Women and Politics

This post was submitted by T. Stephanie Tanny, WCF Political Programs Fellow.

Recently, WCF and other pro-woman advocates have been challenged by an alarming trend: the number of new female candidates in the Republican Party who support reproductive health choices for all has been steadily decreasing. This lack of viable candidates and representatives who respect choice has made it difficult to pass any type of reproductive choice legislation. With so much at stake, it is crucial to broaden the range of pro-woman voices present in public office.

Rep. Kay Hatcher (R-IL) is supported by Personal PAC & WCF

Terry Cosgrove, President and CEO of Personal PAC, believes it is absolutely essential to garner support for Republican candidates who support reproductive health choices. For the past 25 years, Terry has been involved in numerous political campaigns concerning reproductive choice and has worked with NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and National Pro-Choice Resource Center among others. In the past, Terry also conducted trainings for WCF in the DC area. Terry’s skills as a campaign consultant have proven to be invaluable to the success of numerous candidates.

While many notice the lack of new GOP women who support reproductive health choices and options, Terry asserts that there is actually a deficiency of support in both parties. In recent years, opposition to reproductive health choices has increased in Republican and Democratic parties alike.

It’s a big mistake to depend on one party or the other to advance the reproductive rights agenda. And also we should hold all elected officials and all candidates of any party responsible for being pro-choice and moving forward on the agenda guaranteeing reproductive access to all women.

Terry also notes that reproductive rights are not as important to many elected officials as they should be:

I don’t think the problem is that people aren’t pro-choice… I just believe that they aren’t pro-choice first and foremost. They’re pro-choice 99, 98, 97, 96, and there are 95 other things that they care about more. And you know the problem for that is so many people are willing to throw reproductive rights under the bus when push comes to shove, so our challenge is really to make it a higher priority with people.

It is important to keep this issue at the forefront of our nation’s political agenda. As Terry claims, there has never been an issue in US history that has not been settled without bipartisan support, and reproductive choice is no different:

We can’t do it with just Democrats… there’s simply not enough pro-choice Democrats to protect reproductive rights. What’s the solution? We need some pro-choice Republicans. We need to bring moderate Republicans into our organizations and… we need to honor them and support them… I think we have to do the hard work of… reaching out to them. We know they’re there and do whatever we can to support them.

There can never be enough people in public office who support reproductive health choices and options. Even if you have never considered running for public office before, consider this message from Terry Cosgrove:

It’s a great responsibility and a great honor to step up and do the right thing in a public forum… It is time to take back your party from some very dangerous elements. You should seriously consider being part of the process because it is so important for the future of your family members, your daughters, your granddaughters, your friends.

This post was submitted by Rebecca Freedholm, WCF Communications Fellow

Although recent polls suggest that Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina is garnering support rivaling that of incumbent Barbara Boxer, Fiorina’s anti-woman beliefs may ultimately thwart her endeavors towards becoming a California representative.

Fiorina remains staunchly opposed to a woman’s right to choose, and threatens to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. This strong resistance to women’s reproductive health choices, however, does not sit well with the vast majority of the people she seeks to represent:

“A full 71 percent of Californians favor either keeping the state’s liberal abortion laws intact or making abortion easier to obtain, according to new data from the Field Poll. The same percentage said they support the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade.”

Although Fiorina’s spokeswoman Andrea Saul maintains that reproductive rights won’t be a significant issue for voters this year, she vastly underestimates the importance of choice to constituents. This issue is bound to be a huge hurdle for Fiorina “as she attempts to become the first anti-abortion candidate to win a California race at the top of the ticket since 1986.” California democrats are not the only ones who value reproductive health choices, a large percent of republican and independent voters do as well. Fiorina cannot adequately represent California when her beliefs are so intensely at odds with the majority of constituents.

If Fiorina continues to run an anti-woman campaign, she will likely end up isolating herself from California voters—especially female voters: “A Field Poll released in early July found that women prefer Boxer over Fiorina, 51 percent to 40 percent.” Strikingly this poll also indicates that among independent female voters, who offer a crucial pool of support for GOP candidates running for office in such a Democratic leaning state, “Boxer led Fiorina 49 percent to 35 percent.”

There’s no question as to why Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer is favored among California women; throughout her career, Boxer has remained deeply committed to women’s health care issues and has been unwavering in her mission to protect a woman’s right to choose. While Fiorina may be unwilling to stick up for the issues most important to Californians, Boxer has proven to be a representative who fights for the rights most valued by the California people. Boxer’s campaign manager, Rose Kapolczynski, put the situation into significant perspective when she begged the question,

“Are we going to have a senator who defends a woman’s right to choose when it’s under attack by the right wing, or a senator who will join forces with the most extreme anti-choice groups to try to make abortion a crime?”

Sen. Barbara Boxer understands the causes that her constituents care deeply about, and has valiantly fought to preserve the reproductive health care choices that many, including opponent Fiorina, seek to take away. At WCF, we commend Boxer’s efforts in upholding the values significant to Californians, and support her as she continues to be a wonderful representative of her state.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

I hope all of you read WCF President/CEO Siobhan “Sam” Bennett’s most recent op-ed in the Huffington Post. She does an excellent job refuting Sarah Palin’s claim that her “mama grizzlies” represent the majority of American women. I completely agree with Sam that while we love how women are getting engaged in politics, this vein of political activism is actually detrimental to women’s rights and equality.

