Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Mike Ellement, WCF Fellow

Elena Kagan’s confirmation to the Supreme Court will not only add a third (and much-needed) woman, but also a defender of reproductive health choices.

In the last week, the nation’s suspense of Kagan’s views on choice has been relieved: many of Kagan’s writings from her time as a legal adviser in the Clinton White House have been released, showing her deference to privacy of the individual against government regulation, which has long been held by the Court.

Her writings indicate that she will vote to uphold the over thirty years of jurisprudence that has held the constitution prohibits the government from regulating reproductive choices—from contraception to abortion. While the debate over such questions may make for good political commentary, the legal question has already been answered—the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution prevent the government from answering such questions of choice which are reserved for the individual.

It’s truly a victory for women and all Americans that Kagan with follow in the footsteps of Justice John Paul Stevens, whose seat she will fill on the bench.

But given the already shameful and sexist commentary surrounding Kagan, we can surely anticipate that her views on choice will only add more fuel to the anti-choices fire during her confirmation hearings.

We join other groups who have already called for General Kagan to receive a fair confirmation hearing. The attacks against Justice Sotomayor were unfair, sexist, and, at times, vicious. The Kagan hearing should be different. She should receive the fair treatment and respect that her years of service demand.

WCF will be on the watch for those who distort her record, use gender-based attacks, and turn the nomination process into a political battle for their own benefit.

The Supreme Court nomination hearings for Solicitor General Elena Kagan are set to begin June 28.

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF Communications Fellow

When you think Texas, ‘progressive’ isn’t exactly the first word that pops into your head. My guess is that it probably won’t even appear on your brain’s radar unless associated with city Austin. With that being said, Barbara Ann Radnofsky, candidate for Attorney General, is bringing progressive back in Texas by battling the issue of gay divorce.

Radnofsky recently wrote a piece in the Huffington Post challenging current Attorney General Greg Abbott’s decision to block a divorce between two women who were married in Massachusetts. His reason? Texas does not recognize gay marriage; therefore both the couple’s marriage and their file for divorce are now invalid. However, it appears that Abbott has read the marriage laws incorrectly in Texas. Radnofsky writes:

“‘The law of this state applies to persons married elsewhere who are domiciled in this state’. Texas Family Code Section 1.103. So, the law of Texas clearly applies Texas law to ‘persons married elsewhere’. Gay people are persons. Texas law would apply to any Texas domiciliaries seeking a divorce. The language is clear. This Texas law doesn’t apply to ‘marriages;’ rather it applies to ‘persons’”.

Gay people are people, too. ( What a shocker). Kudos to Radnofsky for stating the truth in this situation.

In addition, Radnofsky accuses Abbott of poorly utilizing his time and efforts on this non-issue:

“The Attorney General of our State thinks government intervention in the non-violent, orderly wind-down of a relationship is the best use of our State’s and his resources. He should leave divorce orders alone, and get back to work on the real problems facing our State, and our children”.

The rest of her piece can be found here.

Clearly Radnofsky isn’t afraid to speak her mind on progressive issues that many candidates, especially those from conservative states, shy away from. Her strong voice in standing up for women and minorities is exactly what Texas needs right now in their Attorney General.

Radnofsky’s primary election was yesterday, and she was running uncontested. Learn more about her today and make sure she secures a victory this November!

We all have values. Some of mine include equality, choice, and freedom. However, if i were to describe myself as a “values voter,” most would immediately think of conservative, anti-choice positions.

But as Cynthia Hess from religion dispatches points out,

“A study shows that progressive women activists are motivated by values, but not the ‘values voter’ kind. How about mutual responsibility, community, and concern for others?”

She references the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, which has interviewed over 100 progressive women leaders in the past several years. The results show that progressive women not only value equality and individual rights, but also a more overarching set of values: mutual responsibility, shared power, community, and concern for others.

“In the 2008 presidential election, these women and men redefined what it means to be a values voter. They showed that “voting our values” does not mean lending support to conservative positions, but rather demonstrating a willingness to balance the pursuit of our individual self-interest with actions that serve a larger good.”

As we move forward, I think progressives will have an increasing opportunity to reclaim the meaning around values. Our morals, beliefs, and ideals drive us to protect choice, equal rights, and so many other issues that progressive women fight for on a daily basis.