Women and Politics

In the past two decades, I’ve often found myself asking, “Where are all the pro-choice Republican women?”

But today, despite her second place finish in the GOP primary for Congress in KS-04, I’m inspired by Jean Kurtis Schodorf’s dedication to public service and record of defending women’s reproductive health choices. And as always, I want to thank Schodorf for running for higher office, and encourage her to run again - because we only lose when women don’t run.

In her near decade of service as a State Senator and 12 years as a school board member, Schodorf has proven her commitment to both traditional Republican values and women’s rights.

While pushing for fiscal responsibility and responsible governance, she simultaneously defended women in the Kansas Legislature by opposing legislation to limit women’s access to comprehensive sexual healthcare. This past July, Schodorf received the Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice Barry Goldwater Award for her efforts in supporting and protecting women’s health.

Unfortunately, Schodorf has become a rarity in today’s political climate. Since the GOP’s platform turned extremely anti-choice in 1992, the number of Republican women candidates who support the entire spectrum of reproductive health choices (publicly) has dwindled drastically.

Before this, organizations like WCF were able to endorse Republicans and Democrats alike–and neither was more difficult to come by.

But as we know by today’s divisive environment, defense of choice has become an almost absolutely unacceptable quality in a Republican candidate–as we saw last year with Dede Scozzafava in NY-23.

Schodorf should serve as a role model for all women public servants–but especially for those Republicans courageous enough to challenge the party’s anti-choice tenets and stand up for women’s rights.

Schodorf is also an inspiration for mothers serving in public office. A mother of three, Schodorf served on the Wichita School Board for 12 years and is now serving her third term in the Kansas State Senate–supporting women’s reproductive health choices all the while. Now that’s my kind of Mama Grizzly.

Women’s health should not be a divisive issue in party politics. We need more candidates like Schodorf who are willing to make a difference by fighting for what is right, no matter what adversity they may face because of it. I commend Schodorf on being such a strong, persistent, and inspiring leader, and look forward to supporting her throughout the entirety of her public life.

I’ll also continue to encourage more women–from both parties–to follow her example.

Crossposted from the Huffington Post.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

Most 23-year-olds have little idea of what they would like to do with their lives. Representative Alisha Thomas Morgan, on the other hand, won her first race for the Georgia House of Representatives. In 2002, Morgan became the first African-American elected to represent Cobb County in the Georgia House, and, to this day, she is still the youngest woman in the body. Georgia, which is ranked 38th in the nation for the percentage of women in its state legislature, needs more women at all levels of government. Without leaders like Morgan securing lower elected office, there is no way that we can achieve gender parity across the board.

Today, she’ll face off in the Democratic primary—which will more than likely decide the general election in November. If she wins, this will be her fifth term in the House, allowing her to continue her leadership on minority, youth, and education issues. In fact, Morgan has shown amazing initiative, helping to create the Young Elected Officials Network, a group focused on helping young people secure public office. She has also proven her leadership abilities in education reform, heading a statewide effort to improve Georgia’s educational system.

Born and raised in Georgia, Morgan has a deep connection to the needs of Cobb County, Georgia, and women. She has received the Outstanding Young Woman Award from the Concerned Black Clergy, the Unsung Heroine award from the Anti-Defamation League, and was elected Freshman Legislator of the Year by the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus. Her advocacy for women, the environment, and social justice is evident in just a few of the organizations endorsing her: the Atlanta Stonewall Democrats, Georgia Conservation Voters, Georgia WIN List, Georgia Equality, Sierra Club, and the Women’s Campaign Forum. Morgan has also received support from the People for the American Way Action Fund, who based their endorsement on her impressive record in Georgia:

“I know that at the heart of Representative Morgan’s campaign is a commitment to ensuring that all people are protected under law.  She’s fought hard to defend a woman’s right to choose, to end discrimination against LGBT people, and to make sure working people are treated fairly on the job.  Her tenacity has made a real difference in the lives of thousands of people, and for that we should all be grateful.”

These numerous credits to her character, however, pale in comparison to the words of her daughter:

“Vote for my mommy!”

Join WCF in supporting Representative Alisha Thomas Morgan in her primary today.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

I hope all of you read WCF President/CEO Siobhan “Sam” Bennett’s most recent op-ed in the Huffington Post. She does an excellent job refuting Sarah Palin’s claim that her “mama grizzlies” represent the majority of American women. I completely agree with Sam that while we love how women are getting engaged in politics, this vein of political activism is actually detrimental to women’s rights and equality.

