Women Senators Come Together to Support Fair Pay Act
February 7, 2009
by Jane Smith
|Jane Smith blogs at Unapologetic Feminist.
On January 22, 2009, at 6:17 p.m., something remarkable and historic took place on the floor of U.S. Senate. You may think that I am talking about the passage of the Lily Ledbetter Act, but I am not. The momentous event I am talking about is even more profound than the Lilly Ledbetter Act itself, and is revealed in the Senate roll call vote from that night.
A total of 97 votes were cast in the Senate on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. In order for the bill to be passed by the Senate, a 3/5 majority is required, or in this case, a total of 59 votes. The bill passed with 61 votes, so it was not a landslide.
A breakdown of votes by party is shown below in this image from the GovTrack.us website:
By simply looking at the party divide, it seems obvious that the strongest indicator for how a Senator voted was her/his party affiliation. However, upon analysis of the Republican vote, a dramatic gender divide is evident. Of the 41 Republicans in the U.S. Senate, only four are women. All four women voted yea, or 100% of Republican female Senators voted in favor of the Lily Ledbetter Act. Only one male Republican Senator, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, voted yea, or 2.7% of Republican male senators.
These are striking statistics. Are we to believe that women crossed political party lines to vote in support of women’s rights, simply because they happen to be women? Yes. Are we to believe that women from all wavelengths of the political spectrum have the scruples to vote for women’s rights, even when it requires going against their own party? Yes. Are we to believe that one political party does not have the monopoly on female empowerment? Yes. Are we to believe that the gender of our representatives makes a difference in how they vote on issues affecting women? Hell Yes!
Perhaps one could argue that with such a paltry statistical sampling of 4 women, we shouldn’t jump to conclusions. However, due to the lack of gender equity in Congress, we’re entitled to a little extrapolation.
Another dramatic twist in this story is the impact that these Republican women made on the fate of the bill. The Ledbetter Act passed by a slim margin. If three of those Republican women had voted nay, then the bill would have been defeated. Their votes were necessary to bring the vote home for all women. So, ultimately, it was the Republican women who tipped the scales in our favor.
In politics, it is never easy to go against the grain. So, let’s thank the brave Republican women who took one for the team. Thank you, Kay Hutchison from Texas, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
By the way, does anyone else find it nauseating that this remarkable unification of women was overlooked by the mainstream media? It appears that they are too busy reporting on the adolescent male fantasy of a catfight between Sarah Palin and Ashley Judd. I guess we need more women running the newsrooms too!
Thank you Jane! It is great to hear. And, yes, we need more women running newsrooms too (and everything!).
Here is a TERRIFIC VIDEO CLIP my son just sent to me. I encourage you all to watch it and to send it to your friends. It says it all!
http://www.girleffect.org/#/video/
Bravo!
Still, aren’t those the same Republicans who broke ranks to support Obama’s Stimulus bill, and other liberal or moderate issues in the past?
Or does that loop back to suggest that women are more likely to support liberal or moderate issues in general?
Yes! Here’s a resource.
MEDIA SAVVY IN THE INTERNET ERA:
“Media Savvy in the Internet Era” gives some good ideas about how to have our message heard.
Check it out here (it may load a bit slowly):
http://www.davidhenderson.com/.....netEra.pdf
I looked at this fact up the same day the votes were cast. No I’m not surprised that these republican women voted for the Ledbetter legislation. That’s the least they can do. They are WOMEN by the way!!!! This was a no brainer. I’m almost more inclined to credit the democratic men who voted for it. They are part of the patriarchy and relented for a second to conform to a morsel of fundamental fairness.
Maybe the solution is to stack the republican party with more women. I’ll go for that!!!! We do need to notice though that the Republicans in recent history have been much worse on women’s rights policy. Only one male republican in the senate voted for it. This is shameful!!!! So lets get to work getting more republican women elected, as well as democratic women.
For a larger sampling, how many GOP Congresswomen voted for a LLL and for the Stimulus?
From now on, every time someone says that they won’t vote for a woman just because she’s a woman, I’m going to show them this article.
Thanks, Jane, for guest-blogging for us today on the very important details of this vote.
Interesting piece. Thank you for organizing the data and for your perspective, Jane.
Interesting comments, as well.
