Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF Communications Fellow

We all expect outrageous commercials during the Super Bowl. But CBS has taken sexist advertising to a whole new level by choosing to air an anti-choice ad sponsored by Focus on the Family.

Jehmu Greene, President of the Women’s Media Center (WMC), recently wrote a piece on Huffingon Post, which challenges CBS’ use of Super Bowl Sunday to promote their socially conservative agenda:

“Super Bowl advertising has always been a showcase of overt sexism. This year the biased barrage also includes CBS’s and the NFL’s decision to air a seemingly subtle ad highlighting college football star Tim Tebow’s story, sponsored by Focus on the Family, which aggressively works to strip women of medical choices. This decision should be seen as a referendum on the status of women in the media and marks the first time the Super Bowl will be used to push a polarizing, political agenda”.

Read the rest of Jehmu’s post here.

The Women’s Media Center has also simplified the reasoning behind why CBS should remove this ad in their Top 10 Reasons the NFL Should Tell CBS to Scrap the Ad .

Jehmu and WMC echo the voice of WCF and many other organizations in demanding that CBS to pull the ad and refrain from injecting Americans with anti-choice rhetoric during the Super Bowl.

Take action: join the Women’s Media Center and add your voice now!

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF Communications Fellow

What will it take for our country to realize that the lack of diversity in our government is severely impeding our progress? And how do we inspire more women to run for office to fix this problem? Research? Statistics? A heartfelt plea?

Well, I’ve got all three for you. Swanee Hunt, Former Ambassador to Austria and Founding Director of Women and Public Policy Program; and Kerry Healey, former Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts and co-chair of the Political Parity Project, have something to say: Women, start your campaigns.

Hunt and Healey, both seasoned political figures, use the concept of critical mass to support the need for more women: When at least 30% of any group is made up of women, the dynamics and workings of the organization changes, in many cases, for the better.

“Women collectively bring a broader perspective to the political debate, based on their different social roles and life experiences. That breadth is crucial in order to solve the many challenges society faces, including the current economic crisis, national security issues, and health care reform.”

With recent narrow defeat of the Stupak-Pitts amendment and Martha Coakley’s loss in the Massachusetts special election, there is no better time than now for women to become involved in politics. President Obama is determined to pass his health care bill this year. But with women having much less than a critical mass—17%—in Congress, we could very well end up with legislation that puts women’s reproductive rights in jeopardy.

So why aren’t women scrambling to fix this inequity? The problem seems to be twofold: Women don’t realize how much their voices are needed for the strength of our government, and they are much more hesitant to run for office than men.

“Women candidates are also often less confident of their own qualifications to serve, and do not want to run until they have achieved higher credentials than a typical male candidate.”

Studies show that a woman must be asked six times before seriously considering a run for office. And oftentimes after making that decision, women face double standards and harsher scrutiny.

Hunt and Healey call upon women to shed their fears and run for elected office. At a time in which the voices of women are needed more than ever in the political arena, women must be asked and encouraged to run.

“Women in the arena don’t need a brief, polite round of applause for their efforts; it’s not enough when they often have had to work twice as hard just to get into the fight. They need to be recruited, supported, and coached. Our political parties need to encourage women to run, donors need to open their wallets, and the media needs to stop with the random critiques of female candidates’ clothes or hair or belabored debates about whether a tear is from empathy, grief, or exhaustion.”

In order to protect our reproductive health choices and ensure that future legislation fully defends and expands women’s rights, we must not be afraid to take action and run for office.

Remember, when women run for office, they raise as much money as men and win just as often. But, as Martha Coakley reminded us, you can’t win if you don’t run.

In deciding to air a Focus on the Family ad during the Super Bowl, CBS executives have effectively outed themselves as anti-choice and anti-woman.

If CBS is trying to avoid controversial issues in Super Bowl commercials, I think it’s safe to say that they’ve failed miserably. Even putting aside the negative frenzy the ad has already caused, let’s remember that Focus on the Family is one of the most contentious, intolerant, and extreme organizations in existence.

Not to mention that reproductive rights is one of the most controversial and dividing issues of our time.

To approve an anti-choice spot and reject an ad for a male dating site (among their past rejections of progressive organizations) shows blatant hypocrisy and bias.

We can’t show two guys making out, but we can talk about abortion?

Defenders of CBS’ decision say yes—that despite its divisive and political message, the ad itself is positive and uncontroversial. Bill O’Reilly asks, how can anyone be offended about Tim Tebow being alive?

But now I have to ask: What if a pro-choice ad had been submitted for the Super Bowl? What if it featured an uplifting story like Tim Tebow’s?

Picture this: Fade in. Moving music plays. Video of children playing. A woman talks about how happy she is that the birth control pill was available to her. She wanted to make sure she became a mother when she was ready. Because of her ability to make that choice, she now has two children who she’s fully able to support. End on picture of happy family. Fade out.

And what if this ad was for Planned Parenthood or National Abortion Federation? Something tells me CBS wouldn’t approve their message to over 100 million Super Bowl viewers. And I don’t think Bill O’Reilly would deem this a “positive message.”