Unfortunately, Adrienne Royer at Cosmopolitan Conservative doesn’t seem to have understood this message. She read Sam’s article and declared that:

“Sam Bennett, who happens to be the executive director of the Women’s Campaign Forum, decided to issue her decree that conservative women aren’t real women.”

However, Sam’s point was that these women’s views don’t include protecting women’s rights and equality for all people. Sam actually made the argument that:

“Although most, if not all, of Sarah’s followers are Republican, that doesn’t mean they speak for all GOP women.”

Indeed, here at WCF, we’re proud to endorse Republican women that recognize the importance of allowing women to make their own health decisions. As the Republican party has become more anti-woman in its platform, this brand of Republican woman has been harder and harder to find; however, WCF has a proud history of endorsing hundreds of Republican women that were not afraid to stand up for women.

This was the crux of Sam’s argument—that anti-woman policies do not need to define conservative women. Sarah Palin’s attempt to co-opt feminism for herself and her radical followers is not a move that will serve women well.

In her post, Royer identifies herself as a pro-life woman who supports the use of contraceptives. While this is not the position that WCF has chosen, this shows the dynamic nature of this issue. Despite the experiences in her own family, Sarah Palin doesn’t support comprehensive sex education or access to contraceptives. I agree with Royer that abortion, contraception, and sex-ed:

“Are complicated issues, and ones that reflect a myriad of views even among conservative, pro-life communities.”

But I disagree with her contention that these issues don’t go hand-in-hand. The idea that access to comprehensive sexual education and contraceptives is somehow separate from other important health decisions is simply false. Conservative, anti-choice groups would like to believe that if we ignore the issue, by teaching abstinence-only sex-ed and limiting access to essential health resources, the problem will go away.

Royer criticized WCF’s use of a poll that showed that 81% of Americans support individuals making their own health choices—because it was 4 years old. I hate to break it to her, but women have needed to make these choices throughout history—and for a long time, they had to do it alone, and in a way that often endangered their lives. Perhaps she should take her own advice that:

“Women should be free to decide political views for themselves–whether they are liberal or conservative.”

I wholeheartedly agree. Women should be able to make all the same decisions that men can—including over their own bodies and health care needs. No one’s political views—Sam’s, mine, or Sarah Palin’s—should limit anyone else’s right to make their own important health choices.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

In a recent attack ad, Carly Fiorina accused Senator Barbara Boxer of being an ineffectual representative, with her name on only three bills in the past 18 years. This prompted Rod Pennington to conclude that virtually all female Senators are essentially:

“Empty pants suits keeping chairs warm and taking orders from their male party leadership.”

I’m trying to figure out which Senate Rod Pennington and Carly Fiorina are watching. In the U.S. Senate, Barbara Boxer is the first female Chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and simultaneously, Chair of the Select Committee on Ethics, making her the only Senator in charge of two committees at the same time. Also, a quick online search reveals that, in the current Congress alone, Boxer’s name is on over 500 pieces of legislation, including an international effort to combat HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, and an important taxpayer protection amendment to the Wall Street Reform bill.

Despite Pennington’s claim that women take their direction from male power-brokers in the Senate, he seems to have forgotten that, in addition to Boxer, who serves as Chief Deputy Whip, Sens. Patty Murray, Blanche Lincoln and Debbie Stabenow all hold leadership positions. In fact, the 4-to-10 ratio among the majority leadership is actually much higher than the actual percentage of women in the Senate (17%)—showing that these women are excelling in their political careers.

The recent health care reform debate also made it clear why we need women in Congress. Senator Barbara Mikulski, a leading member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, played a key role in ensuring that women received equal treatment in insurance plans.

The Supreme Court’s rejection of Ledbetter shows why having women in Congress—and on the Court—is essential to promoting women’s equality. After Justice Ginsburg’s inspirational dissent, Congress quickly stepped up to remedy our unfair pay systems. Boxer was one of the first to co-sponsor the bill, and was soon followed by Sens. Debbie Stabenow, Olympia Snowe, Patty Murray, Barbara Mikulski, Claire McCaskill, Amy Klobuchar, Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton and Maria Cantwell. Although the final bill was not passed until 2009, it seems unlikely that we would have the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act today without the support of these influential women.

