Why Bernie Sanders Is Best on Women's Issues
Heather Gautney
Women's issues are taking center stage in the lead-up to 2016. As they should: The conservative war on women's health and reproductive rights has raged on for far too long. And in all measures of social and political inequality, we remain what number-crunchers coolly term "disproportionately affected."
Many people believe that electing a woman president will help. I'm not so sure. Does breaking glass ceilings constitute a real political strategy -- that's capable of improving women's lives? And does voting one's gender really translate to voting one's interest?
Let's consider the issues:
Bernie Sanders has consistently fought against Republican attacks on reproductive rights. If elected president, he would increase funding for Planned Parenthood. He's vowed to only nominate Supreme Court justices who uphold Roe v. Wade, and plans to expand women's health programs, and access to safe and legal abortions. Clinton has also been out front on reproductive rights, but her historic refrain that abortion be "safe, legal, and rare" has only served to stigmatize it and justify conservative efforts to impose legal restrictions.
On the issue of families, Sanders has often pointed out that of 178 countries worldwide, the U.S. is one of three that does not provide new mothers with paid leave. He argues for a Scandinavia-like model, where family leave is part of a robust system of social safety nets. As president, he would provide workers with up 12 weeks of family and medical leave, funded with a small payroll contribution -- so that parents can bond with their newborns, and family members care for sick relatives. He would also free millions of women from the struggle to secure childcare by making high-quality services and pre-K available to all Americans, regardless of income.
(snip)
Even with decent wages, however, many Americans have spiraled into financial ruin from excessive medical costs. Women are especially afflicted, as we are less likely than men to be insured, and our healthcare expenses tend to be higher. While Clinton says she'll go with "what works" in Obamacare, Sanders' Medicare for All will help reduce out of pocket costs for lower income Americans. Along with expanded retirement benefits, universal healthcare can help eradicate these ruinous trends -- which are especially pronounced for elderly women, half of whom would sink into poverty without their Social Security checks.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-gautney/bernie-sanders-womens-issues_b_8049572.html
There is much more on the link.
= new reply since forum marked as read
But the ones who fight for our rights in addition to that are true feminists.
We shouldn't be throwing them under the bus for having an opinion.
I just asked my s/o and he confirmed it!
though I've never said Sanders is a feminist hero.
He is, however, a feminist whose policies will do more to improve more women's lives, particularly women of color, than any other candidate in any party.
Economic devastation in this country is worst first on women of color, whose remaining safety net is being pulled out from under them and who are murdered in greater numbers than black men, due to the problem of domestic violence, our nation's number one public health problem that no one on this Board seems to want to talk about. Then, they can't rely on effective law enforcement against domestic violence (not that white women have it much better) because of racist policing, so they're understandably less able to get LEO help to protect them. Economic inequality works in tandem with the PIC to remove black men from their communities for trivial, non-violent offenses, making women of color solely responsible for raising children while jobs dry up and benefits are cut. And their unemployment rates are highest.
Economic and environmental issues are shitty for most of us, but they get it worst, first, then poor black men, then what was formerly the middle class.
Economic, racial, and gender justice. We must have someone working for all three. HRC supports two of those. I'll take Bernie if I have the choice.
Hope you'll come around, Sea. I've appreciated your fierce advocacy for women in other situations, but we disagree mightily here. 
If the if part is false, so is the then part. Although IMO people should really make better use of the 
icon.
Response to jfern (Reply #9)
Response to seabeyond (Reply #78)
Response to seabeyond (Reply #102)
Response to seabeyond (Reply #109)
In a good way.
crickets?
Excellent post, bmus!! 
Game, Set, Match to beam me up scotty.
Why thank you veddy much!
But these are only very recent developments. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may be champions of same-sex marriage now, but you don’t have to go far back to find a time when they weren’t. And hey, we’re happy to have their evolved support.
Not only did Sanders vote against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, signed into law by then-president Bill Clinton — an unpopular position then — a look back at Sanders’ political career shows consistent support of the gay rights movement. Even when it was more than just unpopular, it was downright controversial.
“In our democratic society, it is the responsibility of government to safeguard civil liberties and civil rights — especially the freedom of speech and expression,” Sanders wrote later in a memo. “In a free society, we must all be committed to the mutual respect of each others lifestyle.”
...
“It is my very strong view that a society which proclaims human freedom as its goal, as the United States does, must work unceasingly to end discrimination against all people. I am happy to say that this past year, in Burlington, we have made some important progress by adopting an ordinance which prohibits discrimination in housing. This law will give legal protection not only to welfare recipients, and families with children, the elderly and the handicapped — but to the gay community as well.”
http://www.queerty.com/32-years-before-marriage-equality-bernie-sanders-fought-for-gay-rights-20150719
not being a woman?
In a good way.
I think I missed that one. I guess I'm lucky. 
