More than 200 women brought their children to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to urge lawmakers to clean up the air pollution that causes climate change. The event was called a "Play-in for Climate Action" -- you can't expect all those kids to stay still for a traditional "sit-in" -- and included a press conference with Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
Around the same time, GOP lawmakers in the House were busy drafting a bill that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from doing the very thing those mothers want: clean up carbon pollution from power plants so their children have a better future.
Welcome to the latest battle in the Tea Party's war on women. This conflict isn't getting as much attention as the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling, but it could play a significant role in who wins and loses the midterm elections.
Republican and Democratic candidates have already worked the Hobby Lobby case into stump speeches, fundraising appeals, and attack ads. Yet few people will vote on the Hobby Lobby ruling alone. Most voters cast ballots based on a cluster of issues that matter most to them.
One negative story about a Tea Party position that hurts women would not turn the midterm tide. But these days, the stories are mounting. GOP candidates are alienating women voters on a host of issues, from reproductive health to equal pay to climate change.
When did climate change become a women's issue? When women made it clear they care deeply about it. Women in battleground states understand (by a margin of 72 percent to 19 percent) that we have a moral obligation to future generations to make the air safer to breathe and the climate more stable. Climate change increases smog and contributes to asthma attacks and other respiratory problems. If we don't act now, the next generation will pay a steep price, and most women want children to inherit a brighter future, not one plagued by unchecked climate hazards.
And yet nearly every single Republican candidate running for office in the past few years -- from the presidential level on down -- has ignored, denied, or belittled the threat of climate change. Right now, GOP leaders are attacking the EPA's new "Clean Power Plan." This plan would unleash wind and solar power, boost energy and cost savings, and finally hold power plants accountable for the enormous amounts of carbon pollution they spew into our air.
Blocking this kind of climate action isn't just bad policy; it's bad politics.
Women are one of the emerging voting blocs that will matter most in this election, along with Latinos and young people. Many female voters are likely to view Tea Party stance on climate change as yet another position that turns them off.
Republicans can't afford that. In the 2012 presidential race, women favored the Democratic ticket by 11 percentage points. Unmarried women voted for President Obama over Governor Romney by 67 percent. Those single women, it turns out, could be the soccer moms of this election -- top Democratic strategists are already trying to appeal to them.
Some Republicans may be listening to what women want. Over the past few months, GOP leaders have hedged their climate bets; they have moved from outright denial to modest demurral. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Governor Rick Scott (R-FL), and Presidential hopeful Marco Rubio (R-FL) have all said they don't have the scientific background to assess the risks of climate change. This hardly constitutes a bold approach to a matter of national security, but it does suggest some Republicans realize that climate denunciation is a losing position.
Candidates who stand for climate action, meanwhile, can cast themselves as champions of clean air, public health, good jobs, and a brighter future for our children -- a set of issues that appeal to many women voters.