People
vote for various reasons, whether it be the candidate's foreign
policies, the economy, his stance on social issues, or just perhaps
simply because he or she has the necessary leadership skills to
succeed. Given the present-day economic difficulties, a grand
majority is more focused on the dwindling economy than the various
social policies advocated by the Republicans. While I acknowledge
that people's motivations to vote may vary, I believe that there is
one thing that should given priority over all else – the economy,
personal preferences, foreign policy – and that is one's rights. I
will therefore argue that women's rights are being challenged by the
Republican Party, and women should not vote Republican.
This
challenge of women's rights by the Republican Party is epitomized as
the “War on Women.” This so-called war has between battled
between the Democratic and Repubican Party, with the Republican Party
repeatedly denying there is such thing. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus
insists that the so-called war on women is a myth perpetuated by the
Democrats, and went on to make the following comparison between a war
on women and a war on catepillars:
If
the Democrats said we had a war on caterpillars and every mainstream
media outlet talked about the fact that Republicans have a war on
caterpillars, then we'd have problems withcaterpillars. It's a
fiction.
According to Michelle Malkin, an American conservative blogger,
political commentator and author, claims it's a “false narrative”;
Laura Ingraham, an American radio host and political commentator,
says it's contrived. Ann Coultner, author of several books, attacks
the Democrats for challenging women's rights. Needless to say, the
Democratic and Republican Party differ on whether this war is real,
and whether this war is a war brought on by the Republicans or not.
Yet
without coining terms, without pointing fingers, it is almost
unbelievable to see all kinds of restrictions women are forced to
struggle with in the 21st
century.
Last
year, there were 1,100 bills which aimed to restrict reproductive
health access in state legislatures. By the end of the year, 135 of
these measures were enacted in 35 states. These include
anti-abortionist bills, and informed consent bills.
The
Republican Party platform's stance on abortion right now is this:
“We
assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child
has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be
infringed.”
There
have been attempts to propose a human right amendment to the
Constitution, creating a conflict between Roe vs Wade. Abortion is a
delicate, personal issue that have been the source of debate for many
years now. But a woman's right and an individual right to life is
intricately connected, as pregnancy is the state where a child relies
on the physical support of another's body for nine months. In cases
of rape and incest, the Republican Party has remained firmly in
support of that stance, without acknowledging the grievances it might
bring to a woman. In addition, this platform proposes a disturbing
conclusion – what if the woman's life is in jeopardy? According to
the stance, since the unborn child has an a right which cannot be
infringed, the woman must give birth regardless of the circumstances.
In this extreme case, it seems as though a woman has lost her right
to life instead.
There
are also other bills restricting abortion procedures. For example,
legislators in 13 states have introduced 22 bills seeking to mandate
a woman obtain an ultrasound procedure before having an abortion.
When Virginia passed its “ultrasound bill” in March that requires
women to undergo a transvaginal or abdominal ultrasound before having
an abortion, Idaho tried to follow suit (unsuccessfully). There are
also various informed consent bills, which requires women to be
informed of alternative options to abortion, medical facts (some of
which are disputed, such as fetal pain), amongst other rights. These
kind of bills undermines women's intelligence – it suggests that
women are not completely aware of what they're doing. They need
ultrasounds to see their fetus or informed consents before they can
consciously make their decision. For all the women who, for whatever
reason, ultimately made that difficult decision in having an
abortion, it is almost insulting.
Another
Republican strategy that undermines women is to re-define the
definition of rape. Todd Akin made waves due to his apparent lack of
medical knowledge, where he naively claimed that women couldn't be
impregnated by rape since their bodies have a way of “shutting it
down.” He also tried to distinguish between “legitimate rape”
as opposed to other forms. While Todd Akin may have been extreme, and
his remarks were subsequently rejected by his own party, we seem to
have forgotten that Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney's running mate, once
co-sponsored an anti-choice legislation very similar to Todd Akin's
views. The legislation wanted to narrow the legal definition of rape
to “forcible rape.” That other part of the bill would have
defined fertilized eggs as human beings, which would open the
floodgates to ban all abortions, restrict certain forms of birth
control and fertility treatments.
Re-defining
rape is another attempt to limit abortion, as proponents of pro-life
bills constantly stress that a child should be born, despite of the
circumstances of which it has come into being. There, they make the
difference between what is “forced” or “legitimate” rape, and
what isn't...yet rape is inherently forced and inherently legitimate,
and adding those words implies that that they are unforced or
illegitimate rapes. It is an insult that is not directly targeted
towards women, but it is unarguable that women are more
proportionately prone to rape, given their relative smaller body
size.
In
addition to numerous pro-life bills, attempts at re-defining rape,
the Republican Party has also proposed to cut back on medical
services such as Planned Parenthood, on the basis on their
affirmation for the right to life. Planned
Parenthood is the largest provider of reproductive health services in
the United States. It serves over 3 million people every year who
would not otherwise have have access to these services. Over 90%
Planned Parenthood's health centers covers preventive, primary care
which helps prevent unintended pregnancies through contraception and
reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Millions of women
utilized Planned Parenthood for cancer services and other vital
services, and although abortion services are provided, it is small in
comparison to the other services it provides. Cutting back on these
vital services are especially detrimental to women. Since women and
men are structured differently, women seek healthcare more than men
do, but often have less ability to pay for them. Services like
Planned Parenthood are crucial to women's healthcare, yet with the
Republican stance on abortion, Planned Parenthood's services are
severely limited as well as challenged.
