Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Caitlin O’Brien, WCF Development Fellow

It has been a long and tiring year for health care legislation. And just when we thought the Senate bill would make its way to President Obama’s desk for signing, the Stupak Amendment rears its ugly head, once again.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) announced yesterday that he will vote against the Senate health care bill with its current reproductive rights language—which, by the way, already makes it nearly impossible for insurance companies to provide abortion coverage. He, along with 11 other members of Congress, has vowed not to back down on his anti-choice decision. But guess what? Neither will we.

And by ‘we’ I really mean ‘the American people.’

In a recent study done by the Women’s Donor Network, 56% of the American public agreed that people should be allowed to buy plans that cover abortion even if they bought said plan with partial government subsidies.

What’s more, 47% of people said that the reproductive rights debate should not keep us from passing important health care legislation.

So, when Congressman Stupak claims that this is what the American people want, he is flat out lying. What the people want is a more thorough conversation on reproductive health issues. In the same Women’s Donor Network study, 89% of the American public agreed that,

“There is a much broader discussion that needs to happen that includes issues such as birth control, comprehensive sex education, maternal health and childbirth issues.”

Interestingly enough, this same poll suggests that over 40% of people would not be pleased with their member of Congress if they voted a piece of legislation like the Stupak Amendment through. But Rep. Stupak and his band of loyal followers are so determined to restrict a woman’s control over her own body that they think it’s worth risking their congressional careers.

Even if health care is passed without Stupak’s own brand of anti-choice language, it is possible that the Congressman will attempt to pass a separate piece of restrictive legislation.

So this is where you come in. We need to band together to make sure that Stupak does not have the opportunity to pass a piece of legislation that is not only oppressive, but unpopular. Vanessa at Feminsting.com makes a compelling call for action:

Someone, anyone has got to be courageous here and call Stupak out on exactly what he’s trying to do: use health care reform as a vehicle to make abortion even more difficult and more inaccessible than it already is for millions of women. If no one does, we may have ourselves a brand, spanking new restriction to access on our hands.

Here is a list of the 11 ‘no’ voters on the health care bill. Flood their inboxes, overflow their mailbox, and ring their phones right off of their hooks. Urge them to reconsider their vote on health care and their position on reproductive justice:

Joe Cao (R-LA)
Jerry Costello (D-IL)
Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Steve Dreihaus (D-OH)
Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Dale Kildee (D-MI)
Dan Lipinski (D-IL)
Jim Oberstar (D-MN)
Charlie Wilson (D-OH)

Also take action via NARAL Pro-Choice America by MIDNIGHT Sunday. Enough is enough!

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.

As if Focus on the Family’s Super Bowl ad hasn’t already sparked harsh criticism and anger, they decided to go ahead and double down.

Yes, the extreme anti-choice group has produced yet another commercial gem, which will be aired…wait for it…four times during the pregame show.

So now we don’t even have a chance to heat up our queso before having anti-choice rhetoric shoved down our throats.

I find the outright bias and audacity of CBS hard to put into words. Despite my frustration, I find myself laughing at this scenario, as it is truly ridiculous that such a hateful and divisive group is airing five ads during the most-watched sporting event of the year. Five.

Not to mention that it turns out CBS has been in bed with this group for months—helping with the writing of the ad to ensure it was approved for air. Beautiful.

And now, the latest pièce de résistance: “In fitting with the Super Bowl theme, the ad was made with a bit of humor in it,” says Focus on the Family CEO Jim Daly.

I’m sorry, what? Let me repeat that. The organization that founds itself on the sanctity of human life and wholesome family values has produced a humorous commercial about abortion.

And again, I say—can you even imagine the backlash that would occur if Planned Parenthood were to produce a humorous ad about abortion…how pro-choice supporters would be called unfeeling, cruel, and soulless baby haters?

Never before have I seen such a blatant double standard. Never before have I wanted nothing more than to walk into a TV Executive’s office and scream at the top of my lungs.

How has the anti-choice, anti-woman movement managed to hijack public discourse? How have we gotten to a place where their hurtful ideals are eagerly displayed to an audience of over 100 million people?

How did we get here? Studies show we have wide support for a person’s right to make their own personal, private health care decisions across this country. We have many pro-choice elected officials and activists.

But why, despite all this support, do I feel like we’re losing the battle and drowning in hateful ignorance? How do we win the fight back? How do we effectively speak out?

It seems we’re no match for corporate greed and wealthy socially conservative donors. Our voices can’t match their indoctrinating dogma and full wallets. But we must find a way. It just can’t be all about the money.

We must regain our ground in the fight for reproductive health freedoms. We have come too far to be hurled into a place where we have no control over our own bodies…where the public has no respect for women or reproductive rights.

How we get there, I don’t know. But I do know it has to start now, with people across the country in all levels of power. This means, especially, that we need to ensure the election of more pro-choice women to public leadership.

Because I’m here to tell you, Jim Daly, that there is nothing funny about abortion or your vicious campaign to control women. And there never will be.

In deciding to air a Focus on the Family ad during the Super Bowl, CBS executives have effectively outed themselves as anti-choice and anti-woman.

If CBS is trying to avoid controversial issues in Super Bowl commercials, I think it’s safe to say that they’ve failed miserably. Even putting aside the negative frenzy the ad has already caused, let’s remember that Focus on the Family is one of the most contentious, intolerant, and extreme organizations in existence.

Not to mention that reproductive rights is one of the most controversial and dividing issues of our time.