Last year, Sen. Boxer was named the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Human Rights, Democracy, and Global Women’s Issues. This is the first subcommittee to ever focus specifically on women’s issues, and I’m certain that Boxer’s many years of service on the Foreign Relations Committee were instrumental in its creation. In response to her appointment, she eloquently stated that:

“Too often, we turn our eyes away as women are persecuted, abused and treated as second-class citizens. But even the most conservative historians have noted that when women are given the freedom to live up to their full potential, society as a whole flourishes. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress and with Secretary Clinton to stamp out violence against women in the world.”

This is an observation that many men would never make. Just as it took Justice Ginsburg to point out that our pay systems were unequal, often we need women to be part of the conversation to show what men choose not to see. In his article, Pennington poses the question:

“Could it be political correctness and the desire to have a woman, any woman, in a high office is to blame?”

The women that I’ve come to respect and admire in the U.S. Senate have fought for women’s rights, equal opportunity, and justice for all. I’m very proud to have these 17 women in the U.S. Senate, and hope the rest of America doesn’t share Pennington’s ridiculous and archaic assertions.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

As a young woman working in the political world, I am often confronted by the assertion that my generation does not feel as strongly about reproductive choices as our predecessors. After all, Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, and we’ve grown up in an era in which women appear to be fully liberated.

But the truth is that my cohort is uniquely—and dramatically—affected by Roe and its aftermath. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to hear a panel of reproductive rights advocates discuss these issues at the Campus Progress National Conference. Shelby Knox, a women’s rights advocate who works to mobilize young people around the idea of “reproductive justice,” described young people as:

“The generation that has been scared away from contraception.”

She was referring to the years of systematic weakening of the rights that were identified by Roe, which have limited women’s access and knowledge about contraception and abortion. In addition to numerous laws requiring parental consent and lack of public funding, reproductive choices have been severely affected by poor sex education in schools. Knox’s personal story of growing up in a small town in Texas with abstinence-only sex education classes was made into a documentary that attempted to explain how vital comprehensive sex-ed is to reducing pregnancy (and abortion) rates, as well as sexually transmitted infections.

Another panelist, Khadine Bennett, a Staff Attorney for ACLU of Illinois, pointed out that:

“If you are in a middle-to-upper class school, you are more likely to get comprehensive sex education than if you are low-income.”

Essentially, access to information about contraceptives and reproductive health options is based now, more than ever, based on one’s socio-economic status. While this is hardly new, it upends one of the main problems that Roe attempted to address—poor women in the United States have a much greater need for affordable and safe reproductive options.

Since Roe, conservative, anti-choice organizations have been attacking the foundations of the decision, and while they have not succeeded in overturning it, yet, they have made things much more difficult for women across the country. Part of the problem is that the women who fought for Roe in the 1960s and 1970s thought that they had won—and stopped pushing for further protection of their rights. As Bennett described her work in Illinois:

“We’re countering years and years of anti-choice work. We were tired of fighting… of being in this defensive position.”

That’s why the ACLU in Illinois, and more and more women’s groups across the country are working to stop anti-choice bills—and to create proactive legislation in anticipation of the next attack. According to Elizabeth Nash, from the Guttmacher Institute, of all the reproductive health proposals adopted in the past decade, 27 have been anti-choice and only 4 protected women’s reproductive choices.

And in the past year, anti-choice conservatives have found a new battleground in which to limit women’s rights; the health care bill reminded American women that their health choices are still not totally theirs to decide. Indeed, since the passage of the bill, as Nash says:

“Anti-choice legislators at the state level have seen an opportunity to restrict abortion in insurance.”

Just as comprehensive sexual education now seems to be a luxury, anti-choice advocates are attempting to make it harder for low-income women to have access to a necessary health service. Men and women deserve to have equal coverage of their medical needs, and to have an equal opportunity to make their own health decisions.

These changes will have the most serious impact on young women—who will have to live their entire lives with these restrictions. But women of all ages have a responsibility to fight these measures in any way they can. While the debates in Congress and the Supreme Court garner the most attention, the battles for reproductive choices are often fought in state legislatures. Jordan Goldberg, from the Center for Reproductive Rights, made the argument that:

“On a day-to-day basis, when a woman tries to get an abortion, [she] is affected by the laws of her state.”

