Women and Politics

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

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

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.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

Yesterday marked the beginning of Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s confirmation process to become the next Justice of the Supreme Court. Despite her high office in the U.S. government and extensive legal experience, the fact that Kagan is a progressive woman has attracted a great deal of controversy—leading social conservatives to criticize her lack of judicial experience, appearance, and position on women’s reproductive rights.

Sound familiar? The eminently qualified Sonia Sotomayor was questioned about her experience as well. But in fact, many of the most famous and well-respected Justices were not judges before being appointed to the Court. Senator Dianne Feinstein defended Kagan by reminding the Senate Judiciary Committee that:

“The Roberts court is the first to be comprised entirely of former federal Court of Appeals judges.”

On Monday, through thinly veiled compliments about her academic expertise, social conservatives on the Committee hinted at the type of issues they will try to use to block her nomination. One of the major criticisms leveled at Kagan involved her history of involvement with political issues—AKA, Judicial Activism.

But let’s remember how social conservatives approved countless politically-minded judges while President Bush was in charge of the nominations—but now that progressives have an opportunity to simply maintain the balance of the Court—activism is considered a major issue. As Senator Chuck Schumer eloquently put it:

“Judicial activism now has a new guise—activism to pull our country to the right.”

And one of the issues that the right is most ardently concerned with is that of a woman’s right to make her own health choices. In fact, there were anti-choice protesters outside of Kagan’s hearings yesterday—and conservative Senators frequently alluded to their fear that Kagan would uphold Roe v. Wade.

But despite their supposed fear of judicial activism, these anti-choice politicians would most likely celebrate the active upheaval of the 30 years of jurisprudence that is a woman’s right to choose.

That is precisely why it’s so important that we have another woman on the Court. As Kagan said yesterday:

“I owe a debt of gratitude to two other living Justices. Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg paved the way for me and so many other women in my generation. Their pioneering lives have created boundless possibilities for women in the law.”

Their careers have also created opportunities for all American women. By standing up for the values that allow women to freely pursue careers and achieve equality, Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg have significantly affected countless women’s lives. Cases such as Ledbetter have proven that having women on the Court does matter, because their experiences and perspectives are different from the six male Justices.

With any luck, Kagan will soon be approved as the next woman who will fight for women’s equality and inspire others to follow in her path. Senator John Kerry described Kagan’s bipartisanship and equanimity, saying that Kagan is:

“The type of judge you would want if you weren’t sure what side you wanted to win.”

As we saw with Sotomayor, the hearings only heat up as we go along. But yesterday, Sen. Sessions called for more candor in the confirmation process—here at WCF, we agree. While Kagan herself has shown her commitment to thorough and open hearings, let’s hope that the Senators will do the same—these hearings should be about Kagan’s qualifications—and nothing else.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

With Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings set to start next week, the media has been buzzing about potential areas of weakness, conflict, and utilizing the sexist language that seems to be the accepted discourse around women in politics.

Surprisingly, previously rejected Supreme Court nominee, Robert Bork, has entered into the conversation. Bork, who was also serving as Solicitor General when he was nominated, faced one of the most controversial confirmation processes in U.S. history, and was ultimately rejected by the Senate because of his adamantly anti-choice stance.

And now it appears that Bork would like to make Kagan’s confirmation process just as contentious. Now working with the Americans United for Life to oppose Kagan, Bork claimed that:

“The one thing the republicans would gain by making an issue of the Kagan hearings is a little integrity for future battles…[they would lose] their reputation for rolling over any time a woman or a liberal is nominated.”

Clearly, anti-choice conservatives are determined to focus Kagan’s confirmation on the most controversial issue as possible. While Kagan has made clear her position on women’s reproductive health choices and maintaining the legal precedent set in Roe v. Wade, getting more women on the Supreme Court should not be isolated to a single issue.

Not only does Kagan have years of experience as U.S. Solicitor General, Dean of Harvard Law, and as a law clerk for Chief Justice Thurgood Marshall, there are also numerous documents released from her time in the Clinton White House—displaying her views and expertise on several topics.

I would hope that someone like Robert Bork—who endured a humiliating confirmation process despite his numerous qualifications—would not want to subject another talented candidate to the same experience. Indeed, Kagan herself has complimented Bork for his openness during his confirmation:

“Not since Bork has any nominee candidly discussed, or felt a need to discuss, his or her views and philosophy.”

Instead, Bork and his fellow social conservatives seem determined to keep another “woman” or “liberal” off the Supreme Court—at all costs. Despite this, the sitting members of the Court seem not to mind that Kagan has worked in politics, and in fact, even conservative members have come out on her side. Justice Scalia, one of the most right-wing members of the Court, recently said:

“. . . I am happy to see that this latest nominee is not a federal judge – and not a judge at all.”

Justices Kennedy and Stevens have also expressed their admiration for the Solicitor General. Considering these numerous endorsements by sitting members, a former President, and several previous Solicitors General, among others, it will be remarkable if the anti-choice, anti-woman movement succeeds in derailing her nomination. However, we can almost expect that they will turn the confirmation process into a misogynistic circus.

Already this year we’ve seen many examples of extraordinary women rejected by the Old Boys’ Club—and we don’t want to see that happen to Elena Kagan. The Supreme Court needs more women—and it needs more Justices who will fight for a woman’s right to make her own reproductive health choices.

Sexism has no place in politics or Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Get ready to stand up for Kagan as she starts her hearings on Monday!

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.

So far, today’s hearing has given Sonia Sotomayor the chance to answer in-depth questions about her past decisions, approach to using precedent, and issues such as privacy, women’s health, discrimination, the Second Amendment, and executive power.

But up first, of course, was another discussion about her background influencing her decisions and the “wise Latina” quote. She explained her real intention and how she was directing her words to a group of Latinos:

“I was trying to inspire them to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system, because different life experiences and background always do. I don’t think there’s a quarrel with that in this society. [...] I do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experiences.”

The issue of a woman’s right to reproductive choices and past Supreme Court rulings such as Roe v. Wade were brought up a couple times. Sotomayor’s answer aligned with her view about upholding past precedent, stating that protecting women’s health should always be a compelling consideration, and that Roe is considered settled law.

The infamous New Haven firefighters case was discussed at length, and Sotomayor again stated that her court stuck to past precedent. Read more about the Ricci v. DeStefano case here.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein brought up the hot topic of executive branch power boundaries. After stating how she would have to answer carefully, Sotomayor said:

“First, you look at, has Congress expressly addressed or authorized the president to act a certain way.” If so, she said, “then he is acting at his highest stature of power. [...] If he is acting where Congress hasn’t spoken, then he is acting in what Justice Jackson called ‘the zone of twilight.’ [...] A president can’t act in violation of the Constitution. No one’s above the law.”

So many important and difficult topics have come up today, and know there will only be more to come. So far, I’m impressed with how thoughtful, in-depth, and well-rounded Sotomayor’s answers have been. It’s a breath of fresh air to hear her own explanations and thoughts behind her rulings. I’m also pleased to say there hasn’t been too much emphasis placed on her race or gender. Let’s hope this continues.

The hearing will continue this afternoon - stay tuned!