It seems both are making this decision solely based on the ad—not its message, political connotation, or extremely divisive views of the creating organization.

Many organizations, including WCF, are demanding that CBS pull the ad.

TAKE ACTION: Join the Women’s Media Center and add your voice now!

The issue of women’s reproductive health belongs in doctors’ offices, family discussions, and women’s hands.

It doesn’t belong in our government or with politicians. And it most certainly doesn’t belong in the Super Bowl.

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.

This weekend, the House narrowly passed a health care reform bill after delivering a huge blow to women’s reproductive health in the Stupak amendment—thus demonstrating again how badly we need more women in power.

According to NARAL Pro-Choice America:

“The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system — a radical departure from the status quo.”

As Feministing points out, we thought it was clear “that reproductive health care is essential health care.”

But apparently not, because the Stupak amendment passed 240-194. How many women voted for it? 19. (2 Dems, all Repubicans). Allow me to do a little math:

Out of 435 members, we currently have only 73 women in the House. We should have 217.5. (OK, round that up to 218 I suppose). So, that means we need 145 more women to make it equal.

What do you suppose would happen with the anti-choice, anti-woman Stupak amendment if we had gender equality in Congress for this vote?

I dare to say that not only would it be defeated—it wouldn’t have even a whisper of a wish of passing. (That is, if it was even introduced at all).

Like many women around the country today, I’m feeling very bittersweet about the health care bill passing. Of course we need health care reform, but it shouldn’t have to come at the cost of rolling back our reproductive choices.

Sure, the Stupak amendment could be stripped out by the conference committee, but how many women will be part of that decision-making process? Most likely, not nearly enough.

By  WCF Fellow, Trish Calvarese

In the bill to reform the current health care system, written by the Chairman of the Finance Committee Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), as it stands, no tax credit could be used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape or incest or if the life of a pregnant woman is in danger.

But those restrictions aren’t strict enough for committee member Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Another white male, Hatch authored an amendment that said no money provided under the legislation could be used to pay “any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion.”

In the 13-to-10 vote rejecting the amendment, committee members voted with their parties, with two exceptions: Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) voted for the restrictions, while female Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME) voted against them.

Let us now take a moment to reflect on the fact that of the twenty-three member committee, only four are women: three democrats, and one republican. All four women voted against the amendment.

Now let’s consider this: had even just one more democrat jumped ship on the party and voted for the amendment (as Sen. Conrad did, shame on him), and had Sen. Snowe voted with her party, then Hatch’s disturbing audacity to legislate choice in a health care bill would have been successful.

Essentially, had not all three female democratic committee members voted against Hatch’s amendment, without Sen. Snowe voting against her party, in favor of women, it was very possible for the Senate Finance Committee to produce a health care bill refusing to provide funding for abortions, even in the case of rape, incest, or if a woman’s life depended on it.

Thank you Sen. Snowe, for putting women first. Thank you ladies of the Senate Finance Committee.

This is why we need more women in elected office, women who will put the rights of women and girls before party politics.

This post was submitted by Jamie Bence, one of WCF’s Summer 2009 Fellows.

When Hillary Clinton became the nation’s third female Secretary of State, she brought a strong background in women’s rights and reproductive justice to her job.  More than any of her predecessors, Clinton imbues her work with a sense of how reproductive rights and global security are connected.

Secretary Clinton has been a well-recognized advocate of the global women’s rights movement since her historic speech at the 1995 United Nations Conference on Women in Beijing.  There, Clinton famously declared: “Women’s rights are human rights, once and for all.”

Women and girls are still the majority of the world’s poor, unschooled, unhealthy, and underfed.  Thus, it is still vitally important that women have access to the knowledge and resources that allow them to plan their families.  Nations which respect women’s rights to contraception and female health care are more likely to be progressive partners in Democracy.  According to the United Nations, gender equality is an important indicator of national stability.

It seems that Secretary Clinton’s preeminence on this issue may be inspiring change in Washington, which has long been stagnant on international women’s issues.  Shortly after Congress convened in January, Senator Barbara Boxer announced that she would be heading the first ever Senate Subcommittee on Global Women’s Issues.  In March, the White House Council on Women and Girls (led by Valerie Jarrett) was created to study gender implications of federal initiatives.  The International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act is making its way through Congress, and another, the International Violence Against Women Act, will likely be brought to a vote in the next session.

The United States can act in consort with the United Nations to improve the station of women around the world.  Though both have acknowledged that rape has been used as a tool of war, there has never been a trial in any U.N. court for committing or allowing rape as a war crime.

However, the United States could gain credibility by ratifying CEDAW, the Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.  Besides the United States, the only other countries that have refused to ratify CEDAW are Sudan, Somalia, Iran, and a few Pacific Island states.  Moving forward, Secretary Clinton has much she can do to make the U.S. a leader in ensuring women’s rights around the world.

Hopefully, she will have continued, expanded support in the White House and Congress to accomplish her task.

For more information on Secretary Clinton’s weekend trip to Mumbai and what she said to students there about women in the world, click here.