Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Ann McLane Kuster, Candidate for Congress (NH-02)

Next week I’m headed down to New York for WCF’s “Parties of Your Choice” Gala, and I thought it would be a good time to share here one of the reasons I chose to run for Congress this year – and why I think more women should run.

I’ve worked here in New Hampshire as an attorney and a public policy advocate my whole life, focusing on improving access to health care and affordable higher education.  But I’ve also worked as an adoption attorney for the past twenty-five years, and in doing so I have been reminded hundreds of times about the importance of trusting women to have autonomy over their lives.  It’s a lesson that has sadly often fallen on deaf ears in Washington.

As an adoption attorney I have dedicated my career to the autonomy of women - young and old, rich and poor, educated and illiterate - who have faced the daunting decision of an unplanned pregnancy.  I have represented birthmothers from age 14 to 44, from junior high school to a junior at a prestigious college, from living in a car to the nicest neighborhoods in town. I have witnessed the courage and grace of teenagers facing emergency Caesarians and women showing up at the emergency room in labor having never told anyone about being pregnant. I have represented women pregnant from date rape, incest and abusive relationships and women who thought pregnancy would bring happiness to a failed relationship.  We laugh together, we cry together and in the end, we make our way together to another day.

Most birthmothers come to me late in the pregnancy, often just a few weeks before delivery. My role is to offer them legal support and guidance through the adoption process. Most birthmothers choose to receive counseling about their decision to place their baby for adoption. All of the birthmothers choose the prospective adoptive family who will parent their child and many choose to meet the parents before the birth. Some birthparents and adoptive families choose to visit in the hospital and exchange photos and letters as the baby grows up. Occasionally, they may even meet again later in life and now, after 25 years, I am asked to arrange birthparent reunions with grown children.

Witnessing these courageous women make difficult life decisions, and supporting them through the adoption process, has been the honor of my life.  When I hear politicians in Washington argue over how far they can restrict reproductive rights in pending health care legislation – and when I see special interests poised to kill reform entirely – I can’t help but think that having a Congress made up of only 17% women is, in effect, shortchanging the American people.  We deserve to have our entire nation, and all of its challenges and experiences, represented in Washington.

So I’m putting my money where my mouth is – I’m running for Congress.

Running for office for the first time isn’t easy, but more than 1,600 supporters have contributed to my campaign since I began last summer, helping raise over $650,000 and making our race one of the most competitive races in the nation.  We have a long way to go, but I know that I am doing my part to amplify women’s voices in Washington, and I know that more than 1,600 supporters are doing their part as well.  Please join us! Together, we can make a difference.

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF Communications Fellow

This month marks the end of our crazy snow-filled winter and the beginning of spring. But more importantly, March is Women’s History Month. I cannot think of a better time to address the importance of having more women in elected office.

The year 1992 was dubbed the “year of the woman” and for good reason too. A record-breaking amount of women candidates on the federal ticket motivated more than 60 million women to go to the polls and vote. The 1992 election resulted in the most women ever elected to U.S. Congress in any single election; to be precise, 24 women were elected to the house of representative and 5 women were elected to the U.S. Senate. Perhaps Americans believed that women could continue this trend of increasing more women in government with every election.

But 18 years later, women remain extremely underrepresented in Congress; only 90 out of the 535 members of Congress are women. No wonder double standards regarding women candidates still exist; Dawn Johnsen has still not been confirmed to head the Office of the Legal Counsel after a year of delays; and there was a severe under representation of women at President Obama’s Healthcare Summit.

Now, more than ever, we need another “year of the woman.” In a time in which some of the biggest reforms in America’s healthcare system are being proposed, women’s reproductive freedoms are truly in the hands of our elected officials. Only women know what best for women’s bodies, and it’s been proven again and again that it takes female elected officials to ensure our rights aren’t stripped away.

To combat the national complacency around women’s political inequality, WCF is launching its national awareness campaign, “Who Needs More Women in Government? Everyone.” This campaign will officially kickoff at the 30th Annual Parties of Your Choice Gala on Thursday March 11th.  It will begin with the premiere of a dramatic performance piece co-written and performed by a wide array of powerful female leaders such as Christie Hefner, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Liz Shuler, and WNBC President Donna Orender.