It is bizarre that I support people based on their records? Who knew?
Tarzan is very creepy too, seems obsessed with Hillary.
But what do I know, I'm just a woman.
I pointed out that you are a man, not a woman.
Now I could have said: I could make up my own mind, and if guys on DU are putting themselves in the business of telling other women who is best, by using other women as shields for their own patronizing behavior, then that is on them. Now *that* is a slam. But actually, since I like you, I was trying to respect your usual perceptiveness. My mistake. Good night.
While campaigning for Democrats during last fall’s midterm campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton was interrupted during several speeches by young Latino activists, who call themselves “Dreamers,” pressing her to take a stance on an overhaul of the immigration system.
“Hillary, do you stand with our immigrant families?” shouted one activist.
What a difference six months can make.
Just weeks after Mrs. Clinton strongly advocated for more expansive efforts to end deportation of undocumented immigrants, the Clinton campaign said on Wednesday that it had hired one of the most prominent activists among the Dreamers, Lorella Praeli, to lead her Latino outreach efforts.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/20/hillary-clinton-hires-lorella-praeli-a-dreamer-to-connect-with-latinos/
So Hillary has no integrity either, right sea?
I like what you, sea and others had to say. One persons opinion does not a fact make, nor does it lend itself to be unbiased when you are a paid staffer. Of course she will talk up her boss as the best of the best.
It has been good reading. I had a really long weekend at work, to I am doing more reading than talking.
Thanks, S M~
Peace to you.
That means a lot to me. 
I am the only girl and I work in a male dominated industry so I have always appreciated men who stick up for me.
I wish I could say the same about some women.
They have accused me of getting my job based on looks and/or sleeping with a man more than once.
Peace to you, Spazito.
This is what they just told me:
They're not here to discuss anything.
They want to shame you for posting the op.
I still say
I'm not worried about it though, my conscious is clear, I stand resolute in my belief.
Peace to you.
Thanks!
Thanks for the support! I gotta say I read the OP and, geez, there was NO way I could let it pass, it literally made me go WTF and along with other reactions best left unsaid, lol.
Not even close. What the author mentions in terms of Roe and PP is standard for any Democrat, even on the furthest right of the party. It is not "better;" it is a base line minimum. Casting a vote when it is put in front of you does not constitute "fighting for women's rights." On his website, his reference to women's reproductive rights points to a bill that stalled in committee over a year ago. That would seem to be enough for some. He hasn't even bothered to make one of his showboat legislative proposals as he has done for a number of other issues.
Sanders hasn't been proactive in defending Planned Parenthood from the RW sting operation as Clinton has. She has clearly been far stronger on this issue, has a much more active history before she became First Lady, while in the White House and certainly as Secretary of State. It was Clinton who in Beijing in 1993 made the memorable statement that "human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights once and for all." As Secretary of State, she elevated key issues like human trafficking--slavery--to international importance. She doesn't sit back and wait to be asked about PP or reproductive rights. She doesn't tell men who oppose reproductive freedom that "we'll agree to disagree." She stood up for reproductive rights before a Republican Senate Committee with the power to deny her confirmation, and she told them in no uncertain terms that she would actively promote reproductive healthcare, including abortion. Women's rights are central to Hillary Clinton is, just as Sanders' economic platform is central to who he is.
That the author then points to issues not at all specific to women--single payer (which I would love to see but if wishes amounted to anything we'd already have that and much of the other reforms Sanders promises, knowing full well he has no possibility of implementing them, which I don't appreciate at all) and of course the defining issue of the white liberal bourgeoisie, TPP. Yet the author of the article doesn't even bother to look up Clinton's voting record on trade agreements--that she twice voted against CAFTA--and falsely insists she is somehow bound by her husband's policies from the 1990s.
If women's issues is defined as throwing out the Kochs as red meat to his base and feeding into
the anger of the $80k+ a year demographic https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wtuckrpu76/econTabReport.pdf
against the $450k a plus demographic, then I suppose that's better. Few Americans, however, live in that rarefied world. That is an ideology that expresses the conflict of the white, majority male upper-middle class against the super rich. If you are a privileged Associate Professor at Fordham university married to another upper-middle class wage earner which gives you a combined household income in the upper 5-10 percent $150-195k yr), then you're right in Bernie's demographic.
The author quite erroneously assumes that economic reforms intended to create better paying jobs will magically help women. How? Why would justice for women trickle down anymore than racial equality or economic wealth? Let's pretend the fairy dust works and all Sanders promises about infrastructure jobs are magically approved by the GOP congress. How does that help women when those industries are 82% male because of sexual harassment and hostile work conditions, the sort of thing I have seen described here as "freedom of speech"? Saying one is for equal pay amounts to nothing. That is already the law of the land. What proposals does he offer to address disparities that continue despite those laws? I saw nothing on his website or in the article above. Clinton has a proposal to require that companies make wages known to their employees, which would give women the ability to file a claim of unequal pay.
