Women and Politics

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!

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF Communications Fellow

Who needs more women in government? Everyone. Women make up 51% of the U.S. population; shouldn’t the federal government reflect that population in its elected officials? Sadly the U.S. Senate consists of only 17 women senators.

With the primary season already well underway, it is evident that 2010 will be a competitive election year for women. Current New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is facing a possible challenge by former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford Jr. in the September Democratic primary.

But will New York voters accept this out-of-state candidate, when they already rely on Gillibrand’s leadership on issues like women’s rights?

Probably not. Harold Ford Jr. has proven that his stance on choice is anything but clear. Ford claims that he is “not pro-choice” and “pro-life” and his voting record on these issues show no clarification on his views. He has consistently supported stem-cell research and opposed the global gag rule but voted “yes” twice to ban partial-birth abortions. In addition, he supports the failed abstinence-only programs.

So Gillibrand, the incumbent, who has a strong record fighting for reproductive freedoms faces a challenger who cannot seem to differentiate between the two ends of the reproductive rights spectrum? The choice is pretty clear to me.

After being appointed to fill Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s seat in the Senate early last year, Sen. Gillibrand has been nothing but a powerhouse on women’s issues. She has sponsored and voted for various legislation that helps working mothers and their families. In addition, Gillibrand has been a strong supporter for President Obama’s healthcare plan and has fought to ensure that women’s reproductive freedoms are not excluded from healthcare coverage. In December of last year, Gillibrand was amongst the many outspoken leaders against the Stupak-Pitts amendment. Gillibrand is a proven leader and is the clear choice for New York State Senate.

Leaders of many women’s organizations agree with this sentiment. WCF President/CEO Sam Bennett was recently quoted in an article in the popular online news magazine The Daily Beast saying:

“Gillibrand has been a “trailblazer” on women’s issues, and that her organization and its donors will do ‘whatever’s necessary’ to get her reelected. I was just with a donor in New York the other day who said, ‘I supported Ford when he ran in Tennessee, he has a lot of nerve coming to my state now and asking me to vote for him instead of Kirsten.’”

It is no secret that women lack representation in the U.S. government. The narrow defeat of the Nelson-Hatch Amendment in December would most definitely not have happened if it weren’t for the outspoken women representatives in Congress. Electing women such as Kirsten Gillibrand is absolutely necessary to ensure that women’s issues are a priority in the U.S. government.

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF Communications Fellow.

Today Massachusetts voters head to the polls to decide who will replace the legendary Senator Ted Kennedy.

Their votes could also ultimately decide the fate of health care reform. It seems a vote for Martha Coakley would take us one step closer to passing health care reform, whereas a vote for Scott Brown would do the opposite.

Brown has already made it public that he is adamantly against Obama’s healthcare bill, and without his support, health care reform will suffer another round of delays. At a time in which millions of Americans do not have health insurance, many those being women and children, a delay in the passage of this bill is simply not an option.

Electing Coakley is a necessary move, not only for the future of health care reform, but for increasing the representation of women in government. If elected, Coakley will join a mere 17 other women senators in the U.S. Congress and will make her the 39th woman to ever serve as a Senator.

In a country where women make up 51% of the population, having such a large minority of women serving in Congress is simply unacceptable—especially at a time when legislation directly affecting women’s health is being debated. As the Stupak and Nelson amendments demonstrated, the lack of female perspective is severely damaging to the legislation affecting millions of lives.

If the DCCC had a female Chair, do you think she would be urging Bart Stupak to run for re-election, as Chris Van Hollen is? Certainly not.

We need a senator who won’t throw women under the bus. We need a senator who will defend the civil rights of all Americans. We need a senator who will move our country forward, not throw it backward. We need Martha Coakley.

The outcome lies in the hands of Massachusetts voters, but their decisions today will impact the entire country for years.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Women hold only 17% of the seats on Congress.

With the health care debate raging now in the Senate, women’s health is on the potential chopping block. And as we saw with the anti-choice Stupak-Pitts amendment, our reproductive choices are being attacked.

Congresswomen have been leading the charge against such restrictions, but they can’t do it alone—17% isn’t strong enough to fully defend women’s health.

Women may only be a fraction of those in elected office, but they are over 50% of the population and deserve to have their health needs supported.

Women can’t shouldn’t be the only ones defending reproductive health.

Click here to tell your member of Congress that you oppose any amendment or bill that endangers women’s health and restricts their reproductive choices and options.

By WCF Fellow: Trish

It is undeniable that WCF-endorsed candidate Martha Coakley is a champion of affordable, quality health care. She has been for two decades. As Attorney General, she reached a historic $17 million settlement with an insurance company that unfairly denied coverage and mislead consumers.

During her bid for Massachusetts Senate, she was the first candidate to give more than a sound-bite stance on the issue—she delivered a comprehensive plan of action. She articulated support for a strong public option and provided necessary reform strategies to contain costs, including changing pay incentives and implementing systematic transparency.

But with the likes of the Stupak amendment putting women’s reproductive rights and choice on the table as a bargaining chip, Coakley has publicly declared that she sees this as taking a step backwards.

Let’s get real about this: the amendment bans abortion coverage in both private and public plans. Obama and a liberal congress promised that health care reform legislation would keep reproductive rights secured by the status quo. This legislation goes far beyond that jurisdiction; it’s absolutely regressive.

The amendment would disproportionably impact poor women who do not have access to private insurance. They are the group most likely to seek affordable options though the exchange.

In a Statement Coakley said:

The House’s vote is in many ways a significant step toward the goal of health care reform. However, I am deeply disturbed that the House adopted the Stupak/Pitts amendment, which would deny millions of women access to reproductive services.  The inclusion of the Stupak/Pitts amendment violates the very intent of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for everyone.  I believe that the Senate has a responsibility to fix this by eliminating the provision in whatever reform legislation moves forward.

Achieving real health care reform that does not compromise a woman’s right to choose will apparently, take a different kind of leadership. Coakley, in her unwavering stance to compromise on such a vital issue, had demonstrated she is that kind of leader.

It is now up to the Senate to ensure that this fundamental inequity is rectified. So hurry up ladies, let’s get WCF endorsed candidate Martha Coakley in that Senate seat.

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.