For anyone who wants to thank those Republicans who broke rank for vote for LLL and or pursue fsteele’s research idea:
Contact form for Arlen Spector:
http://specter.senate.gov/publ.....ontactForm
Links to all female members of Congress: The Congressional Women’s Caucus:
http://www.womenspolicy.org/si....._women_111
fsteele- The Senate hasn’t voted on the Stimulus yet, so these four women haven’t voted either way.
Quick and dirty on these women,
Snowe and Collins are considered “Moderate Republicans”. They can go either way but lean toward Dems. on some issues. Murkowski is more conservative than Snowe and Collins but still a Moderate.
Kay Bailey Hutchison is the one that risked the most. She is very fiscally conservative and fairly socially conservative. She is also running for governor of Texas and has a LOT to lose by crossing party lines.
PS If folks aren’t distracted by the Palin/Judd issue (news to me, but I don’t watch the news, so…), just saw a Yahoo headline with a link to a video from Fox news giving press coverage to guys complaining that a new cheerios commercial is sexist – against men, portraying them as less-than-manly! Sheesh. Monseratte gets zero national coverage and we get this bs instead!
PPS Posted links to Republican Senators, but they’re in moderation hell…(the links, not the Senators!)
I’m proud of all of them!!! (and Specter) It must be really hard to cross party lines when everyone else is unified.
They deserve a little media over this and maybe we could start a trend of women sticking together. I absolutely think they were brave and should get credit for showing unity for women!
Just finished e-mail all 5 Republicans who voted for LLL. Of them all, Snowe and Hutchison had “women” as an issue/topic you could click on. (I always check that out on Congressional sites and comment one way or another. So, I thanked them for that, as well.)
PPPS While it’s nearly impossible to e-mail Congresswomen/men if you don’t type in an address and zip code in their district, it is very easy to contact Senators. All of their home pages allow you to type in your home address and click on whatever state you live in.
Can somone get my post with the links out of moderation?????
Here’s a link to the most recent press piece I’ve seen on the status of the simulus package. It notes some moderate Republicans who recently signed on, including some of our LLL supporters:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2.....9187797100
Excellent analysis. Thank you for stating the obvious; shame it had to be done. We need this kind of evidence to back up our assertions about the 30% solution.
For a list of what was cut from the stimulus bill (Nelson/Collins) see:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI.....index.html
Would someone please explain. If this passes in the Senate does it go back to the House for them to add things back in?
Lili – I think that if it passes the Senate, the bill then goes to a large House/Senate joint committee, which is where a lot of the really serious work then gets done. Once it gets through committe, I believe it then goes back to the House and the Senate, but at that point, it’s usually rubber stamped in both houses. (But, don’t quote me!)
Thanks Jane.
Exhibit A on why we need more women in gov’t!
Here’s the latest for those following the progress, or lack thereof, of the stimulus package:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....ma_economy
All the feedback on this article is great. Thanks!
I love Thia’s point about the risk that Kay Hutchison took on this vote.
Also, I am not sure how many “moderate” male Republicans there are in the Senate. If there are any other than Arlen Specter, then that would be more evidence that gender really was the key deciding factor.
Jane,
Here is a list of the Senators who I am surprised didn’t cross party lines and vote for this.
The most common male names on the list of Senate members likely to cross party lines or RINOs (Republican In Name Only) sort of equivalent to “Blue Dog Dems” are
John McCain of Arizona
Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania
George Voinovich of Ohio
Lamar Alexander of Tennesee
Bob Corker of Tennesee
Richard Lugar of Indiana
Mel Martinez of Florida
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
Arlen Specter did cross – he was the one Republican male that did.
oops! Specter wasn’t supposed to be on the list. He should be on the good guy list.
We need more women in the news rooms too? I doubt the sort of women who go into media would help our situation. What we need is consumer rights relative to TV. We need the option of cable TV a la carte so we can refuse to subsidize channels which are sexist. As soon as we get consumer rights the sexism will die or at least the channels who persist with sexism will die. Until then and as long as the media cartel decides which channels you must support the sexist system will thrive.