Unfortunately, Adrienne Royer at Cosmopolitan Conservative doesn’t seem to have understood this message. She read Sam’s article and declared that:

“Sam Bennett, who happens to be the executive director of the Women’s Campaign Forum, decided to issue her decree that conservative women aren’t real women.”

However, Sam’s point was that these women’s views don’t include protecting women’s rights and equality for all people. Sam actually made the argument that:

“Although most, if not all, of Sarah’s followers are Republican, that doesn’t mean they speak for all GOP women.”

Indeed, here at WCF, we’re proud to endorse Republican women that recognize the importance of allowing women to make their own health decisions. As the Republican party has become more anti-woman in its platform, this brand of Republican woman has been harder and harder to find; however, WCF has a proud history of endorsing hundreds of Republican women that were not afraid to stand up for women.

This was the crux of Sam’s argument—that anti-woman policies do not need to define conservative women. Sarah Palin’s attempt to co-opt feminism for herself and her radical followers is not a move that will serve women well.

In her post, Royer identifies herself as a pro-life woman who supports the use of contraceptives. While this is not the position that WCF has chosen, this shows the dynamic nature of this issue. Despite the experiences in her own family, Sarah Palin doesn’t support comprehensive sex education or access to contraceptives. I agree with Royer that abortion, contraception, and sex-ed:

“Are complicated issues, and ones that reflect a myriad of views even among conservative, pro-life communities.”

But I disagree with her contention that these issues don’t go hand-in-hand. The idea that access to comprehensive sexual education and contraceptives is somehow separate from other important health decisions is simply false. Conservative, anti-choice groups would like to believe that if we ignore the issue, by teaching abstinence-only sex-ed and limiting access to essential health resources, the problem will go away.

Royer criticized WCF’s use of a poll that showed that 81% of Americans support individuals making their own health choices—because it was 4 years old. I hate to break it to her, but women have needed to make these choices throughout history—and for a long time, they had to do it alone, and in a way that often endangered their lives. Perhaps she should take her own advice that:

“Women should be free to decide political views for themselves–whether they are liberal or conservative.”

I wholeheartedly agree. Women should be able to make all the same decisions that men can—including over their own bodies and health care needs. No one’s political views—Sam’s, mine, or Sarah Palin’s—should limit anyone else’s right to make their own important health choices.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

Throughout the first few days of hearings to confirm Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the next Supreme Court Justice, the women on the Judiciary Committee, Senators Amy Klobuchar and Dianne Feinstein, have repeatedly brought up Kagan’s gender as a reason to support her nomination.

Eva Rodriguez at the Washington Post asked her readers yesterday whether this was appropriate—or necessary.

“Yes, Kagan was the first woman to serve as dean of Harvard Law School. Yes, she broke the glass ceiling to become the first female solicitor general of the United States. So what? Would anyone on the panel have praised a white, male nominee for being a great role model for young men? I seriously doubt it.”

While I admire Rodriguez’s perspective that women no longer need to fight to get access to the same opportunities as men, I can’t help but think we’re not there yet. As Sen. Feinstein noted during the hearings, recent cases such as Ledbetter prove that women still make less money than men—decades after women began to challenge the status quo.

And women are still seriously underrepresented in government, making up only 17% of Congress. Yes, we have made progress. But that does not mean that women have won the war.

Rodriguez also claimed that Kagan has not received special attention because of her gender as she has risen in political life.

“I was pleased that little attention was paid to the fact that she is a woman when she was nominated as solicitor general and then to the Supreme Court.”

Clearly, Rodriguez wasn’t taking into consideration the sexist attacks on Kagan’s appearance, sexual orientation, and marital status since President Obama announced his selection. Indeed, the question should not be whether male nominees would be described as role models for young men—but whether a man would be questioned about his sexual preferences just because he has chosen not marry.

I think we should all hope—and work to create—the world that Rodriguez described. But we’re just not there yet. Three women on a Court of nine Justices is not equal representation. And the cases heard by the Supreme Court have an enormous impact on the day-to-day lives of American women. Protecting women’s reproductive health choices and fighting for pay equity are not issues that men in government have often prioritized.

So yes, it does matter that Solicitor General Kagan is a woman, because she will set a good example for young women, make one more crack in the glass ceiling, and bring her unique knowledge and experiences to the Court.

Cross-posted from my account at The Huffington Post

Will 2010 go down in history as the “Anti-Year of the Woman?”

Given the track record for women candidates already this year, I would say it’s a distinct possibility. So far, we’ve seen Dede Scozzafava, Martha Coakley, Jennifer Brunner, Connie Saltonstall, Colleen Hanabusa, Elaine Marshall, and Rep. Carol Shea-Porter stunted, dismissed, and undermined by their own political parties.

These women come from both sides of the aisle, which is one of the many important points made by National Journal reporter Erin McPike in her recent piece about the struggle of female candidates.

