Why Bernie Sanders Is Best on Women's Issues
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_bernie_sanders_is_best_on_womens_iss
ues_20150905/
Posted on Sep 5, 2015
By Heather Gautney
Michael Vadon / CC BY 2.0
This article first appeared in The Huffington Post.
Women's issues are taking center stage in the lead-up to 2016. As they
should: The conservative war on women's health and reproductive rights has
raged on for far too long. And in all measures of social and political
inequality, we remain what number-crunchers coolly term "disproportionately
affected."
Many people believe that electing a woman president will help. I'm not so
sure. Does breaking glass ceilings constitute a real political
strategy-that's capable of improving women's lives? And does voting one's
gender really translate to voting one's interest?
Let's consider the issues:
On women's right to choose, Republican state legislators from Florida to
Oklahoma have concocted a series of procedural roadblocks to undermine Roe
v. Wade-like mandatory waiting periods, ultrasounds, and
ideologically-informed, "counseling," some of which is medically unsound. In
2015 alone, they proposed more than 300 regulations restricting abortion in
45 states, and over the last four years, passed over 200 laws.
Far from protecting women's health, as advocates claim, anti-choice laws
drive up costs and reduce access, especially for women in vulnerable
situations. They also drive up risks: Experts warn that drastic reductions
in the number of abortion clinics in states like Texas and Alabama are
likely to increase the numbers of dangerous, self-induced abortions.
The Right's war on women has also targeted basic gynecological services that
save millions of women's lives each year, like STD and breast-cancer
screening. Fervent efforts by anti-abortion groups to delegitimize and
defund Planned Parenthood-alongside political battles over the Affordable
Care Act to refuse birth control and emergency contraception-are restricting
access to much-needed health services, especially for low-income women.
Bernie Sanders has consistently fought against Republican attacks on
reproductive rights. If elected president, he would increase funding for
Planned Parenthood. He's vowed to only nominate Supreme Court justices who
uphold Roe v. Wade, and plans to expand women's health programs, and access
to safe and legal abortions. Clinton has also been out front on reproductive
rights, but her historic refrain that abortion be "safe, legal, and rare"
has only served to stigmatize it and justify conservative efforts to impose
legal restrictions.
On the issue of families, Sanders has often pointed out that of 178
countries worldwide, the U.S. is one of three that does not provide new
mothers with paid leave. He argues for a Scandinavia-like model, where
family leave is part of a robust system of social safety nets. As president,
he would provide workers with up 12 weeks of family and medical leave,
funded with a small payroll contribution-so that parents can bond with their
newborns, and family members care for sick relatives. He would also free
millions of women from the struggle to secure childcare by making
high-quality services and pre-K available to all Americans, regardless of
income.
The Clinton campaign has made family leave a centerpiece of its platform,
but the candidate's level of enthusiasm is not encouraging. Just last year
she openly admitted to CNN, "I don't think, politically, we could get it
now."
In terms of income, most people know that women make only a fraction of what
men earn (78 cents per dollar), and the numbers are much worse for blacks
and Hispanics. Even women in labor unions, who enjoy the benefits of
collective bargaining and workplace regulation, get only 88 cents to a man's
dollar.
Sanders has said that if elected he would sign the Paycheck Fairness Act to
end wage discrimination based on gender. He would also increase the minimum
wage to $15. Women account for more than half of those who would benefit
from just a $10 increase, and they make up 72 percent of all tipped workers,
who would also get a substantial raise. Clinton supports a $15 minimum, but
only in her home state of New York. She's offering just $12 for everyone
else.
Even with decent wages, however, many Americans have spiraled into financial
ruin from excessive medical costs. Women are especially afflicted, as we are
less likely than men to be insured, and our healthcare expenses tend to be
higher. While Clinton says she'll go with "what works" in Obamacare,
Sanders' Medicare for All will help reduce out of pocket costs for lower
income Americans. Along with expanded retirement benefits, universal
healthcare can help eradicate these ruinous trends-which are especially
pronounced for elderly women, half of whom would sink into poverty without
their Social Security checks.
Finally, there's the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which promises to
bring jobs, but mostly the kind that exploit poor women in the developing
world. American women also stand to lose, as the TPP will enable
corporations to outsource low-wage majority-female jobs (and some high-wage
ones too). Clinton has been woolly on the TPP, most likely because her
husband is among the world's premier trade liberalizers.
Sanders, on the other hand, has spearheaded the opposition-not just now, but
back in the '90s against Bill Clinton's NAFTA, which cost American workers
over one million jobs and put enormous downward pressure on their wages.
In the end, it looks like the Senator from Vermont is outdoing the woman
candidate on pro-woman policy. That shouldn't come as a surprise. A recent
survey by the Ms. Foundation for Women found that "Women do not lead
single-issue lives. birth control and abortion is impacted by income level,
racial and cultural bias, gender discrimination and immigrant status."
Bernie has long-understood that women's struggles can't be compartmentalized
into issue-silos. That's why he's long-eschewed counterfeit gestures of
"gender diversity"-in favor of genuine social equality.
http://www.truthdig.com/ http://www.truthdig.com/
Why Bernie Sanders Is Best on Women's Issues
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_bernie_sanders_is_best_on_womens_iss
ues_20150905/
Posted on Sep 5, 2015
By Heather Gautney
Michael Vadon / CC BY 2.0
This article first appeared in The Huffington Post.
Women's issues are taking center stage in the lead-up to 2016. As they
should: The conservative war on women's health and reproductive rights has
raged on for far too long. And in all measures of social and political
inequality, we remain what number-crunchers coolly term "disproportionately
affected."
Many people believe that electing a woman president will help. I'm not so
sure. Does breaking glass ceilings constitute a real political
strategy-that's capable of improving women's lives? And does voting one's
gender really translate to voting one's interest?
Let's consider the issues:
On women's right to choose, Republican state legislators from Florida to
Oklahoma have concocted a series of procedural roadblocks to undermine Roe
v. Wade-like mandatory waiting periods, ultrasounds, and
ideologically-informed, "counseling," some of which is medically unsound. In
2015 alone, they proposed more than 300 regulations restricting abortion in
45 states, and over the last four years, passed over 200 laws.
Far from protecting women's health, as advocates claim, anti-choice laws
drive up costs and reduce access, especially for women in vulnerable
situations. They also drive up risks: Experts warn that drastic reductions
in the number of abortion clinics in states like Texas and Alabama are
likely to increase the numbers of dangerous, self-induced abortions.
The Right's war on women has also targeted basic gynecological services that
save millions of women's lives each year, like STD and breast-cancer
screening. Fervent efforts by anti-abortion groups to delegitimize and
defund Planned Parenthood-alongside political battles over the Affordable
Care Act to refuse birth control and emergency contraception-are restricting
access to much-needed health services, especially for low-income women.
Bernie Sanders has consistently fought against Republican attacks on
reproductive rights. If elected president, he would increase funding for
Planned Parenthood. He's vowed to only nominate Supreme Court justices who
uphold Roe v. Wade, and plans to expand women's health programs, and access
to safe and legal abortions. Clinton has also been out front on reproductive
rights, but her historic refrain that abortion be "safe, legal, and rare"
has only served to stigmatize it and justify conservative efforts to impose
legal restrictions.
On the issue of families, Sanders has often pointed out that of 178
countries worldwide, the U.S. is one of three that does not provide new
mothers with paid leave. He argues for a Scandinavia-like model, where
family leave is part of a robust system of social safety nets. As president,
he would provide workers with up 12 weeks of family and medical leave,
funded with a small payroll contribution-so that parents can bond with their
newborns, and family members care for sick relatives. He would also free
millions of women from the struggle to secure childcare by making
high-quality services and pre-K available to all Americans, regardless of
income.
