The media is awash in stories about how women — except for some of us old gals over 50 — are flocking to Barack Obama in droves and away from Hillary Clinton. Feminists are pitted against feminists as to which candidate, if elected, would be better for women, and many younger women are arguing with their mothers and aunties.
But there’s a much bigger division looming, and it’s not between the
Obama and Clinton camps. What everybody ought to be looking closer at
is that “if elected” part. Women have suffered incredible setbacks
under the Bush administration and it is in their hands whether that
path continues after November.
A lot of Bush’s damage to the country as a whole, like the war and the
tanking economy, is front and center. But much of the damage to women
has been under the radar. Presidential appointees can do tremendous
harm, mostly out of the public eye.
Take Wade Horn, one of Bush’s assistant secretaries in the federal
Department of Health and Human Services. Horn founded the National
Fatherhood Initiative to promote marriage as the solution to poverty,
loudly touting his belief that “the husband is the head of the wife,
just as Christ is the head of the church.” Then he gave the group
$12.38 million of the taxpayer’s money to push marriage instead of
funding job training and educational programs to get women off welfare.
But the marriage money is peanuts compared to the megabucks Horn poured
into abstinence-only sex education in the public schools. That tab now
comes to $176 million per year, even though the government’s own
research shows the programs don’t work and teenage pregnancy is up for
the first time in 15 years.
Not to be outdone, the Bush appointees over at the Department of
Education have stayed busy dismantling Title IX, the law protecting
girls from discrimination in educational programs, including sports.
For decades, courts have upheld the Education Department’s rigorous
criteria for compliance as valid. But no matter. Secretary of Education
Margaret Spellings issued a Title IX “clarification,” allowing schools
to refuse to create additional sports opportunities for women based
solely on e-mail interest surveys. Failure of female students to answer
e-mail surveys is now routinely counted by colleges as a lack of
interest in participating in sports. Neither the standard nor the
e-mail survey method of limiting opportunities applies to male students.
Even the women holding up Bush’s precious wars have not escaped. Almost
one in seven members of the military serving on active duty are women,
and they make up a nearly identical percentage of National Guard and
reserve units. Though the Air Force uncovered scores of rape
accusations, a rising trend of reported abuses, and the most basic
shortcomings in tracking the crime and attending to its victims in
2004, the Defense Department has been slow to pursue the allegations.
And Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has yet
to formulate a policy for dealing with contractors who commit rape.
The damage done by most political appointees can be undone by the next
president or the next Congress, if they’re so inclined. Not so with the
Supreme Court, where judges sit for life. If the Republicans regain the
White House — or even Senate — and continue down the Bush path, we can
probably kiss reproductive rights goodbye, and expect to lose any hope
of redress in the courts for employment discrimination.
That’s because the next president will likely make at least two Supreme
Court appointments. Two is enough to do a lot of damage, as Bush
lackeys John Roberts and Samuel Alito have shown. They’ve already
tipped the balance, resulting in decisions upholding the first federal
abortion procedure ban, and the severe curtailment of women’s ability
to sue for discrimination at work. The court’s only woman and strongest
women’s advocate, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, spoke out strongly in her
dissent on both cases. She is 74 years old. Her colleague John Paul
Stevens — another pro-woman vote — is 87.
So the real choice for women is not between race or gender, show horse
or workhorse. It’s between continuing the Bush policies or voting in
November for a candidate that can and will turn those policies around,
and get rid of the anti-woman poison in Washington.
Women are not a “special interest.” They are the majority — of the
population, of registered voters, and of those that actually turn out.
It’s no wonder candidates are trying so hard to woo them. We’ve all
heard the expression “buyer beware.” As political buyers this year,
women must be warier than ever.
Martha Burk is the director for the Corporate Accountability Project for the National Council of Women’s Organizations.