipartisan vote really mean - how will women in Congress play a role in this historic legislation?

Here are the current stats on women in Congress:

• 17 women serve in the Senate - 17% of 100 seats
  • 13 Democrat, 4 Republican
• 73 women serve in the House - 17% of 435 seats
  • 56 Democrat, 17 Republican

In sum, women only hold 17% of all seats in Congress. So Republican or Democrat, we don’t really have much of a say in the fate of health care reform.

Did Olympia Snowe vote against her party because she’s a woman? Will other women in Congress be more likely to vote across party lines or support a public option simply because of their gender? If they are, and if comprehensive health care reform fails, it will be an unfortunate example of how desperately we need more women in public office.