To approve an anti-choice spot and reject an ad for a male dating site (among their past rejections of progressive organizations) shows blatant hypocrisy and bias.

We can’t show two guys making out, but we can talk about abortion?

Defenders of CBS’ decision say yes—that despite its divisive and political message, the ad itself is positive and uncontroversial. Bill O’Reilly asks, how can anyone be offended about Tim Tebow being alive?

But now I have to ask: What if a pro-choice ad had been submitted for the Super Bowl? What if it featured an uplifting story like Tim Tebow’s?

Picture this: Fade in. Moving music plays. Video of children playing. A woman talks about how happy she is that the birth control pill was available to her. She wanted to make sure she became a mother when she was ready. Because of her ability to make that choice, she now has two children who she’s fully able to support. End on picture of happy family. Fade out.

And what if this ad was for Planned Parenthood or National Abortion Federation? Something tells me CBS wouldn’t approve their message to over 100 million Super Bowl viewers. And I don’t think Bill O’Reilly would deem this a “positive message.”

It seems both are making this decision solely based on the ad—not its message, political connotation, or extremely divisive views of the creating organization.

Many organizations, including WCF, are demanding that CBS pull the ad.

TAKE ACTION: Join the Women’s Media Center and add your voice now!

The issue of women’s reproductive health belongs in doctors’ offices, family discussions, and women’s hands.

It doesn’t belong in our government or with politicians. And it most certainly doesn’t belong in the Super Bowl.

In honor of the 37th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I am Blogging for Choice - a NARAL Pro-Choice America tradition. TOPIC: What does Trust Women mean to you?

Trust. It’s a tricky thing—very difficult to earn, but extremely easy to lose.

It’s a concept most often applied to close personal relationships. You need to trust your family, partner, doctor, friends, auto mechanic, co-workers, etc.

But what about when we think of trust on a larger scale—our government, elected officials, and world leaders? We’re supposed to trust them to protect us and make decisions in our best interests.

In America, we’re granted the freedom to make many personal decisions. Because of this, we’re in essence saying that we trust our fellow Americans to carry out their actions in a careful and harmless manner. Be it with their gun ownership, raising children, public safety, etc.

However, it’s become increasingly clear that some members of our society and even our elected officials don’t trust certain groups of people—be it based on race, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, or gender.

Women, over half of the US population, certainly don’t seem to be trusted. Sure, it’s better than it was…we’re now trusted to work outside the home, vote, drive a car, and start a business.

But when it comes to the most deeply personal of actions, we don’t trust women to take care of themselves. We don’t trust them to make their own decisions regarding their bodies, health, and reproductive options.

Men’s reproductive systems are completely left alone—we trust them to make their own decisions about sex, health, vasectomies, and cancer prevention.

But women…oh, no. They’re a different story. We must regulate every aspect of the reproductive health—from birth control to pregnancy to cancer screenings. Because they, clearly, cannot be trusted to make decisions for themselves.

They couldn’t possibly decide when to have sex, when to have children, or how to protect themselves. They wouldn’t take these things seriously.

What? If we can’t trust women to take care of their most critical health needs, how are we even trusting them to be in public and function in society? They must be so irrational, frail, and unintelligent—how do we even allow them outside the home?

Despite how damaging it is for anyone to harbor this opinion, the problem is that it’s not just normal individuals—many elected officials don’t trust women, and are constantly working to pass laws that restrict our ability to make personal, private medical decisions.

Though it’s doubly devastating for a woman public official to work against women’s health choices, the current problem is that we don’t have enough women in our government. A pitiful 17% of Congress is women. Some states have never even seen a female Governor or Senator.

I promise you that if we had more women in government, a woman’s right to make her own health decisions wouldn’t even be up for discussion. We could focus on things like the economy, environment, and national security, instead of what a woman does with her doctor.

This is why in addition to fighting the ridiculous legislation coming at us from anti-choice, anti-women officials, we also have to work to elect more pro-choice women, immediately. (First step: Getting more women thinking about running for office). This will be the only permanent way to end the vicious attacks on women’s reproductive freedoms.

We have to start trusting women. Trust them to choose, trust them to run, and trust them to lead. Or we may never see the day when our personal health decisions are truly our own.

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.

One of the big stories this week has been around anti-choice conservatives blocking confirmation of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). She has over 20 years of experience and has been elected in Kansas four times - yet once again, anti-choice dogma is getting in the way of progress. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) delayed the vote yesterday.

WCF PAC endorsed candidate Jennifer Brunner spoke up in support of Sebelius today:

“We must ask ourselves-why is her nomination being stalled? She is an expert on health policy, a strong advocate for health care reform and has a proven track record of increasing access to affordable care. She has a solid record of supporting common-sense prevention policies that help keep families healthy. And she has an impressive record of supporting a woman’s right to choose.”

Take action here to tell the Senate to confirm Sebelius by April 30th.

And to paraphrase John Stewart responding to the GOP’s recent objections over, oh, just about everything: you’re not in power anymore. It’s not supposed to feel good. This is what happens when we have pro-choice leadership.

Speaking of pro-choice victories - the FDA approved over-the-counter Plan B access to 17 year-olds. This is a big step in the fight to put science and women’s health before politics.

Amidst the Plan B and Sebelius chatter, we also learned that Ellen Moran decided to step down from her White House Communications Director position. Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post wrote an interesting article about what this means, and doesn’t mean.

And to leave you on a high note before the weekend, check out Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s remarks about reproductive rights in her congressional testimony yesterday. As TAPPED, The American Prospect’s blog says: this is what a feminist secretary of state looks like. Love it.