Women and Politics

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

Yesterday was a big day for Angie Buhl. The 25-year-old is set to become the youngest woman to ever serve in the South Dakota Senate. After facing a tough primary contest against an incumbent, anti-choice Democrat, Buhl is now running unopposed in the general election. This is important news for anyone who supports a woman’s right to reproductive health choices.

South Dakota is one of the most difficult states for women to get access to contraceptives, and has on multiple occasions tried to pass bans on abortion. Buhl, a Development Associate at NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota, and long-time women’s rights advocate, has expertise fighting for progressive values in this hostile climate.

And she’s shown how hard she’s willing to work to achieve these ideals:

As an experienced advocacy professional, I’ve never shied away from an issue just because it was difficult.

This was exactly the attitude she needed to brave a race against Kathy Miles, who was running for her second term in the state Senate. At WCF, we’re glad to see lots of women on the ballot. But there’s a reason that we chose to endorse Buhl—because she has consistently stood up for women’s rights, even if it is not always the most convenient position in a conservative state.

Miles, on the other hand, voted against women’s interests at every opportunity during her time in public office. In 2005, NARAL Pro-Choice gave her a zero-percent approval rating. She supported the 2006 and 2008 abortion bans while in the state House and Senate, including prohibiting its use even when the life of the mother is seriously threatened.

These positions are not just anti-choice, but clearly anti-woman. While we absolutely need more women in government, we must support female candidates who look out for the interests of other women.

Angie Buhl’s dedication to women’s rights may not align with the majority of the South Dakota legislature, but she’s willing and ready to defend these rights in any way she can. Her victory yesterday may not be garnering the attention of the mainstream media, but it is likely to yield to real change for women in South Dakota.

We here at WCF are proud and excited to see what Buhl can achieve in South Dakota and beyond, and we’ll be with her every step of the way.

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.

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.