It
is almost undeniable that the Republican Party has attackly pursued
policies with detrimental effects on women. Whether or not this
constitutes a “War on Women” depends on largely one's definition
of whether these legislatures are intentional or not. Nevertheless,
the consequences of either intentional or non-intentional policies
restricting women still limits and violates women's rights. It is
unreasonable and irresponsible of proponents in the Republican Party
to continuously deny the existence of such a phenomenon. There are
several arguments for this denial, which I will then refute. Firstly,
some claim that it is, in fact, the Democrats who are the ones
stifling women's rights. Secondly, that this War on Women is a
nonsense ploy to divert attention from the real issues – the
economy. And thirdly, that these policies are just policies to make
society better off, but not a personal attack on the female
population. I would like to address these three arguments, and
explain why they, in fact, do not stand as valid arguments.
The
first mistaken concept is that it is the Democrats, not the
Republicans who are going after women's rights and freedoms. Besides
this obvious finger-pointing blame tactic (I think it is possible for
Democrats and Republicans to both be stifling women's rights; it is
not a mutually exclusive relationship), Democrats do not seem to be
advocating for various bills and proposals against women, including
one in Virginia where women were subject to invasive probing before
deciding on if she should have an abortion or not. But their argument
does not stand in the bill-making area – instead, it falls under
the category of male hormones and general inconsideration for women's
feelings. As Ann Coultner said, “We can't have a war on women
because the Democrats have won the war between Teddy Kennedy, Bill
Clinton and Anthony Weiner.
I
am not going to defend any of these men and condone or justify of
their actions. Their treatment of women is, needless to say, not of
their finest qualities. Yet what these men did was not condoned not
just by me, but by everyone. They were not trying to make amendments
to the law, to public policy that follows the lines of how it is
acceptable to treat women like this, how it it acceptable to cheat on
your wife. The problem with the Republican side is that they're
driving these policies, whether to redefine rape, or to limit
abortion, as indications that this should be the right kind of
behavior. For them, defining rape to be “forced” or not “forced”
is okay. Pusing for “personhood” bills is okay. Ted Kennedy, Bill
Clinton, Anthony Weiner – they may be terrible people, they may be
philandering assholes – but in no way are they saying that this is
acceptable, and that women don't deserve the right kind of treatment
from their husbands. It is one case to treat individual women poorly,
another case to violate women's rights altogether.
Another
argument that is generally made is that this so-called War on Women
is merely a ploy to garner votes for Democrats. This is especially
important in the upcoming election - Obama generally leads women
voters in all polls. Republicans therefore argue that this is one of
Obama's strategies to divert attention from key issues like the
economy. If anything, they say, it's Obama's economy that has caused
women hardship. As Mitt Romney said:
“The
real war on women has been waged by the Obama administration’s
failure on the economy, and 92.3 percent of the job losses during the
Obama years has been women who’ve lost those jobs.”
But
from several journalistic fact-checking sources, if we add in the the
additional 13 months when President Bush was in office and when the
economy crashed, it's clear that men have by far lost more jobs than
women have. In addition, one of the reasons women may not recover
their jobs as quickly is because they're more likely to work in
retail or government jobs.
There,
it is common for politicians to twist the truth or bounce the ball
back to the opponent in order to emphasize the opponent's weakness,
and Obama's weakness is the economy. The failure of the economy to
turn around has taken an enormous toil on women, but it is hard to
argue that his intentions were deliberate toward women. When we speak
of this so-called war on women, we were explicitly addressing women's
rights. Again, for example, the right to not have a vaginal probe if
we decide to have an abortion. It is hard to argue that Obama's
failure on the economy is directly or indirectly correlated to a
forethought on women's rights. It affects both men and women equally,
or it should to be close to affecting them both equally. If perhaps
there was a bill that explicitly forbids equal pay, or even if there
was a bill that only allows men to be CEOs because it will otherwise
disrupt a “normal, familial structure”, then that would be a
violation of women's rights.
Lastly,
I would like to address another one of the arguments frequently used
to demonstrate how there isn't, in reality, a so-called war on women
– that these policies are not addressed toward women, but are just
mere consequences of unfortunate realities.
I
believe Stephanie Slade, Project Director of the Winston Group (a
political strategy company), provides a really good analogy on this:
A
segment of the population has long favored a ban on the use of
monosodium glutamate in food, arguing it has deleterious health
effects if consumed in a large enough quantity. Such a ban would
disproportionately affect Chinese food restaurants, and Chinese food
restaurants are disproportionately owned by Asian families.
Therefore, there is a "War on Asians" in the United States.
She
goes on to argue that this is “obvious hogwash.” She goes on to
say that what is wrong with characterizing opposition to MSG as a
“War on Asians” is that doing so “fails to account for the
intent of those who hold that position.” The point of the ban is to
make society better off, she argues.
I
am unconvinced of her analogy on several points. I am unconvinced
because of her argument on intentions and how that can be objective.
It is one thing to ban MSG and say that society is better off because
people won't get sick anymore. It is another thing to ban normal
abortion procedures, or birth control under insurance, because
society will be “better off.” There will inevitably be judgment
when it comes to an issue as personal as abortion, and the effects
are personal as well. These attacks on the definition of rape, of
abortion, of equal pay – it is hard to see how one can accurately
measure how society will be better off without some kind of
subjectivity to it.
Therefore,
I do not think these arguments are sustainable enough to convince a
person otherwise that the Republican Party has, intentionally or
unintentionally restricted or challenged the rights of women. Even if
there isn't a “war” on women, and even if these legislatures are
proposed not with the intention to restrict women, it does so anyway.
To deny the consequences of such legislatures is irresponsible,
especially when the consequences are foreseeable. Of all the reasons
people should vote, one of the greatest and most important reasons is
to ensure and protect your own rights. Women, I believe, as a
responsible citizen, but also as a responsible woman, should vote for
a party whose values do not contradict with the essence of their own
rights.