The obstacles to women’s political success are many: lack of party support, lack of recruitment, ingrained sexism, and male-dominated leadership of both parties.

Yes, the odds stacked against women candidates seem insurmountable. However, I am proud to say that the Women’s Campaign Forum (WCF) has been addressing each of these problems since 1974–and we’re not about to give up now.

WCF is the oldest national non-partisan organization dedicated to increasing women’s political participation, at all levels of office. We support women from the very earliest stages of their political careers.

Here’s how we tackle four of the biggest problems facing women candidates:

Lack of Party Support

We know the old boys’ club is alive and well on both sides of the aisle. As each woman this year has been squeezed out or rejected by their own party, WCF has been right there by their side. We watched, many times in shock, at how the political system blatantly damaged talented female candidates.

But this is exactly why WCF exists. We aren’t about politics as usual. We don’t wait for the masses and establishment to throw their collective weight behind a woman to support her–we’re there from the very beginning.

We invest in the woman–not just the particular race she happens to be in at that time. We focus on the political careers of our candidates, seeing their individual gifts and talents.

Not bound by party politics, WCF has been able to uniquely support women in this intimate way for 36 years.

But electing women from both parties is the only way we will ever reach gender equality in our government. A non-partisan approach is essential. We will continue to look for ways to invest in women Republican candidates who support reproductive health choices to ensure that the road to women’s equal representation is paved.

Women’s Lack of Recruitment

Thanks to the brilliant research of Jennifer Lawless, we know that women are:

• 50% less likely than men to seriously consider running for office.
• 30% less likely to actually run.
• One-third less likely to view themselves as qualified to run for office.
• One-third less likely to be asked to run for office.

WCF’s She Should Run program addresses these facts head-on. We know that if women aren’t even thinking about running for office that they need to be asked–a lot. She Should Run’s easy online platform helps us encourage women across the country to consider running for office, no matter what political party they may choose.

Through She Should Run, women are asked to consider running by someone they know and trust–which often greatly impacts a woman’s decision to become a candidate.

Ingrained Sexism

Sexism remains one of the largest factors hurting women candidates. WCF has repeatedly spoken out against misogynistic remarks made about women public figures from both parties. We work with our candidates to ensure they are prepared to handle the toxic political atmosphere that has been created for women.

When the sexism was flung most recently at Sen. Olympia Snowe, Sen. Susan Collins, Martha Coakley, Rep. Betty Sutton, Sen. Mary Landrieu, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Sen. Barbara Boxer, Secretary Jennifer Brunner, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, WCF and I were there speaking out and saying, “not on our watch.”

Male-Dominated Party Leadership

The list of Republican and Democratic Party leaders provided by McPike speaks for itself: Women have almost no power in their own political party. Clearly women can’t rely on anyone else but ourselves to increase our numbers in public office.

This is why WCF stresses the importance of women’s mentorship at all levels of office as well as positions of support. As was recently reported by Erika Lovley in POLITICO, women are still largely underrepresented in the offices of Congressional members. We look to help foster women helping each other during our Hill’s Got Talent and Hail to the Chiefs special programs.

We know that if we want to see real change, we must see more women at the top.

I hope that many will stand with us to work for women’s leadership at all levels of office, across the country, and from all political parties.

If we truly want to advance women’s rights, we need women who support reproductive health choices for all. If we truly want to reach gender equality in our government, we must support women on both sides of the aisle.

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!

We’ve said it for a long time: We need more women in government who will fight the constant efforts of the far right to endanger women’s health, safety, and freedom. The Utah state legislature’s recent attempt to make miscarriage equivalent to criminal homicide is a particularly heinous example.

Under the original bill, which passed in the state legislature, a woman who suffered a miscarriage due to “intentional or reckless behavior” could be punished with life in prison. It should come as no surprise that the bill’s original sponsor, State Rep. Carl Wimmer, is male.

A woman might know that 15% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage for a number of reasons. She would also immediately see that the vagueness of “reckless behavior” could trigger a miscarriage-witch-hunt, and send us back to a time when pregnant women were considered invalids and barely allowed to leave home.

The bill came about as an extreme reaction to the case of a 17 year-old woman who paid a man to beat her in order to induce a miscarriage. A woman legislator would likely understand that the right reaction here is not to conflate the actions of one desperate young woman with a criminal homicide law that would affect all Utah women.

The right reaction would be to look at the underlying causes of this sad case: Why did this young woman feel so trapped? Why wasn’t there a safety net or support system for her? If she needed to end her pregnancy, why couldn’t she procure a safe, legal abortion? Perhaps Utah’s restrictive parental consent laws, 24-hour reflection period, and lack of abortion providers in 93% of its counties led this young woman to put her own life in danger.

Thanks in part to the vehement criticism of women across the country, Utah’s governor sent the bill back to the legislature for revisions, without signing or vetoing it. But the fight doesn’t end here: Across the country similar fetal homicide bills are being used in an insidious attempt to chip away at reproductive rights. These types of bills endanger and wrongly punish women. We need more women in government who will understand this, and fight back.