2012 might be the banner year for gender and politics (and gender politics) in the United States, and the presidential election will be decided largely by the votes of American women. The gender gap has reached historic proportions — and the latest consensus of surveys among women voters paints a fascinating picture of the women’s vote, and the political power of women this election season.
The average, as calculated by the preeminent Nate Silver shows a median gender gap of 18 points in favor of President Obama (the president also enjoyed a significant lead amongst women voters in 2008, and the women’s vote is seen by his campaign and the media at large as the key to his reelection):
If this split in the polls carries through to Election Day, we could be looking at one of the widest recorded gender gaps in American presidential politics.
It should come as no surprise that President Obama leads among women, considering the current climate in the Republican Party when it comes to women in general, from the harsh language of the party’s official platform on abortion and federal funding to Planned Parenthood (which provides vital health services to low income women like breast and cervical cancer screenings), to Congressional Republican pushback against pay equity legislation like Lilly Ledbetter or the Paycheck Fairness Act (which was struck down by Senate Republicans this year).
When asked about issues like these, presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has been both frustratingly vague and has reversed his positions on these issues numerous times.
But what we do know about Mr. Romney’s policies toward women is far from promising:
During the second presidential debate, Mr. Romney dodged a question about equal pay for equal work, instead going on a meandering tangent that culminated in his unfortunate “binders full of women” comments:
CROWLEY: Governor Romney, pay equity for women?
ROMNEY: Thank you. And important topic, and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men.
And I — and I went to my staff, and I said, “How come all the people for these jobs are — are all men.” They said, “Well, these are the people that have the qualifications.” And I said, “Well, gosh, can’t we — can’t we find some — some women that are also qualified?”
ROMNEY: And — and so we — we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, “Can you help us find folks,” and they brought us whole binders full of women.
In fact, not only was this statement very unfortunately worded, it was also incorrect: Mitt Romney did not request his staff to seek out more women for his cabinet, and the “binder” in question was sent to him by an independent women’s advocacy group, the Associated Press reports.
Indeed, by the end of Mr. Romney’s tenure as Governor of Massachusetts, there were less women working in positions of leadership than when he first took office.
But the real question — whether or not Mitt Romney supports equal pay for equal work — is still in question. His campaign first stated that he was opposed to the Ledbetter Act (which puts him within the party line on the issue), but later after the second debate advisors asserted that he had no position on the issue whatsoever.
However, his running mate Paul Ryan has been explicit in his opposition to the legislation (which he voted against in 2009):
“Lilly Ledbetter was not an equal pay law. It was about opening up the lawsuits and statute of limitations,” Mr. Ryan told CBS News on October 17. “It wasn’t an equal pay law, and of course, we support equal pay.”
Of course, opening up the statute of limitations is the point of the bill, to make it possible for women to litigate their employers for pay discrimination. And if vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan is against it, and the Republican Party is against it, how can we be confident that Mitt Romney is for it?
And coming back to the subject of women’s health, Mr. Romney’s stances on these issues have undergone a metamorphosis over the past few years, becoming wholly traditionalist and uncompromising in 2012:
“I think I’ve said time and again that I’m a pro-life candidate and I’ll be a pro-life president,” Mr. Romney said in Ohio this month. “The actions I’ll take immediately is to remove funding for Planned Parenthood. It will not be part of my budget.”
Mr. Romney will defund Planned Parenthood, a program that millions of women rely upon as their sole source for health care services (only 3 percent of those services offered in 2010 were abortion related).
Furthermore, on the issue of contraception coverage, the Romney campaign has repeatedly expressed opposition to insurance coverage of contraception (which is mandated under the Affordable Health Care Act, which Mr. Romney has promised to repeal).
Mr. Romney has also come out in support of the Blunt Amendment, which allows employers to decide whether or not their female employees can receive contraception coverage in their insurance: “Of course I support the Blunt amendment,” he said on a radio show earlier this year.
Combined with his promise to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, Mr. Romney would cripple women’s access to affordable health care and preventative services.
These stances are extreme in their traditionalism, and it’s clear that Mr. Romney fails to understand that “women’s issues” are not a minor fringe concern: these are life impacting health issues for women that have wide ranging economic consequences. Indeed, women’s health issues are economic issues that have a direct impact on millions of women and their families.
Mitt Romney’s cavalier approach to women’s autonomy and wellbeing could have a devastating impact upon millions of American women who deserve the right to control their own lives.
—
Apolitical is a blog that covers current events, politics and culture from a progressive perspective—bringing the world at large to the Malibubble, one post at a time.