Wish we’d take seriously the negative effect the Nanny Tax has on women wanting to run for office. Women make 77 or less than a man in this economy. And women take more of the child care responsibilities and accordingly have more of the burden of following the complicated Nanny withholding rules. Adding insult to injury, nannies themselves are not among the highest wage earners but remain important in keeping women in the work force. All this adds up to women making less and paying more to hold down a job. We should have child care for children under the age of 12 exempt from the Nanny Tax provisions. I’m sure more women would consider going into public service if they didn’t have to worry about juggling the economics of caring for children with the one-sided scrutiny running for public office invites. Used to be a time when no one would dare ask any southern gentleman in the Senate if he was paying tax for his farm hands. The Nanny Tax is today’s politically minded woman’s Poll Tax. We should see it for what it is.
Ali Gal,
What a great point!
I am still wondering how many others could pass the same test (never any nanny tax or other tax problems). If the Obama vetters didn’t find the problems with Geithner, Daschle, Killefer, etc — who did find those problems, and how?
I wish someone would apply the same test to Obama himself, Michelle Obama, Axelrod, Reid, Pelosi, Dean — and to be fair, McCain, Gingrich, Palin, Steele, etc. Who in the top ranks in Washington DC is really pure of tax errors, pure enough to cast the first stone (except the Clintons, vetted by Ken Starr, and very careful).
Fsteele: Thanks for your comments. The point, thought, is this – we give tax deductions, subsidies and breaks for raising timber and tabacco in this country! It’s about time that we value child care and working mothers and give them the same breaks. Not paying the Nanny taxt should be considered an act of civil disobedience by all of us until there is a change in the law. At a minimum, the amount taxed should exceed $20,000 per year – then tax anything above that. We know what the poverty level is and child care is taxed for monies below that! It’s disgraceful! Women shouldn’t be punished for working and needing child care to assist them in order to do that work. The government doesn’t help women when they go through a divorce. No child support in this country measures up to that label. It usually doesn’t even cover the actual monthly cost of child care. This is exactly the kind of change women need in order to step up now and/or later to run for public office. It’s shameful that working mothers now face a veritable Poll Tax if choosing public service. Fairness to women means protecting and encouraging child care – not taxing a below minimum job usually performed by women who work in a place that pays them less than men to begin with. Opposing and highlighting the injustices in the Nanny Tax is the kind of activism we need right now.
Ali – Great points all the way around! Thanks for taking the time to type them out and share them.
fsteele – I’ve been wondering about that as well: Why now are these folks being vetted and is this stuff turning up? You’d think the Obama people would have done that before hand AND one can’t help but wonder why this standard hasn’t been applied to all of our top ranking folks who were running for office last year. It’s so wierd when you think of so many things about Obama that were never vetted, and still haven’t been, yet somehow someone is finding skeletons in the closet among a group of his Cabinet appointments. It’s all rather strange. I figure the reason the Republicans haven’t made more noise about it is cause they, like most elected officials, know that they’ve got blood on their hands, so to speak, as well. Best lay low and hope no one shines a spot light on them!
McCain-Palin were specifically opposed to the Fair Pay Act, claiming that it was just a boon to the trial lawyers.
Republican women in the House voted against the Fair Pay Act. Mary Bono Mack, Virginia Brown Waite, Connie Mack, Ros-Lehtinen, Judy Biggert, Lynn Jenkins, Candice Miller, the infamous Michele Bachmann, Jo Ann Emerson, Virginia Foxx, Sue Myrick, Jean Schmidt, Mary Fallin, Marsha Blackburn, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Shelley Capito and Cynthia Lummis.
Members of the House tend to be more extremely partisan than members of the Senate, both because of the nature of the bodies and because of gerrymandering safe districts. Still, did ANY Republican women who are in the House vote for the FPA? I didn’t spot one.
Obama and others who have been elected to office have publicized tax returns, and I find it unlikely that given the scrutiny of a presidential campaign from both opposition researchers and the media, that if he, Biden, McCain or Palin were failing to report income or something that it wouldn’t have been raised.
PGofHSM,
Ah, thanks for the list of 17 GOP Congresswomen who voted against Ledbetter — and none for it. That’s a larger sampling than the 4 GOP women Senators who voted for it. As to safe seats, wouldn’t being in a safe seat make the Congresswoman safer to vote gender on this if she wanted to?
The names of these bills are getting confusing. The Ledbetter bill that was actually passed, aiui simply lengthened the filing period. Last year McCain opposed it saying it would take off all time limits; an employee who had quit decades ago could come back and file suit. The employers would have to keep complete records to defend for several decades. Iirc McCain and Palin would have accepted some lengthening of the filing period but not that much.
fsteele,
McCain voted against the Ledbetter bill that did pass the Senate this year, indicating that he still opposes even that extension of the statute of limitations.
