Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF Communications Fellow

In response to the Tim Tebow Focus on the Family Super Bowl ad set to air during this Sunday’s game, former professional football player Sean James and Olympic Gold Medalist Al Joyner created an emotionally-moving response. Their message? Trust women with their own choices.

James and Joyner applaud Mrs. Tebow for making her own decision about what to do with her pregnancy.

Now let’s take a look at Focus on Family’s ad. This 30-second commercial is said to feature Tim Tebow’s mother talking about her decision to not terminate her pregnancy against the suggestions of doctors when she fell ill in the Philippines. The child she was carrying is Tim Tebow, one of the most well-known college football players in the country. The ad is said to end with the statement, “celebrate family, celebrate life.”

Any advocate for women’s reproductive rights should be able to see the glaring similarities between the two ads: choice. Mrs. Tebow was presented with a choice about whether or not to continue her pregnancy. She wasn’t forced by anyone to make a decision either way. She was in charge of her own health care decision.

Of course, Focus on Family completely disregards the ironic fact of Mrs. Tebow’s choice. It seems the existence of a popular football player should be evidence enough that all women should continue their pregnancies, despite any danger to themselves.

The not-so-coincidental elimination of the fact that Ms. Tebow chose to keep her child and the statement at the end which links “family” and “life” to not having an abortion is Focus on Family’s attempt to insert their anti-choice and anti-woman agenda into the minds of the millions of people watching the game on Sunday.

What if Ms. Tebow had decided her life was too much at risk to continue her pregnancy? Or perhaps she did not feel that she had the financial means to support another child? The reality of the situation is that one in every three women will be faced with the dilemma of whether or not to have an abortion at some point in their lives.

These decisions belong in the hands of women, not the government or socially conservative religious groups.

TAKE ACTION TODAY: Stop CBS from airing the anti-choice and sexist advertisement during 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.

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.

So, ladies—how does it feel underneath the Senate bus? I don’t know about you, but I still have tire marks on my face from Stupak-Pitts running me over.

As we feared, another attack on women’s reproductive health choices was launched last night by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE). His amendment mirrors that of the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which was shamefully passed in the House health care bill.

Leading the opposition against this assault on choice was Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA). She summed it up perfectly when saying, “This amendment would be the biggest roll-back to a woman’s right to choose in decades. What have women ever done to deserve this punishment and lack of respect?”

Boxer also pointed out that we didn’t ask for this fight, we don’t want this fight, and this amendment is an unfair attack against women:

“We believe it is discriminatory to single out a procedure that only women can utilize, and say to the women of this nation, ‘Oh by the way, yes, this is a legal procedure but you can’t use your own private funds.’”

And perhaps my favorite point she made last night pointed out the insane disparity between men and women’s insurance coverage—men can get Viagra but women can’t get reproductive health services?

“The men who brought us this don’t single out a procedure that’s used by a man or a drug that is used by a man that involves his reproductive health care.”

“There’s nothing in this amendment that says if a man someday wants to buy Viagra, for example, that if his pharmaceutical coverage could not cover it, that he has to buy a rider - I wouldn’t support that. And they shouldn’t support going after a woman using her own private funds for her reproductive health care.”

“I support a man’s privacy just as I support a woman’s privacy.”

And again, I find myself asking the question, “Would we even be having this discussion if we had more women in Congress?” I don’t think so.

But until we have equality, we have to support the amazing women leaders we do have in the House and Senate. We cannot let these attacks on our reproductive health stand.

Because I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of being thrown under the bus.