Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

Here at WCF, we believe that everyone needs more women in government. Not only do women benefit from the examples set by powerful female leaders, but fathers, children, environmentalists, Republicans and Democrats have all seen the effects of the collaborative work environment and the new perspectives brought by women in politics.

In yesterday’s Washington Post, David Broder wrote about the introduction of women into political reporting, and the inevitable effect that Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s appointment will have on the Supreme Court:

“I don’t know how having three strong-minded female justices serving simultaneously for the first time will change the world of the Supreme Court. But I will not be surprised if this small society does not change for all its members.”

Indeed, society, D.C., and politics have changed in the few decades in which women have made their movement into the political world. And for the vast majority of Americans, they have changed for the better. Here at WCF, we have a lot of ideas about who needs more women in government, and we’ve put them on buttons to share at Netroots Nation and with the rest of the world.

Who do you think needs more women in government? We’d love to hear your ideas—please share your thoughts with us on Twitter or Facebook. And check out our pictures on Flickr to see the Netroots community sporting our buttons!

This post was submitted by Rebecca Freedholm, WCF Communications Fellow

Yesterday my colleague, Sophie, made a strong argument for why Kagan’s gender is an important factor in her nomination to the Supreme Court—we need more women (especially women as well-qualified as Kagan) on the bench to advance women’s role in government and to protect the rights of all women. She’s absolutely right.

Furthermore, increasing the number of women in prominent judicial positions is bound to enhance “the quality of justice” altogether. As Amy Matsui from the National Women’s Law Center indicates, recent studies reveal women’s presence in the courts can make a crucial difference in the judicial decision-making process.

So when Ronni Berke and Carol Costello from CNN beg the question, “Do female judges rule differently than men,” the answer is a resounding “yes.” Not only are women proven to rule differently than men in a range federal court cases, but also the mere presence of women on the federal bench can influence how male judges vote. Marcia Greenberger made this case yesterday in her testimonial for Kagan:

“One recent study demonstrated that male federal appellate court judges are more likely to see aspects of the law differently, particularly regarding claims of sex discrimination, if a female judge is on the panel. This may be because, as Justice Ginsburg said in a speech last year, ‘Even though a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same decision, there are life experiences a woman has that come from growing up in a woman’s body that men don’t have.’”

Women bring a critical perspective to court, and as Lily Ledbetter emphasized in Kagan’s hearings, “who is on the Supreme Court makes all the difference.” Ledbetter’s case not only confirms that sex discrimination still exists in the workplace, but that female representation on the Supreme Court is vital in ensuring that women’s voices on issues of discrimination are truly heard.

A diverse, gender-balanced Supreme Court is necessary for protecting the rights of all citizens.

“This study brings home how important it is to have a woman’s voice in the judicial decision-making process for courts to arrive at a good decision at the end of the day, and to have justice that serves both men and women. And other studies suggest the more women there are, the more impact they have.”

We need more women on the Supreme Court. Having Elena Kagan on the bench will increase women’s representation in our courts, improve the quality of the judicial decision-making process, and will more effectively serve the American people.

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF communications fellow

It seems that our current political structure, which mirrors the old boys club, is a bit of a mess. It continually prevents women candidates from succeeding in elections. Political parties are turning against their own candidates on the basis of gender.

However, we now have the potential for a celebration amid the storm. The country’s highest court is about to receive more female company—and the timing could not be better.

According to the Huffington Post, President Obama is expected to announce Elena Kagan next Monday as his nominee to the Supreme Court, replacing retiring Justice Paul Stevens. Mike Allen from Politico says:

“The pick isn’t official, but top White House aides will be shocked if it’s otherwise. Kagan’s relative youth (50) is a huge asset for the lifetime post. And President Obama considers her to be a persuasive, fearless advocate who would serve as an intellectual counterweight to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia”.

Kagan currently serves as the 45th Solicitor General of the United States and is the first woman ever to hold this post. While there is limited information on her stance on issues due to her lack of ruling experience, her time on the Harvard Law Review indicates that she fiercely progressive on both women’s reproductive rights and LGBTQ equality.

Kagan represents the glimpse of hope that women in the political arena desperately need right now. Supreme Court appointees represent presidents long after they leave office.

In nominating a second woman to the Bench, President Obama will take his step to leave his progressive footprint on the court.

While the fight for gender equality in all branches of government is far from over, it will be nice to know that three of the nine most powerful decision makers in the country are women.

By Amy Siskind, President and co-founder of The New Agenda
Cross-posted from the Huffington Post

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.

This post was written by WCF Fellow, Stephanie Glover

Congratulations, Martha. After winning the Massachusetts Democratic primary, you are on your way to becoming the first female senator from Massachusetts!

Massachusetts participated in an historic vote yesterday as voters went to the polls for a special election to fill the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat. In the Democratic stronghold of Massachusetts, Martha’s win in the Democratic primary makes her strongly favored to win the general election next month. This would be a monumental win as Massachusetts has never had a female senator or governor in their 221 year-old history. This is about to change!

In her victory speech last night, Martha talked about the challenges facing women running for office, specifically in Massachusetts: “They said women don’t have much luck in Massachusetts politics – we believed, that it was quite possible that that luck was about to change!” And, that luck is changing with Martha on her way to the general election.

Martha’s victory couldn’t have come at a more important time, when crucial issues affecting women are being debated in the Senate and House. The Senate will benefit greatly from her voice and perspective. Martha is committed to reproductive choices and recently said about women’s health care, “It’s personal with me, and it’s personal with every woman.” As a WCF-endorsed candidate, Martha is a leader on these issues and will make a strong addition to the Senate.

Currently, women make up only 17% of the United States Senate, even though they represent over 50% of the population. Martha’s election would bring that percentage up to 18%, making us one step closer to equality. As MA Senator John Kerry said, “Tonight the glass ceiling in Massachusetts politics was smashed into a thousand pieces.”

Finally, our president is pro-woman and pro-choice. Moreover, he actually cares about helping people. After eight long years of the Bush administration’s anti-woman, anti-choice policies, I find myself feeling surprised when Obama takes a stand for women. After reminding myself that, yes, we now have a progressive president, I can’t help but smile and bask in the feeling of pride and optimism.

One of the most recent acts of the administration that filled me with hope was Obama declaring April Sexual Assault Awareness Month. According to The Women on the Web:

Calling sexual assault “pervasive” in the United States — 18 percent of women reported being raped at some point in their lifetime — Obama stressed that such attacks not only take their toll on the victims, but the family, friends and others, as well.

Given the current focus on the failing economy, I think Obama’s willingness to go to bat on this issue really speaks volumes about his dedication to women’s issues.

Another move that evoked pride was the Obama administration launching the Act Against Aids campaign. Partnered with the CDC and HHS, the White House will bring attention to the HIV/AIDS epidemic over the next five years. Not to mention:

To help achieve widespread use of the campaign messages within African-American communities, the Obama Administration also announced today the Act Against AIDS Leadership Initiative (AAALI), a partnership with 14 of the nation’s leading African-American civic organizations to integrate HIV prevention into each organization’s outreach programs.

So, let me get this straight - our president is actually concerned with taking concrete steps to address national and worldwide equality and health issues? Pinch me.