PG,
I haven’t followed the details of the current bill. However iirc it still, under certain circumstances, extends the suit period back for decades. Without getting into burdensome details, I don’t think we can use this as a litmus test of McCain and/or Palin.
Anna, thanks for the explanation re the House/Senate process. So something that was taken out by the Nelson/Collins cuts could be put back in by the joint committee?
fsteele,
The way it worked prior to the Ledbetter decision (written by Justice Alito), is that a person who sued for discrimination under the Civil Rights Act could sue so long as she articulated her complaint within 180 days of the last act of discrimination. The Supreme Court said the act of discrimination could only be the decision to discriminate in the first place. With Ledbetter, that meant that because Goodyear first started paying her less than male colleagues decades ago, and every subsequent percentage raise was based on that lower salary, over time that aggregated to a massive disparity — but not a disparity that had its original source in the past 180 days. The Fair Pay Act allows people who are being paid unequally to file a complaint so long as they do it within 180 days of the last unequal paycheck — even if the original cause of the inequality goes back much further.
Lili – Now you’re getting into a level of detail I can’t answer. Sorry.
Lili,
Something that was removed by the cuts can be returned in the joint committee work, but then the overall bills still have to pass each house of Congress. If restoring what was cut makes the bill intolerable for enough Democrats, we could have the quite unusual occurrence of a law’s passing the Senate on a filibuster-proof vote on its first round, and then failing to pass the Senate in its final version.
FYI: this difference between the first and second votes is why there is confusion among some people about the level of support for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that eliminated Glass-Steagall and is being blamed — somewhat fairly, somewhat unfairly — for some of the financial industry’s current crisis. GLBA got only one Democratic vote in the Senate on the first round of voting, but passed with lots of Democratic votes on the second round, because once something passed on the first round and is inevitable, it’s considered bad Senate etiquette to be fussy about it on the second round vote. The Wikipedia entry on GLBA gives a good example of how complicated this can get:
“On May 6, 1999, the Senate passed the bills by a 54-44 vote along party lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed). On July 20, the House passed a different version of the bill on an uncontested and uncounted voice vote.
When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law that ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy and also “robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities” (i.e. protection against exclusionary redlining).
The bill then moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.
On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 and by the House 362-57. This legislation was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.
PG,
Not to lure us deeper into detail, but in some circumstances doesn’t the current Ledbetter bill in effect require the employer to keep records going back decades to prove that when the minority/female was first hired, if she was paid less than a non-minority/male, there was some good reason for it?
Okay, only 20% of the GOP women voted for LL. 4 GOP women Senators and 17 GOP Congresswomen totals 21, of whom 4 voted for LL.
Three of those 4 Senators were moderates known for breaking ranks; the fourth, Hutchison, is considered moderate in comparison with, for instance, Governor Perry. Snowe and Collins of those 4 might be considered in safe seats (tho in the Senate). Dunno how many Congresswomen had safe seats.
PGofHSM
WOW! Far more complicated than I thought. Thanks for the explanation. I find the whole process less than satisfactory. Huge bills presented with insufficient time for legislators to read, let alone understand. Clearly many do not even bother to read them. Am just beginning to educate myself by watching the Senate and House deliberations on CSPAN. I really appreciate you taking the time to help me understand the process. Thanks again.
Wow what happened to this thread? Can’t we ever just thank and congratulate women who did something we like, without having to go back and figure out why they don’t really deserve it. No wonder they ignore us!
fsteele,
Yes, if people who are doing the same work under the same conditions are being paid differently, the employer should be keeping records of them that would be sufficient to explain why there’s the difference. But I guess I don’t see why this is a problem, and obviously if there were a fire or something that destroyed the records that the employer had been keeping, there would be other evidence of a bona fide factor to pay differently.
For example, suppose two people were hired for an entry-level position, but one had an MBA and the other only an undergrad-level business degree. You might pay the MBA holder more at the outset, even for doing the same work, because you need to attract MBAs into your pipeline toward upper management. You presumably would have in your personnel records for these employees that one of them is being tracked toward management and the other is not due to this educational deficiency (leaving aside whether an employer *should* make such a big deal about an MBA — I don’t want government getting into those decisions). Then for a variety of reasons, the MBA hire never actually does get tracked into management, but is competent at the job she’s doing and gets percentage salary increases based on that first wage, just as the non-MBA does.
