When I first heard Senators Roy Blunt and Scott Brown were trying to push an even more radical effort to deny women basic health care access than what we'd seen before, I knew in my gut it wasn't going to work. That amendment wasn't just bad policy -- it's bad politics and I knew that voters wouldn't stand for that kind of right-wing regressive agenda. Women and men across America value their individual liberties too much to let their boss decide whether or not they can get vaccinations or health care, let alone have access to birth control.
I know this because I feel the same way, and because American voters have responded to these attacks on their freedoms. EMILY's List recently partnered with the Planned Parenthood Action Fund to find out just how voters were responding to these issues. And let me tell you, voters are not pleased with the GOP. Our research shows that 60 percent of voters strongly oppose the Blunt Amendment. And nearly half say they are less likely to support a candidate for office if he or she supported policies like the Blunt Amendment.
My gut was right. Voters are soundly rejecting this right wing agenda, from the freedom-limiting Blunt Amendment, to the vile attacks of Rush Limbaugh. Not just Democratic voters, but Independent voters, and Republicans too: access to birth control has the potential to impact races across the country.
We polled voters in battleground states, states like Massachusetts and Nevada. These are states where the senators up for reelection, Scott Brown and Dean Heller, not only supported this amendment, but are facing off against some of the strongest pro-choice Democratic female Senate candidates we've ever seen.
Voters don't want to support candidates who are trying to take away their rights and turn back the clock. They are looking to support candidates who stand strong on issues like access to birth control, candidates who will focus on getting things done for women and their families. This war on basic health care and freedoms has made its way into Senate races across the country.
Thankfully, EMILY's List is supporting a record number of women candidates for Senate, and an ever-growing field of House candidates, who will defeat the Republicans who supported Blunt and will work to expand opportunity and stability for women and families, not limit it. Our community is now over one million members and growing every day. Women candidates, women voters and women donors will decide the 2012 elections, and believe me, this issue will be considered when they head to the ballot box.
Where I'm from, in Montana, we value individual liberties and we respect privacy. Judging from these polling results, I think we can say the same for American voters.
Follow Stephanie Schriock on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Schriock1
Brendan Nyhan: The Effects of Health Care Reform in 2010 and Beyond
If that is true, then my question isn't about their right to take a stand on an issue based on religious freedom. These same institutions also believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. My question is why have they taken a stand against providing birth control because it is against their beliefs, but they have NOT taken a stand on providing ED medications to single men, or medications to ease painful intercourse for single women? Why is the institution choosing to stand by its faith/teachings on contraception, but not on its faith/teachings against sex outside of marriage?
I understand that they would be discriminating based on marital status, but they could ask for an exemption from complying with that law. Why are only some of their beliefs worth fighting for?
America's wars abroad, the destruction of the middle and working classes, the mass incarceration of so many bodies and souls, the continual outsourcing of the means of livelihood, the cynical sellout of our people, are these not acts of "war on women?" Yet what, in the scheme of things, are these paltry concerns compared to having to pay for contraceptive devices or to undergo an unwanted medical procedure under a law that will never be enforced against many of those who cry "War!"
This pseudo "War On Women" is a smokescreen to mask the *real* war on privileged, educated women, and they are right to be alarmed. Their power to control the political dialogue and to define the social and cultural agenda to suit themselves is being challenged, and they're furious. How dare these misogynists oppose us!
This catered to class of women and their male auxiliaries are becoming aware that their gains have occurred largely at others' expense, and they don't, understandably, want to be reminded of it.
"Thankfully, EMILY's List is supporting a record number of women candidates for Senate, and an ever-growing field of House candidates, who will defeat the Republicans who supported Blunt and will work to expand opportunity and stability for women and families, not limit it. Our community is now over one million members and growing every day. Women candidates, women voters and women donors will decide the 2012 elections, and believe me, this issue will be considered when they head to the ballot box. "
I guess I don't see the irony. Sounds like a pretty standard campaign pitch to me. She really means it, so she's not trying be ironic. At least I don't think so. Also, calling something "radical" because only is standard fare on both sides these days, and besides, the Blunt proposal was pretty radical, so that doesn't create a whole lot of irony either. I think I'll go read some Jonathan Swift. Now that guy really could be ironic.