What if you're one of those women threatened by an abusive partner, who the gun lobby is ensuring has access to guns to do away with you? How does Sanders refusal to speak out for gun control help those women?
And while Dr. Gautney can access the best gynecologists in America from her home in New York City, regardless of which party occupies the White House, the women throughout Texas and the rest of the South still have to travel hundreds of miles to access reproductive care. And if Sanders should become the Democratic nominee and the GOP wins the White House, the women throughout the red states will see their reproductive rights stripped away, and they will be enabled by a Tea Party DOJ.
The only areas that the author cites that would be better for women and men are reforms that have no possibility of passing given the fact we have a GOP congress, and given gerrymandering there is no way the House will go to the Democrats in 2016. Gautney condemns Clinton for talking about what is politically possible. Apparently for Dr. Gautney thinking about what could actually become law suggests a "lack of enthusiasm." I see the issue quite differently: I resent empty promises. I like the fact that Hillary Clinton treats voters seriously, that she carefully considers what she can actually implement. She knows that when she makes a promise, she faces a good chance of actually having to follow through on it. Sanders seems unencumbered by such considerations. My life is not improved by fairytales and empty promises, and I do not trust politicians who make them.
If Sanders were really better for women, why then would his supporters here become so angry when asked about his positions on women's issues? Why would they accuse those who have the audacity to even ask of being "divisive" and "calling him sexist"? That communicates quite clearly they see the question as illegitimate and the issues as inconsequential, just as they responded to similar questions by African Americans. All of that paints quite a clear picture of what to expect from a potential Sanders presidency. One member insisted that Sanders would not forget his supporters, that he would appoint some of them to key positions in his administration. That was meant to convince everyone he would not be like the POSUCS Barack Obama. Given the hostility with which mere questions about Sanders' policies and plans toward the subaltern have been met, the message communicated by the actions of his supporters throughout social media is far from comforting in terms of the potential for our concerns to be addressed by a Sanders administration.
Ultimately, if Sanders were really better for women, he would be attracting more women as supporters.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wtuckrpu76/econTabReport.pdf
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251542288
Each woman, like every other voter, will make her own decision about which candidate best represents the entirety of their concerns. I myself will be voting in my own gender and class interests rather than in those of Professor Gautney.
^^^ What Baines said.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x715649
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4024486
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5539392
I fully expect the feminists who support HC and were so outspoken about this issue in the past to speak up about it in this thread.
Her speech came on the same day as the annual anti-abortion rally in Washington marking the Roe v. Wade anniversary.
Mrs. Clinton's remarks were generally well received, though the audience was silent during most of her overtures to anti-abortion groups. Afterward, leaders of those groups were skeptical, given Mrs. Clinton's outspoken support for abortion rights over the years.
...
"Our focus in the speech was to make sure that she still communicated that she was pro-choice -- she doesn't want to undermine that -- but she also thinks we can have some common ground among all sides and make abortion rare," Neera Tanden, legislative director for Mrs. Clinton, said in a telephone interview.
Before the election, Mrs. Clinton was a visible and public defender of abortion rights, appearing at a huge rally in Washington last spring and denouncing what she called Republican efforts to demonize the abortion rights movement.
And in her remarks, she seemed to acknowledge that this image of her was well known by anti-abortion campaigners while adding that, to her, it did not tell the full story about her views. "Yes, we do have deeply held differences of opinion about the issue of abortion and I, for one, respect those who believe with all their hearts and conscience that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available," Mrs. Clinton said, going on to assert that even some critics still support abortions in some cases, such as when the life of the mother is at risk.
The senator also made a nod to the values issue on Monday in praising faith-based and religious organizations for promoting abstinence.
"Research shows that the primary reason teenage girls abstain from early sexual activity is because of their religious and moral values," Mrs. Clinton said.
Just in case you get accused of "mansplaining" for posting facts.
I keep hearing about how "easy" it was for Bernie to oppose the Iraq war and stand up for lgbt rights.
What a crock.
Both times the easy thing to do would have been to give in to the angry mob, to appease the voters who wanted blood for 9/11 and the bigots who hated lgbt people.
And I also keep hearing about a mythical interview that never happened where Bernie didn't say anything about same sex marriage.
Because that proves, somehow, that he was against it.
The conclusion being that what you don't say in a conversation that never happened is exactly the same thing as saying something.
It's weird. How is it that Hillary supposedly has all this authority on AA or LGBT issues, then?
She's neither of those.
ZOMG!
That''s nothing like Hillary hiring a Latina to advocate for her.
Or Martin hiring Obama's Hispanic media director to advocate for him.
Let's vilify Bernie for hiring Heather Gautney (who's obviously a traitor to her sex) to advocate for him!