The non-MBA discovers the disparity between their wages and assumes it’s due to a prohibited factor such as race or sex. There’s a fire that destroys the records showing that the MBA originally was supposed to be getting tracked into management. The non-MBA sues under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The employer still can defend the suit by pointing out the difference in the employees’ education backgrounds. It will be slightly more difficult than if the employer had the records showing that the initial wage disparity decision was made for that reason — the non-MBA’s attorney will try to claim that this is just an ex post facto justification for discrimination — but the burden really is on the non-MBA to prove discrimination, so if the employer has a plausible rationale for making a distinction, the non-MBA almost certainly will lose (possibly at summary judgment, and almost certainly at trial).
Lili,
Yes, it’s the problem of having so many disparate things rolled into a single bill in order to garner enough votes to pass. This is the problem I have with the stimulus bill (I find myself sounding like a Republican!): there are many Good Things in it, like updating the government’s Social Security computer system (which is an outdated mess) or extending Medicaid contraception coverage to more women (which is a long run benefit to our society), that are not going to have the effect that stimulus bill should, which is to provide a short, sharp boost in demand that can be retracted when the economy has recovered. Any long-term project or permanent entitlement does not belong in stimulus legislation. Many of those things should be passed, but they need to pass on their own merits and not snuck into a bill that is for a different purpose.
PG,
In a small business situation, it could be extremely difficult to prove, decades after the fact, that the employer had a bona fide reason for the pay disparity. Suppose the MBA employee left after a short time. How could you track her down, get her to provide proof of her having an MBA, etc? Defending against such a lawsuit could be quite a blow to the employer.
A line has to be drawn somewhere. Disagreeing about just where to draw it, is not a reason to label McCain and/or Palin as unconcerned about the main issue.
Thia,
The original poster did not just thank those four GOP women, she offered their action as evidence — with a lot of research, number crunching, and graphics, which deserved a larger sampling to process: ie the 21 GOP women, including the 17 Congresswomen who voted nay.
PG,
Imo services such as contraception for poor families are so important and urgent that they should be funded asap, even if it means putting them into the ‘Stimulus’ bill along with many items that are really ‘pork’ in the sense of being unneeded, rather than just perhaps mislabeled.
Actually, the original post talks about women in the Senate. The house is a completely different environment. If you remember when the first stimulus bill passed, Pelosi was rumored to have told Dem’s in the House who might be in close districts or up for re-election that they could vote against it because it would pass anyway. This happens often in the House not just with Dem’s but Rep’s too. You can’t equate the vote in the House and the Senate as if they were the same. In the House it was going to pass regardless, so members could make the “safest” vote. It was different in the Senate because it would not have passed, which forced these women (and Specter) to make a much different decision. That is why I don’t think the House stat’s are relevant.
I do agree with you that this opens up difficult questions for business. The standard for records in my company is 7 years and those records already fill up many warehouses. Small businesses will have some trouble figuring out how to adjust to this. I don’t think McCain was against the “spirit” of the bill, as he stated many times that he felt concerns about tort reform should be addressed at the same time, so that lawsuits couldn’t ruin innocent businesses who had done nothing wrong. With many small businesses it doesn’t matter whether they win the lawsuit or not, fighting it bankrupts them.
Thia,
Yes, our point is that the original post talks only about the four in the Senate, ignoring the 17 in the House. You say, “In the House it was going to pass regardless, so members could make the “safest” vote.” In that case they would be free to vote gender if they chose — but none of the 17 chose to.
The “safest vote” would be that most acceptable to their constituents. Do you think that all 17 came from districts much more sympathetic to employers than to underpaid women? And that none of the 17 had the courage to buck that? A 17-strong retreat to “safety” rather than gender, would be evidence against the idea of gender solidarity, rather than for it.
Must add this great quote:
“I hope they don’t pick people who look like us and think like them—that’s the worst possible combination.”
Gloria Steinem, TIME, 1976
fsteele,
I understand your concerns about the burden imposed by this law — or indeed *any* regulation — on businesses. The question is whether the burden to business outweighs the burden to people suffering from discrimination. This is true with any law; if we forbid discrimination in the first place, we are limiting individuals’ freedom. Which is more important, the freedom to discriminate or the ability to be free of discrimination? What someone thinks is more important tells us about their priorities, and priorities are a relevant measure of a politician. If McCain thinks insurance companies’ freedom to decide what to insure is more important than ensuring women have the same access to contraception that men do to Viagra, then absolutely, he’s not saying that women’s access to contraception is UNimportant; he’s saying it’s LESS important than another value.
I have to say that your counter-example about Ledbetter doesn’t make much sense, though. If the MBA left the company years ago, how can the non-MBA employee compare the paycheck she received in the last 180 days against a paycheck the MBA received in the last 180 days? There’s still the 180 day requirement; it just now includes the paycheck that *reflects* discrimination, instead of only the original discriminatory paycheck.
fsteele,
Re: the stimulus, I think contraception services are important and urgent — but in that case, why not put up an emergency funding bill for them specifically? I want those services to be provided, but I should have the political responsibility, in a democracy, of persuading people to agree with me, not of inserting that provision into a much larger bill that’s for a wholly unrelated purpose and hoping that no one notices or that if they do notice, it’s not enough to derail the whole bill.
fsteele,
I’m not saying women in the House made any great leap in gender solidarity (although I plan to encourage then to next time,) but I do think the women in the Senate did.
fsteele,
“The “safest vote” would be that most acceptable to their constituents. Do you think that all 17 came from districts much more sympathetic to employers than to underpaid women? And that none of the 17 had the courage to buck that?”
The reason the no vote was safest for the women in the House is because they are Republicans, and this bill does not solve the issue in a manner that is consistent with Republican principles. This is another example of times when we can all have the same goals, but different approaches as solutions.
PG,
I’m really not into the details of the latest Ledbetter bill. Any record-keeping that would go back for a long time is a burden to some businesses. If an employer would have to guard against far future lawsuits, he will resist hiring any women (or minorities) in the first place, unless forced by law. Too many regulations, and some business owners will simply retire, laying off all their employees. There can be legitimate differences in opinon about where to draw the line.
Re contraceptives, we live in the real world, where packaging bills is sometimes the only way to get them passed. While we are standing back worrying about the label, unwanted babies are being conceived, family tragedies are commencing.
Thia,
The differences between the House and Senate situation could be read either way. In the Senate where the votes were decisive, there would be more pressure to vote with the GOP leadership. In the House, where the votes were not decisive, there is more freedom to vote by gender — if any of the 17 GOP Congresswomen had felt such gender loyalty. Even if it were not going to pass, a gender vote here would have been a helpful gesture to the gender cause — but none of the 17 made it.
From an available sampling of 21, to focus on the 4 who support one’s argument and ignore the 17 counter-examples … is not very convincing. Of those 4, Collins and Snowe often vote on the side of liberal or moderate principles. That leaves 2, from Alaska and Texas, who may have been letting gender trump principles; but we’d have to look closer at them to be sure. Two out of 21 is down to a very small number..
fsteele,
I agree that there can be legitimate differences of opinion on where to draw the line — not only for this law, but for any law. Which laws someone supports indicates where their priorities are.
I don’t understand why you seem to resist the idea that McCain-Palin should be held to account for prioritizing the burden to businesses over employees’ right to be free of discrimination. Do you think politicians who resist extending Medicaid contraception coverage — whether in this stimulus bill or in stand-alone legislation — because they think it imposes too much tax burden also ought not be criticized on this basis?
I don’t have a litmus test on these issues, but I do look at the overall total of where a politician’s priorities are, and if in total they tend to be in favor of protecting business and minimizing tax burden regardless of the inequalities and harms to public well-being that result, that politician doesn’t have my support.
If The New Agenda has a specific set of goals, it clearly has made the cost-benefit analysis that achieving those goals is more important than what is sacrificed to those goals. I agree with most of the goals, and disagree with a couple. (For example, I oppose strengthening the FCC’s ability to regulate what is expressed in broadcast media — even if what is said is sexist — because I believe very strongly in freedom of speech and in countering or boycotting bad speech rather than having the government punish it.)
Also, a factual correction:
“That leaves 2, from Alaska and Texas, who may have been letting gender trump principles; but we’d have to look closer at them to be sure.”
