HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Editorials & Other Articles (Forum) » The debate on women we sh...

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 09:39 PM

The debate on women we should be having

The debate on women we should be having
By Ruth Marcus, Published: April 13


Take, for example, the issue of equal pay. The first legislation that Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which reversed a 2007 Supreme Court decision that made it harder for women to bring lawsuits about pay discrimination. (The court said that Ledbetter had waited too long to complain that she had consistently received smaller raises than her male counterparts, even though she hadn’t known of the pay disparity.)

During the 2008 campaign, when he was the one struggling to make inroads with women after a bruising primary battle against Hillary Clinton, Obama used the ruling as a cudgel against Republican nominee John McCain, who said he opposed the bill because it “opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems.”

What is Romney’s view? Asked about it this week, his campaign at first demurred, then issued an unenlightening statement affirming Romney’s dedication to “pay equity.” Well, duh. No modern candidate is going to announce that he — or she — supports unequal pay for equal work. But given that only five Republican senators voted for the Ledbetter law — the four female GOP members and Arlen Specter, who was soon to be an ex-Republican — it’s fair to ask Romney’s view. Pay disparities, and disputes over what, if any, legislative measures should be taken to address them, aren’t disappearing any time soon.

Likewise, what is Romney’s view on the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, which established domestic violence and stalking as federal crimes, and provided funding for services for victims? Republicans in Congress are holding up reauthorization of the measure because of protections it would add for undocumented immigrants and gay men and lesbians. Asked about the issue four years ago, Romney drew a blank. “I’m not familiar with the act,” he said during an “Ask Mitt Anything” forum in New Hampshire. This might be a good time to bone up on it.

Obama has pressed companies to implement flexible workplaces that help working parents juggle job and family. Does Romney consider that an appropriate federal role? Where does he come down on proposals to expand — or contract — the protections of the Clinton-era Family and Medical Leave Act? How would his budget proposals affect already strained federal funding for child care?

And then there is contraception. Romney’s stance on the new mandate for insurance coverage is well known, as is his vow to end federal funding for Planned Parenthood. What I’d like to hear from him is why, in an economic proposal that is otherwise sketchy on budgetary details, he specifically endorses eliminating the federal family planning program, which serves low- and middle-income women. Does Romney want to end contraceptive coverage as part of the Medicaid program as well?



3 replies, 1784 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 3 replies Author Time Post
Reply The debate on women we should be having (Original post)
babylonsister Apr 2012 OP
Iris Apr 2012 #1
Iris Apr 2012 #2
RC Apr 2012 #3

Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 09:51 PM

1. You said it, sister.

It's what I've been saying all along. And I really, really wish young women in the 20s and 30s (and even 40s) would quit falling into this trap. They need to create new vocabulary about being a mother today. Get rid of the stupid SAHM label. Most mothers are going to be part of the workforce at some time in their child's life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 10:24 PM

2. and we have......crickets

Why? Why are people so dead set on proving their choices are right rather than try to do something for the greater good?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Iris (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 11:38 PM

3. Because politics to them is a game, like a sports game.


Ir matters more who wins and loses, than the will of the people, the wording of the Constitution, MIC, etc. It important to be on the winning team, regardless of the actual outcome for "We the people...".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread