Jan 30th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Legislation Effecting Women: Now With Input From Women
Jill Filipovic offers two sharply contrasting images. One is George W. Bush signing the 2003 “partial birth” abortion ban, and one is Barack Obama signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Similarly striking, I might add, is that even though the Lilly Ledbetter Act faced overwhelming opposition from conservatives, the ultimate Senate vote went down with a dose of bipartisanship since all the women of the Senate GOP caucus voted for it.
51 Responses to “Legislation Effecting Women: Now With Input From Women”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
Immigration
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Labor Markets
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NATO
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 30th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Okay, I’ll do it. Ahem. Affect not effect.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:25 am
I haven’t read the Ledbetter Act but was wondering if it applies to salaried employees. From my personal experience, negotiating with HR for a starting salary can be a big factor on pay. If two people (regardless of gender) are doing the same job with the same level of experience, one may make a substantially higher amount than the other simply because she pushed back on the initial offer and negotiated a higher salary. Does the act impact these types of inequalities?
January 30th, 2009 at 10:28 am
As I understand the bill, this would not be actionable. In the Ledbetter case itself, gender discrimination was conceded by Goodyear. This Act extends the statute of limitations; however, you still need to prove discrimination.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:34 am
yes, but in the first picture you’re ignoring all of the angelic hosts of beatific fetuses who are singing choruses of praise to bush!
surely all of those beatific fetuses are far more important than any actual, nasty, sordid *women* could ever be. and they are right there in the picture, too!
what, you can’t see them? i bet you hate jesus, too.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Hey, five House Democrats voted against it.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:52 am
I can see how the partial-birth abortion ban effects women, but I’m kind of lost on how the Ledbetter Act does. Perhaps you could elaborate?
January 30th, 2009 at 11:09 am
I, too, am somewhat lost, can someone who has knowledge in these areas explain how what was in Lily Ledbetter transformed existing policy, that is, how was/is it not legal to pay women less for similar experience/skill set etc, under prior policy?
January 30th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Partial birth abortion is a vile practice, more akin to the practices of Khmer Rouge, Nazis and the Ku-Klux-Klan than anything that should be tolerated by a civilized society.
I really want to know how anyone can justify sucking a baby’s brains out with a vacuum tube, or burning one to death with poisons. All in the name of ’second-wave feminism’, burblings about ‘autonomy’, ‘patriarchy’ and similar vile nonsense.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:12 am
@ Sid & no comment:
FAQ on the Ledbetter Act (as well as the Paycheck Fairness Act) from the National Women’s Law Center:
http://www.nwlc.org/fairpay/faq.html
January 30th, 2009 at 11:20 am
I really want to know how anyone can justify sucking a baby’s brains out with a vacuum tube, or burning one to death with poisons. All in the name of ’second-wave feminism’, burblings about ‘autonomy’, ‘patriarchy’ and similar vile nonsense.
Well, we can clearly see that you’re an expert on vile nonsense.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Caro, I’m well aware of how the Ledbetter Act affects women. The question is how it effects them.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Profiles in integrity. Something that helps working people, or kids, or gays? Who cares! Screw ‘em. Something that might help me–yes, gotta have it!
January 30th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Most every poll on the topic has found that women are just as likely to be pro-life as men. Whereas I highly doubt that women are as likely to be pro-employment-discrimination-against-women.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Aborting a brain-dead fetus is like herding 6 million people into concentration camps and gassing them to death? Who woulda thought.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:58 am
All in the name of ’second-wave feminism’, burblings about ‘autonomy’, ‘patriarchy’ and similar vile nonsense.
Right, that’s why women endure the pain of a late-term abortion; to make a point about the patriarchy.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Someone needs to tell Steny Hoyer to stop ruining Obama’s photo ops.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Most every poll on the topic has found that women are just as likely to be pro-life as men. Whereas I highly doubt that women are as likely to be pro-employment-discrimination-against-women.
Right. As much as social liberals would like to think being pro-life is a display of misogyny, a lot of woman oppose abortion. I’m left-wing on most other issues and oppose abortion, because I value human life and a fetus is a human life.
Supporting women’s rights to fight against pay discrimination doesn’t have any of the moral murkiness surrounding abortion. It doesn’t infringe in any way on anybody else’s rights. I’m not surprised all the women voted for it.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Katherine,
Right. As it has been pointed out above, women are more likely than men to be pro-life. Quite understandably so- women tend to be more compassionate than men, and theyre can’t be many things less compassionate than abortion.
There is something, however, remarkably misogynistic about thinking that the only way for women to succeed in society is to be as callous and selfish as men have historically been. And for men to try to justify abortion so that they can use women for sex and dispose of the consequences if necessary.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Notorious–most of the Senate GOP women (Collins, Snowe, and Hutchison definitely did) also voted against the Partial Birth Abortion ban and I’m pretty sure for SChip expansion as well. They’re generally–not just on this issue–much more moderate than the GOP caucus, especially on social issues.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
theyre can’t be many things less compassionate than abortion
And see, that’s why you’re dumb and no one should listen to you. Abortion CAN be more compassionate than the alternative.
The only woman I’ve ever met who had a late term abortion had it after she found out the fetus she was carrying had a developmental defect that meant it had no kidneys or excretory system. The pregnancy would progress totally normally, but the infant would have died painfully and slowly within days after birth.
She said it was horrific enough to have to have the late-term abortion, but she doesn’t think she could have survived 4 more months of feeling the fetus move in her every single day knowing it would die, knowing that her labor pains were its death knell, giving birth, and then watching it die. She went on to have three more children.
Frankly, that’s why these decisions should be left to the people in this situation. Biology is complicated, it’s occasionally cruel and awful, and it these decisions are hard. They should not be decided by politicians or ideologues whose understanding of the complexities of a situation are sound bites.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
How did this get hijacked to an abortion thread?
Answering my own question: Because, once MattY hits “post” apparently his work here, is done.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Katherine, the anti-abortion movement, as it exists, is expressly misogynistic. It’s certainly true that one can be a feminist and anti-abortion, but the current movement – the one that invented a scary, slanderous name for an essentially uncontroversial medical procedure in order to score political points – is defined by hatred and fear of female sexuality, and not a belief that abortion is murder.
Here’s an old blog post that explains how we know this is true. Quote:
Look especially at the chart. It’s a nice summary.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Most every poll on the topic has found that women are just as likely to be pro-life as men.
Yet either Bush was unable to find a single woman to stand next to him for the signing of the “partial birth abortion” ban, or he didn’t try. (I can’t get to Feministe now but here’s the picture.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Look especially at the chart. It’s a nice summary.
Boy, talk about a false dichotomy. How about a column for “Is this policy consistent with the recognition that a fetus is a human life and should be protected?”
(It’s also why I don’t support exceptions for rape and incest.)
January 30th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
“How did this get hijacked to an abortion thread?”
It’s a mystery. But since I apparently have some form of Stockholm Syndrome, I’m going to contribute to the hijacking . . .
Hector wants to know how “how anyone can justify sucking a baby’s brains out with a vacuum tube, or burning one to death with poisons. All in the name of ’second-wave feminism’, burblings about ‘autonomy’, ‘patriarchy’ and similar vile nonsense. [sic]” The answer is sadly simple (and complex).
First off: late-term abortions in total (defined as past 20 weeks) are quite rare – in 2000, only about 1.4% of all abortions. The political phrase “partial birth abortion isn’t a medical term, but the courts have decided it basically refers to intact D&X, which is even rarer, at 0.17% of all abortions in 2000. So, why would a woman and her doctor choose (or justify) an intact D&X? Well, first off, she’s already decided to have an abortion. Nobody is rubbing their hands together and cackling ‘ I want to suck baby brains out – let me have an abortion!’. (According to surveys, there are various reasons why women have late-term abortions, including: realized too late they were pregnant, were unable to arrange an earlier abortion (thanks in part to antichoice rules and regulations), was afraid to tell partner/parents, were hoping for changes in the relationship, were pressured not to have an abortion, something changed (presumably for the worse), and so on, including in some cases, as anonymiss points out, the discovery of a fetal defect.)
At this point, removing the fetus is going to be difficult, and somewhat-to-very gruesome. More important, it’s going to be complicated and potentially risky to the mother. For example, one alternative to intact D&X is a D&E, where the fetus is dismembered in the uterus, and the pieces removed. Not only is this disgusting to think about (if that’s your main concern), it also involves sharp instruments being repeatedly inserted into the woman’s uterus, with an increased risk of things going wrong. (In cases where the pregnancy was desired (or conflicted), an intact D&X results in a basically intact body for the parent/s to see and touch, if desired; not an option here.). Induction also has fairly serious medical risks, and requires a hospital stay. Past a certain point, both these procedures are of limited or no use, and the choice (if I understand correctly) is between intact D&X and a kind of c-section, which is of course major abdominal surgery.
Antichoicers like Hector (who’s quite honest about seeing feminism, women’s autonomy, and concerns about patriarchy as “vile nonsense”) of course only can see the issue as “justify[ing] sucking a baby’s brains out with a vacuum tube” – as women are rhetorically shrunk, erased, or similarly sidelined (the latest – they’re just too childlike and foolish for their choices to be taken seriously), they’re not going to realize that the question is what’s best (and safest) for the woman in question.
It’s unclear if the Partial Birth Abortion [sic] Act actually has prevented any abortions. What is has done is increase the risk, pain and trauma for women. Go, antichoice movement!
Katherine – I don’t think exactly as you do, but nevertheless (if, of course, this isn’t already the case, and my apologies if so!) you might want to reconsider your de facto allies, and join instead those who -whatever their specific beliefs – try to reduce the number of unwanted or unsustainable pregnancies (and hence abortions) through things like contraceptive availability/education, family planning services, genuine mother/child/family-friendly policies, a strong social safety net, etc. (and this is of special concern now, given the economic climate)
Hector – what do you think of the removal of medicaid family planning funding from the stimulus bill? (note: abortion is very specifically excluded from medicaid-related family planning services).
January 30th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I’m missing the “false dichotomy.” What do you mean?
Well exactly! I assume that this is because you think abortion is the equivalent of murder. The “pro-life” movement, for the most part, does not support your position.
Or maybe it does. The blogger I linked fails to allow for another possibility: that the political pro-life movement is composed of liars – people who are deliberately misleading the public about the policies they support. It’s possible that the pro-life movement is dominated by people who think that a 16-year old who is raped by her father should be compelled to carry that fetus to term, under penalty of imprisonment or death.
If I thought something like that, I certainly wouldn’t admit it in public.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
“How about a column for “Is this policy consistent with the recognition that a fetus is a human life and should be protected?”
While the depressingly marvelous chart is specifically in reply to the numerous people who have claimed that “abortion is murder”, I’m not sure how your proposed column actually changes anything.
“(It’s also why I don’t support exceptions for rape and incest.)”
Well, congratulations, I guess, on having the courage of your brutal and creepy convictions. I don’t know if you’re ideologically twisted enough to maintain such a view if your sister/wife/daughter became pregnant with a hypothetical rapist’s baby in a political regime that forced her to bear and birth it against her will. Luckily the American people have pretty soundly rejected this sort of thing.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I’m missing the “false dichotomy.” What do you mean?
Because there’s a difference between a full murder charge and other lesser crimes people get charged with when they kill a person. What I’m asking for is for fetuses to be recognized as human only to the extent that they should have the barest minimum of rights — the right to not be killed legally. The details of how to implement that can be worked out.
I think it’s rather fascinating how liberals — which I am — are always talking about standing up for the rights of the little guy, the ones without power, the downtrodden, and yet so many want to say to those of us who have the least amount of power of all that they have absolutely zero rights. That’s a prime example of congitive dissonance if you ask me.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Adam Villani,
Exactly. I think that the bombing of Hiroshima was wrong, but I don’t think that Truman should have been tried for murder for it. There are many reasons why abortion is sometimes _subjectively_ a lesser crime than most murder, even if the end result (a dead human being) is the same. I think that laws penalizing doctors would be more effective than laws penalizing women who seek abortions. In this regard, I very much like the “Project Rachel” approach taken by the Catholic church.
As regards rape and incest, I think there should be exemptions for them (as well as for serious health reasons, and whenever the baby has a terminal condition). So I don’t want to hear anything about terminally damaged babies, rape or incest, or mothers who die from pregnancy, because I support those exemptions anyway- legally, if not morally.
Dan S.,
I oppose the excision of the Medicaid funding. As I would dissent (since you brought it up in a previous thread) from the blanket, no-exception abortion bans passed by Mr. Ortega in Nicaragua. I will say this, though: at least Mr. Ortega’s extremism is excessive zeal in a good cause, and at least Mr. Ortega is a good man. I can’t say the same of today’s hipster pro-choicers, whose extremism is in a very bad cause. Ortega is excessively extreme in his protection of human life: the “autonomy”, “transgressive decosntructionist” hipsters who read Judith Jarvis Thomsen are extreme in their brutal amorality.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
“As regards rape and incest, I think there should be exemptions for them… So I don’t want to hear anything about … rape or incest…”
Well, sorry, you’re going to hear about them. How on earth is this a consistent “pro-life” position? Abortion, in your view, is murdering a baby, and is morally equivalent with the worst atrocities of the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge…unless you’re murdering the baby of a rape victim, in which case there’s no moral issue at all? I’d love to see the Bible verse, or whatever authority, you’d point to to justify that.
Adam Villiani at least is morally consistent. I don’t believe that a fetus is an independent human or has human rights, but if I did believe that, I certainly wouldn’t think it changed just because the mother was raped. What on earth does the rape of the mother have to do with a fetus’s human rights?
January 30th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
So Adam, you figure a manslaughter charge – and maybe a 5-year sentence or at least hard time in juvie – is more appropriate for a child who is raped by her father?
Oh, wait, I guess that’s not what you’re saying. You’re saying that you view the punishment for killing to be one of the “details” that can be worked out – trivia, apparently.
Anyway, I’m glad to see we call all agree that a pre-meditated, carefully planned killing isn’t murder when it involves a fetus. A lot of people think bipartisan consensus isn’t possible on these contentious issues.
Next up: Israel vs. Palestine!
January 30th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
“I oppose the excision of the Medicaid funding
well. that’s a pleasant surprise. I’d hoped you might, but that sort of thing is pretty rare.
“The details of how to implement that can be worked out.
reminds me of that famous youtube video where they asked antiabortion protesters what the punishment should be for women if abortion was banned.
“Next up: Israel vs. Palestine!”
now, if we could just get a thread that combined Israel vs. Palestine, abortion, and grammar pedantry . . .
January 31st, 2009 at 5:58 am
Effecting women. Amazing. Six figures for a Harvard education sure is money well spent.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Dan S.,
I’m not sure why. It was a government of the left, headed by Reagan’s bitter enemy Ortega, that passed the bill that banned abortion with no exceptions in Nicaragua. Ortega has pointed out that the so-called “feminists” in his country who support abortion are little more than a fifth column of Western interference, and he is right.
I find it interesting that so many young men are eager to write in and defend abortion here. This isn’t surprising, as young men tend to be pro-choice. Probably because it allows them to f**k around more conventiently, use women for sex, and dispose of the consequences if necessary, rather than promising to marry them if they become pregnant.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Hector, maybe it’s because young men are more likely to see women as human beings in their own right rather than walking wombs?
God, I’d love someone to develop the technology to take fetii out of women’s wombs and stuff them in the bellies of all the pro-lifers. YOU think it’s a “human life”, then YOU bear it to term!
(And by the way, stop using the “individual DNA” stuff to try to define why a zygote is “a separate human life.” So do cancer tumors.)
January 31st, 2009 at 2:19 pm
This doesn’t seem that improbable to me. Political movements do the same thing all the time: they have some fairly extreme objective and push for it in bits and pieces, all the while denying that their objective is to do exactly that. No, we don’t want gay marriage, we just want gay sex to be legal! No, we don’t want gun prohibition, we just want some mild, reasonable regulations!
Incidentally, I don’t think it’s inconsistent to support banning abortion with an exception for rape. The argument would go like this:
Or so the argument would go. It doesn’t get you an exception for consensual adult incest, but it does get you an exception for the kind of incest that is also rape, which is what people are usually talking about when they say “incest.”
I should add that this isn’t my view, nor do I think it is the actual view of most of the pro-lifers who support rape&incest exceptions. And you can argue with it in a bunch of ways. But I don’t think it (or some appropriately elaborated and nuanced variant) is internally inconsistent.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:55 pm
“I’m not sure why. It was a government of the left”
Sadly, it’s turned out that being “of the left” is no guarantee that a regime will value feminism, basic human rights, the environment, etc. A better chance, but . . .
“ headed by Reagan’s bitter enemy Ortega, that passed the bill that banned abortion with no exceptions in Nicaragua.
Well, a bit like our own Mitt Romney (to make a rather bizarre comparison), Pres. Ortega has gone from being pro-choice (in context) to anti-choice as part of an rightward shift (in Ortega’s case to Roman Catholic social conservatism (somewhat), for Romney to greater GOPism). Whether such changes are personally or politically motivated, {shrug}.
“Ortega has pointed out that the so-called “feminists” in his country who support abortion are little more than a fifth column of Western interference, ”
Not surprising, considering that feminists in his and other Latin American countries keep bringing up the accusation by his stepdaughter Zoilamerica Narvaez that he molested her for years starting when she was only 11. (see for example).
“I find it interesting that so many young men are eager to write in and defend abortion here. ”
My impression is that the Yglesias commentariat is pretty overwhelmingly not-marked-as-female (ie, either masculine or non-obviously gendered names, which often default to male in many people’s heads). “Young” is trickier; correct or not, unsure where you’re getting that from.
This isn’t surprising, as young men tend to be pro-choice.
Well, men of all age groups are majority pro-choice (at least, they poll as opposing further restrictions on abortion) – this is, with significant reservations, a pro-choice country (interestingly, Catholics in every age group under 65 also oppose making it more difficult to get an abortion). However, women also feel more strongly about the issue, across the board (on both sides), while very young men (18-24) are the only age group where there’s a significant gender gap between their responses (45% favor making abortion harder to get, 50% oppose that) and those same-aged women (34% favor, 63% oppose); after that, they respond a lot more like their female counterparts, in terms of stance (though not, again, intensity).
“. Probably because it allows them to f**k around more conventiently, use women for sex, and dispose of the consequences if necessary, rather than promising to marry them if they become pregnant.”
Well – sadly, yes, there are guys, unfortunately, who still correspond to this aged, decrepit, and rather unpleasant-smelling cad of an idea. And if they don’t improve, they run the risk of metamorphizing over time into truly grotesque ‘men’s rights activists’ who whine about the incredible oppression of child support and how they should be able to get financial ‘abortions’ and so not pay it. And yes, pretty much everybody decent hates them. They’re pro-abortion when it suits their purposes, but also pretty big into anti-choice ’spousal’ notification laws. Maggots. {Hastily apologizes to innocent fly larva}.
But nowadays (as distressing as this is to you, and for better or worse), this is increasingly like the musty, crumbling, and obsolete fashions found at the back of a grandparent’s closet, and going on about it the ideological equivalent of parading around in a raccoon coat or poodle skirt or something.
(It’s also more evidence that despite their frequent claims about ‘man-hating feminists’ (although not in this case), it’s the rigid-sex/gender-role fanatics who aren’t just misogynists, but misandrists as well. Of course, the badly-behaving male, whether brutally bestial or merely unable to control themselves around tempting women, is a important prop when it comes to male supremacy – you need to stay inside/not go outside unchaperoned/cover yourself from head to toe/dress very conservatively/be protected . . . )
In reality, of course, many of us are pro-choice because we recognize that our mothers/sisters/wives/daughters/friends/etc. are people, and the choice of whether to have a child (like the choice to get pregnant, or to have sex) ultimately has to be up to them. In some cases (though very much not mine), this even co-exists with a personally pro-life stance.
And again, look what you’re doing here! You’re erasing women and their choices from the equation (and pro-choice of course includes the choice not to have an abortion). You’re fixating on crappy guys who “want to be able use women for sex, and dispose of the consequences if necessary” – but while they certainly do exist, the modern reality is more often closer to at least mutual using, at the very least, on up through varying levels of commitment. Indeed, if anything (and without firm demographics, just impressions), I’d guess for many of the male commenters here – to the extent they have at least vaguely middle-to upperish-middle class morality – have pro-choice support folded into a more general life-course ideology, where childbearing is generally pretty carefully planned, in part to ensure adequate (by class standards) financial resources.
January 31st, 2009 at 7:00 pm
“where childbearing is generally pretty carefully planned”
I should add, by couples.
And, poll data. From ‘04, granted, but I don’t think it’s changed drastically – although I do want to check guys in the two lowest age brackets now . . .
March 1st, 2009 at 5:03 am
viagra
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:33 am
levitraExcellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:19 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:54 am
tramadol
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:21 am
viagra
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:56 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:01 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:48 am
Thanks for the review! viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Hey, cool tips. I’ll buy a bottle of beer to the man from that forum who told me to visit your blog