The Clinton campaign has made family leave a centerpiece of its platform,
but the candidate's level of enthusiasm is not encouraging. Just last year
she openly admitted to CNN, "I don't think, politically, we could get it
now."
In terms of income, most people know that women make only a fraction of what
men earn (78 cents per dollar), and the numbers are much worse for blacks
and Hispanics. Even women in labor unions, who enjoy the benefits of
collective bargaining and workplace regulation, get only 88 cents to a man's
dollar.
Sanders has said that if elected he would sign the Paycheck Fairness Act to
end wage discrimination based on gender. He would also increase the minimum
wage to $15. Women account for more than half of those who would benefit
from just a $10 increase, and they make up 72 percent of all tipped workers,
who would also get a substantial raise. Clinton supports a $15 minimum, but
only in her home state of New York. She's offering just $12 for everyone
else.
Even with decent wages, however, many Americans have spiraled into financial
ruin from excessive medical costs. Women are especially afflicted, as we are
less likely than men to be insured, and our healthcare expenses tend to be
higher. While Clinton says she'll go with "what works" in Obamacare,
Sanders' Medicare for All will help reduce out of pocket costs for lower
income Americans. Along with expanded retirement benefits, universal
healthcare can help eradicate these ruinous trends-which are especially
pronounced for elderly women, half of whom would sink into poverty without
their Social Security checks.
Finally, there's the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which promises to
bring jobs, but mostly the kind that exploit poor women in the developing
world. American women also stand to lose, as the TPP will enable
corporations to outsource low-wage majority-female jobs (and some high-wage
ones too). Clinton has been woolly on the TPP, most likely because her
husband is among the world's premier trade liberalizers.
Sanders, on the other hand, has spearheaded the opposition-not just now, but
back in the '90s against Bill Clinton's NAFTA, which cost American workers
over one million jobs and put enormous downward pressure on their wages.
In the end, it looks like the Senator from Vermont is outdoing the woman
candidate on pro-woman policy. That shouldn't come as a surprise. A recent
survey by the Ms. Foundation for Women found that "Women do not lead
single-issue lives. birth control and abortion is impacted by income level,
racial and cultural bias, gender discrimination and immigrant status."
Bernie has long-understood that women's struggles can't be compartmentalized
into issue-silos. That's why he's long-eschewed counterfeit gestures of
"gender diversity"-in favor of genuine social equality.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/canada_clears_way_for_ecuadorian
_case_against_chevron_over_amazon_chernobyl/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/canada_clears_way_for_ecuadorian
_case_against_chevron_over_amazon_chernobyl/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/canada_clears_way_for_ecuadorian
_case_against_chevron_over_amazon_chernobyl/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/europe_can_accommodate_migrants_
but_politicians_dont_want_them_20150905/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/europe_can_accommodate_migrants_
but_politicians_dont_want_them_20150905/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/europe_can_accommodate_migrants_
but_politicians_dont_want_them_20150905/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_labor_day_worry_the_courts_right-winge
rs_are_sharpening_20150905/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_labor_day_worry_the_courts_right-winge
rs_are_sharpening_20150905/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_labor_day_worry_the_courts_right-winge
rs_are_sharpening_20150905/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/2000_cases_may_be_overturned_bec
ause_of_police_and_prosecutor_20150905/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/2000_cases_may_be_overturned_bec
ause_of_police_and_prosecutor_20150905/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/2000_cases_may_be_overturned_bec
ause_of_police_and_prosecutor_20150905/ http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/about/http://www.truthdig.com/contact/http://www.tru
thdig.com/about/advertising/http://www.truthdig.com/user_agreement/http://ww
w.truthdig.com/privacy_policy/http://www.truthdig.com/about/comment_policy/
C 2015 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
http://www.hopstudios.com/
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://www.facebook.com/truthdighttp://twitter.com/intent/follow?source=foll
owbutton&variant=1.0&screen_name=truthdighttps://plus.google.com/+truthdight
tp://www.linkedin.com/company/truthdighttp://truthdig.tumblr.com/http://www.
truthdig.com/connect