This original performance piece will not only state the need for more women in government, but why there is this need. Women bring a whole new set of qualities and perspectives to the table, which adds a breadth of talent and wisdom to our country’s direction. Research shows that women tend to avoid risk, increase collaboration, and ensure more win-win outcomes than their male counterparts.

2010 must be the year that our entire nation gets serious about electing more women to public office. The future of our country depends on it.

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF Communications Fellow

When you think Texas, ‘progressive’ isn’t exactly the first word that pops into your head. My guess is that it probably won’t even appear on your brain’s radar unless associated with city Austin. With that being said, Barbara Ann Radnofsky, candidate for Attorney General, is bringing progressive back in Texas by battling the issue of gay divorce.

Radnofsky recently wrote a piece in the Huffington Post challenging current Attorney General Greg Abbott’s decision to block a divorce between two women who were married in Massachusetts. His reason? Texas does not recognize gay marriage; therefore both the couple’s marriage and their file for divorce are now invalid. However, it appears that Abbott has read the marriage laws incorrectly in Texas. Radnofsky writes:

“‘The law of this state applies to persons married elsewhere who are domiciled in this state’. Texas Family Code Section 1.103. So, the law of Texas clearly applies Texas law to ‘persons married elsewhere’. Gay people are persons. Texas law would apply to any Texas domiciliaries seeking a divorce. The language is clear. This Texas law doesn’t apply to ‘marriages;’ rather it applies to ‘persons’”.

Gay people are people, too. ( What a shocker). Kudos to Radnofsky for stating the truth in this situation.

In addition, Radnofsky accuses Abbott of poorly utilizing his time and efforts on this non-issue:

“The Attorney General of our State thinks government intervention in the non-violent, orderly wind-down of a relationship is the best use of our State’s and his resources. He should leave divorce orders alone, and get back to work on the real problems facing our State, and our children”.

The rest of her piece can be found here.

Clearly Radnofsky isn’t afraid to speak her mind on progressive issues that many candidates, especially those from conservative states, shy away from. Her strong voice in standing up for women and minorities is exactly what Texas needs right now in their Attorney General.

Radnofsky’s primary election was yesterday, and she was running uncontested. Learn more about her today and make sure she secures a victory this November!

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF Communications Fellow

Although the country remains deeply divided about how to accomplish health care reform, there are few who would dispute the great need for it. However, it seems only a fraction of people have a true grasp on just how sexist our current system is. And with women holding only 17% of the seats in Congress, there’s certainly no guarantee that this disparity will be properly addressed.

Adding insult to injury, last week’s White House health care summit included only six women out of 42 attendees. Dan Rather knows this is ludicrous:

“If more women were in the room, might the debate have been different? If there were more women in Congress (which is around 17 percent female), might our politics be less rancorous and might our elected officials get more accomplished? There’s a school of thought that is emerging that suggests the answer is yes.”

Luckily one congresswoman spoke up for women’s health. Rep. Louise Slaughter (NY-28) made a dramatic call for healthcare, touching upon a wide array of issues that relate to our broken healthcare system and women. Calling the pre-existing conditions regulations cruel and capricious, she said:

“Eight states in this country right now have declared that domestic violence is a preexisting conditions on the ground, I assume, that if you’re been unlucky enough to get yourself beaten up once you might go around and do it again”.

Yes that is correct. If you live in Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming, or the District of Columbia and you’ve been abused by your husband or significant other, you will probably be denied health insurance.

Furthermore, Slaughter called upon the importance of having a higher percentage of women in government  in order for our voices to be heard:

“In 1991, women were not included in any of the trials at the NIH because we had hormones. It wasn’t until we had a critical mass of women here that said this will not do for more than half the population of the United States, who pay taxes, that we made certain that diseases like osteoporosis, mainly a woman’s disease, cervical cancer, only a woman’s disease, uterine cancer and others were really looked at”.

In time when crucial legislation is constantly being debated, most of which affects women directly, it is unacceptable that only 17% of Congress is women. Without increasing the number of women we have in elected office, we leave ourselves open to more legislation that restricts our reproductive choices and endangers our health.

A clip of Slaughter’s statement can be found here.

It took strong women such as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Sen. Barbara Boxer to narrowly defeat the Nelson-Hatch Amendment last December.

Women know what’s best for women, but 90 out of 535 in our federal government not nearly enough. Perhaps fixing our lopsided government is the first step in fixing our broken health care system.