And, individuals can also have a more decisive impact at the local level. That’s why, here at WCF, we endorse women candidates at every level—because we know that it is not only a stepping stone to higher office, but also an essential arena for women’s issues.

Perhaps women my age are less aware of how their lives are affected by their access to reproductive choices—but if the anti-choice conservatives get their way, I think they will quickly realize how important these rights are. I challenge women everywhere—and of every generation—to spread this message, call their local, state, or federal representatives, or even run for office, because we can’t afford to lose these battles.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

Terri Sewell, WCF-Endorsed Candidate for Alabama’s 7th District, just announced new fundraising numbers that show her with a steady lead over her opponent Shelia Smoot. The numbers suggest that in May and June, Sewell raised at least $250,000 more than Smoot—confirming our opinion that Sewell is the strongest candidate to represent Alabama.

Indeed, Sewell’s story is one that reflects her deep roots in the district— growing up in Selma, Alabama, she is the daughter of a high school basketball coach and librarian. Although Sewell’s talents gave her the opportunity to attend some of the most prestigious universities in the world, she ultimately chose to return home to share her talents with the people of Alabama. As she says herself:

“I have exactly the skill set in Washington that this District needs, and the passion and desire to make sure that other have the same opportunities that I had.”

Sewell’s candidacy is so exciting because she also applies that same passion and desire to women’s rights. Her record as an Attorney shows that she is genuinely interested in the well-being and girls and women—she has worked to prevent domestic violence and has mentored young girls of color from disadvantaged backgrounds. Sewell also recognizes the importance of having women in leadership positions:

“I know that when women are at the table, issues of families and children really get decided and discussed… Just watching the health care debate, and the fact that the Stupak amendment got defeated is a very good example of how having effective women legislators in Congress makes a difference.”

And in Alabama, electing a woman to office is especially significant. Alabama is ranked 48th in the nation for the number of women in public office, and if elected, Sewell would be the first woman ever elected to Congress from the state. Shelia Smoot, Sewell’s opponent in the Democratic runoff, is also a talented African American woman who supports women’s rights, and its reassuring to know that, either way, Alabama voters are likely to make history this November. However, Sewell has proven throughout her campaign—and professional career—that she has the knowledge, skills, and courage to stand up for her constituents and her ideals.

Let’s wish Sewell the best of luck in her runoff on Tuesday, July 13, and celebrate the shattering of another glass ceiling in Alabama!

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

Throughout the first few days of hearings to confirm Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the next Supreme Court Justice, the women on the Judiciary Committee, Senators Amy Klobuchar and Dianne Feinstein, have repeatedly brought up Kagan’s gender as a reason to support her nomination.

Eva Rodriguez at the Washington Post asked her readers yesterday whether this was appropriate—or necessary.

“Yes, Kagan was the first woman to serve as dean of Harvard Law School. Yes, she broke the glass ceiling to become the first female solicitor general of the United States. So what? Would anyone on the panel have praised a white, male nominee for being a great role model for young men? I seriously doubt it.”

While I admire Rodriguez’s perspective that women no longer need to fight to get access to the same opportunities as men, I can’t help but think we’re not there yet. As Sen. Feinstein noted during the hearings, recent cases such as Ledbetter prove that women still make less money than men—decades after women began to challenge the status quo.

And women are still seriously underrepresented in government, making up only 17% of Congress. Yes, we have made progress. But that does not mean that women have won the war.

Rodriguez also claimed that Kagan has not received special attention because of her gender as she has risen in political life.

“I was pleased that little attention was paid to the fact that she is a woman when she was nominated as solicitor general and then to the Supreme Court.”

Clearly, Rodriguez wasn’t taking into consideration the sexist attacks on Kagan’s appearance, sexual orientation, and marital status since President Obama announced his selection. Indeed, the question should not be whether male nominees would be described as role models for young men—but whether a man would be questioned about his sexual preferences just because he has chosen not marry.

I think we should all hope—and work to create—the world that Rodriguez described. But we’re just not there yet. Three women on a Court of nine Justices is not equal representation. And the cases heard by the Supreme Court have an enormous impact on the day-to-day lives of American women. Protecting women’s reproductive health choices and fighting for pay equity are not issues that men in government have often prioritized.

So yes, it does matter that Solicitor General Kagan is a woman, because she will set a good example for young women, make one more crack in the glass ceiling, and bring her unique knowledge and experiences to the Court.