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.

While Sarah Palin’s laundry list of controversial views has incensed a broad spectrum of Americans, she has been an especially sharp thorn in the sides of feminists. And with her ever-increasing celebrity status, it seems we just can’t escape her damaging rhetoric.

But things just managed to get worse. Now Palin is claiming that she’s a feminist? (April Fools? … j/k? … No?)

As if we don’t have enough trouble battling blatant anti-woman forces…now we have to face a political celeb who mistakenly identifies herself as one of us? Oye.

With feminists like Sarah Palin, who needs enemies?

It seems that Palin thinks by putting the word “Conservative” in front of “feminist,” she’s able to magically change its intrinsic meaning. It would be like calling yourself a meat-loving vegetarian—it just doesn’t work. Their goals directly contradict each other.

Of course, many actual feminists have already refuted and condemned Palin’s false identification. Simply put by Taylor Marsh,

“Anything less than supporting women’s full individual rights simply renders you a pretender, a fake, a feminist fraud.”

While there has been debate about whether or not you can be an anti-choice feminist, the majority of thought and most of the feminist community concludes that you can’t. (Basically, an individual’s choice for or against abortion for themselves shouldn’t apply to everyone - but that’s a giant topic for another day.)

As Palin has done nothing but use her own personal decisions to showcase her anti-reproductive choice stance, it’s clear that she doesn’t support women’s freedom to make their own personal choices. Heretofore, she is not a feminist.

In fact, I would argue that it’s worse than that: Sarah Palin’s politics, views, and approach are actually harmful to women.

I say this especially in light of her battle plans against female candidates who would actually advocate for women’s rights. In fact, she’s targeting many WCF-Endorsed Candidates.

WCF works to get more women into public office, from both sides of the aisle. But we, along with many women’s organizations, believe that it’s imperative to elect more women who will defend women’s reproductive health.

Unfortunately, Palin’s recent actions aren’t just threatening to women’s health—her venomous and uncompromising approach to politics harms our entire country.

Many note that Palin and Bachmann’s political approach disproves the idea that women collaborate more than men. As former Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) said,

“With Sarah and Michele [Bachmann], they’re not listeners — they want to tell you what to believe, so it’s a very different style than most women in politics have had.”

But at a time when explosive partisan politics continues to deepen our divisions, do we really want leaders who will only continue to tear that expanse further apart?

And I must remind everyone that Palin’s extreme reproductive choice views don’t reflect those of most Americans; who believe that individuals, not politicians or the government, should decide which option is best for themselves and their families.

It deeply saddens me to witness the destruction caused by women like Sarah Palin; who could use their powers for good, not evil; whose goals aren’t to truly empower women, but strip them of their freedoms; who don’t foster much-needed collaboration, but boast how they would further divide; who aren’t a true voice for all women, but tow the line of minority opinion.

As recent elections have overwhelmingly demonstrated, our current political system often fails women. And Palin’s tactics only further polarize our political system, making it increasingly difficult for women to succeed within it.

I truly hope that voters this November will choose collaboration over division; new approaches over stale partisan politics; and advancing women’s rights instead of turning back the clock.

This posted was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF communications fellow

When you say “Stupak,” I say, “anti-choice!” However, have no fear: The name that has been tainted with numerous attempts to take away women’s reproductive freedoms in the recently-passed health care bill is nearing his final days of legislative power.

Yes, Rep. Bart Stupak, the infamous Congressman from Michigan and legislator behind the Stupak-Pitts amendment will not be seeking re-election in November.

The departure of Stupak makes for an even more interesting election year: It’s clear that Stupak won the seat thanks to his socially conservative and anti-choice views. And now many say that the doors have flung wide open for a Republican victory this November.

Even before his retirement announcement, President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and the DCCC called on Stupak not to retire, in fear of losing the Democratic majority.

Personally, I would much rather have someone in Congress who will vote to protect women’s reproductive freedoms—not someone who, despite his party’s platform on choice, spear-heads anti-choice amendments left and right.

Currently, Connie Saltonstall is the sole woman running for the seat. And unlike Stupak, she is a strong advocate for women’s reproductive rights. Running a campaign in this district should prove to be difficult for her, but we can’t let social conservatives scare women from running. Kudos to Saltonstall for stepping up to the challenge.

A majority of the American population agrees that women have a right to choose their own reproductive choices and options, and we need legislators from all districts who will echo and support this view. But can proponents of reproductive rights successfully fight the health care reform backlash in an especially difficult district? Time will tell, but for the sake of women and all Americans, I certainly hope so.

By: Jen Nedeau
Crossposted from Women’s Media Center

Fully understanding the importance of health care for all Americans, the author, who manages the WMC Not Under the Bus campaign, describes a sense of betrayal shared by many—and how to move forward.

“So this isn’t radical reform.  But it is major reform.  This legislation will not fix everything that ails our health care system.  But it moves us decisively in the right direction.  This is what change looks like.”—President Obama

So this is what change looks like? Throwing women’s rights under the bus in exchange for health care?

Something about this doesn’t feel like change. Something about this feels all too familiar. Once again, women’s rights are being used as a bargaining chip for political gain. Once again, the right to choose is not left in the hands of women, but left in the hands of male politicians who will never be faced with an unwanted pregnancy.

Yes, it is true that Speaker Nancy Pelosi worked incredibly hard to get the votes to pass the bill that now makes it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against women with higher premiums than men or deny coverage to women who have had Caesarean sections or survived domestic violence.

Yes, it is true that bill will make health care more accessible for women and families across America by controlling costs and offering a public marketplace where those without insurance can buy their own affordable coverage.

However, these very important advancements cannot disguise two major attacks on women’s choice.

The first attack was passing a bill that contained Ben Nelson’s Manager’s Amendment.

The second attack is the Executive Order from the White House reaffirming the Hyde Amendment ban on federal funding of abortion and effectively extending it beyond its current application. In the Daily Beast, Dana Goldstein discusses how the “executive order enshrined the Hyde Amendment and expanded its reach into the new private insurance exchanges created by the health-care bill.”

At the end of the day, more than 30 million uninsured Americans can now have access to health reform, but it is abundantly clear women’s health is not considered a priority.

If you are a pro-choice advocate, this is not the change we hoped to see, particularly from a Democratic President and Democratic Majority Congress.

The bill that was passed contains language that has the potential to create a nation completely divided by access to abortion.  With the Nelson language intact, it is possible for abortion rights to be completely stripped from the hands of low-income women, who are disproportionately non-white, by the predominantly male-led state legislatures.

According to the Guttmacher Institute , “nearly half of all pregnancies to American women are unintended and four in 10 of these end in abortion.” Guttmacher also reports that unintended pregnancies have increased by 29 percent among poor women while decreasing 20 percent among higher-income women.

As the bill stands at this point, if a state opts out of abortion coverage in the exchange, women who cannot afford a private insurance plan would have few viable options for seeking access to abortion. That means reproductive choice is no longer left with women individually, but given to the state. After last night’s historic vote, it may feel like the health care reform battle is over. But for millions of women across America, it has really just begun.

Today CREDO launched an action taking a firm stand against anti-choice Democrats who betrayed women across America saying, “It’s time for pro-choice donors and members of Congress to stop funneling money to the anti-choice candidates via the DCCC.”

You can sign CREDO’s petition and take the momentum of ”Yes We Can” pass health care to “Yes We Can” repeal the Hyde Amendment.

It is time to finally give women across America—not just those who can afford private health care, but every woman—a real choice when it comes to their body, their destiny and their future.

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.