Ladies, you didn’t want an equal voice in health care reform, right? Good - because holding 17% of Congress won’t do it for you, and being only 10.5% of today’s special health summit certainly won’t either.

Yes, out of the 38 congressional leaders invited to today’s White House health summit, only four were women. That doesn’t even accurately reflect our sad 17% in Congress.

So, when given the chance to actually create a group with and equal number of men and women, both the White House and members of Congress chose not to? Awesome.

No wonder our government’s broken.

It’s like an endless montage of network news gaffes on the Daily Show: Broken government, broken government, broken government. Only this isn’t so hilarious.

As Americans scramble to make ends meet and wait on bated breath for health care reform, they’re bombarded by accusations of who’s to blame for this mess. Democrats? Bush? Obama? The GOP?

Well, how about men? Considering they’re 83% of Congress, that’s a large group to blame. But it seems our Congresswomen would tend to agree with this sentiment. As Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (NH-1) shared last month:

“We go to the ladies room and we just roll our eyes at what’s being said out there. And the Republican women said when we were fighting over the health care bill, if we sent the men home, we could get this done this week.”

Shea-Porter has been raked over the coals for this comment, with many calling it sexist. But PunditMom on MOMocrats asks,

“Is it sexist if it’s true? For the most part, women are the ones dealing with care-giving issues for children, parents, in-laws, sisters, and extended family. How can lawmakers really weigh in on what’s needed to address these issues unless they’ve got first-hand experience with some of them?”

With men being over 4/5 of Congress, doesn’t math prove that they’re responsible for the majority of the deadlock? After all, it was the women who stood together against the Stupak and Nelson amendments. It’s the women’s organizations banding together to ensure that health care reform actually helps women and doesn’t strip away any existing rights.

With research rising about women’s positive impact on corporations, boards, and elected offices, it seems some are embracing the need to add more women to government…just not the U.S. As Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand alluded to in 2009, women tend to run for office because they want to get something done, while men just assume they can do the job and enjoy the blood sport of politics.

In a Washington Post article, Katty Kay and Claire Shipman pointed to research showing that Fortune 500 companies with more women at the top outperformed those that didn’t.

“Gender stereotypes aren’t politically correct, but the research broadly finds that testosterone can make men more prone to competition and risk-taking. Women, on the other hand, seem to be wired for collaboration, caution and long-term results.”

Research from the National Council for Research on Women confirms this, saying that women consider different issues and are more collaborative while making decisions, which leads to more win-win outcomes. But this can’t happen when there aren’t enough women at the table.

“When women do reach decision-making positions, it is not until they constitute a critical mass upwards of 30% that they are no longer perceived as representative of a special interest, but rather as full members of the group.”

And the current state of Congress proves this perfectly. With women only holding 17%, their thoughts and suggestions can easily be marginalized and ignored. We have 90 amazing women between the House and Senate, but despite their exemplary ideas and leadership, they can’t overcome their minority status.

So yes - maybe we should send the men home if we want to emerge from this quagmire any time soon. You don’t have to send them all home - just 355 to make it even: 90 women and 90 men.

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF Communications Fellow

In one of the most Conservative states in the country where it is rather difficult for women to gain equal presence in all fields, Barbara Ann Radnofsky has been breaking new ground in every way possible.

Radnofsky is well on her way to becoming the first woman Attorney General of Texas. Her 31-year legal career is nothing but successful—for more than half her time spent practicing law, Radnofsky has been named one of the “Best Lawyers in America”.

In addition, she achieved one of the most important “firsts” while working for the distinguished law firm Vinson & Elkins: She was the first woman to have children as an associate and make partner in the law firm. Furthermore, her strong record in representing the minority population will ensure that cases relating to discrimination based on race and gender will not be overlooked.

Radnofsky understands the way the economy disproportionately impacts women and minorities, and in one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression, there has never been a greater need for an Attorney General who is dedicated to helping these populations. Even today, women make approximately 78 percent of what men are paid, with this inequality significantly wider with women of color. In today’s economic climate, this kind of disparity is devastating.

The Texas primary for Radnofsky is exactly one week away. In a time when women are extremely underrepresented in state legislatures and face hurdles across the board, we need women like Radnofsky in positions of power.

To learn more about Barbara Ann Radnofsky and her positions on the issues, click here.