Actually, it was 3 FEMALE GOP senator, and 1 MALE GOP senator (Arlen Specter of PA, who also tends to vote a moderate line — along with Collins and Snowe, he helped broker the Senate deal on the stimulus package, is semi pro-choice, is not punitive toward illegal immigrants, etc.) who voted for FPA.
Kay Bailey Hutchison was the only outlier, the only one who normally votes fairly conservatively (she too is semi pro-choice). Hutchison is the only example I know of a conservative Republican senator who makes an exception for women’s issues, which is one reason I like her. She also has a great bio: a sorority sister and cheerleader in undergrad, then went on to law school and to politics. She is an example of a woman who integrates traditional femininity with modern feminism. (Also I always admire people who adopt — why I would defend Cindy McCain.)
PG,
Hm? The original post says, “Thank you, Kay Hutchison from Texas, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
Snowe and Collins often vote with the Dems. Murkowski is a legacy from her father. Wikipedia says she is “considered a moderate Republican*.” She supports stem cell research, children’s health program, alternate energy — as well as health issues. This seems to place her somewhere in the direction of Snowe and Collins: a moderate Republican being moderate on yet one more issue.
Does Hutchison step outside the GOP only for women’s issues? If so, she might be a (lone) piece of evidence for the gender theory.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Murkowski
PG,
One brief point. ‘Tax burden’ for contraceptives just means paying higher taxes — same form, same paperwork — and it saves the taxpayers paying for pregnancy and birth care (not to mention the later social problems). What McPalin etc are concerned about with LLL is the work and worry of increasing paperwork and record keeping and dealing with lawsuits, which as someone pointed out can ruin a small business with legal costs even if the plaintiff does not win the case.
Imo deciding where to draw the line is not just a matter of priorities, but of efficiency and decency. Too much harrassment of a business and it will close and the jobs disappear forever. That’s even worse for the woman than being shorted some back wages but having at least some secure on-going income.
fsteele,
Oops, sorry, you’re correct about Murkowski — I missed that in reading through the post too quickly.
McCain-Palin weren’t fans of paying for the “pregnancy and birth care” either; part of their platform was to reduce the number of people eligible for Medicaid, and McCain voted against improving women’s access to contraception (S.Amdt. 258 to S. 3, Vote #45, 3/11/03). Nor was that a party line vote; Republican senators Chafee, Collins, Smith, Snowe and Warner all voted for it.
“Too much harrassment of a business and it will close and the jobs disappear forever. That’s even worse for the woman than being shorted some back wages but having at least some secure on-going income”
Sure, but that’s potentially an argument against having any laws against discrimination: hey, the woman/minority is better off having a job rather than nothing.
Also, you’re forgetting that before Ledbetter, allowing employees to sue based on a paycheck received in the last 180 days, even if the original act of discrimination had occurred much earlier, was the law in much of the country (the Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision specifically noted that the 11th Circuit, which followed the “must file within 180 days of the original discrimination” rule, was in disagreement with the 2nd and D.C. Circuits). That was how some courts had been interpreting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for years. I don’t think there was any documentation that this drove companies out of business at a higher rate in those parts of the country.
http://www.iwpr.org/blog/2009/.....omens.html
Moreover, it is ironic that Senator Susan Collins has chosen to cut spending programs that are especially important to women, both as consumers of the services for their families (health and education and child care) and as workers in the affected industries. Women are about 42% of the unemployed now and about 47% of employed workers. They surely should have a proportionate share of the jobs that will be created by the stimulus package. Unfortunately, the moderate Senators’ proposal takes us further away from fairness to women.
Dr. Heidi Hartmann, President, IWPR
PG,
As I’ve said, I don’t want to bog this thread down with details — which are now branching out into side issues.
I’ll just say that if Palin were insufficiently supportive of women’s issues, then she too would be a counter-example to the gender-voting message of the original post, along with the 17 GOP Congresswomen who voted against LL.
[...] giving women the right to sue, without unfair time limits, in the face of discriminatory lower pay. All four of our Republican women Senators voted in favor of the Act while only one male Republican Senator voted in favor. Without the support [...]
[...] Voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act proving to many women the important of having women from all parties representing us in Congress. [...]
[...] the support of the four female Republican Senators, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would not have passed. The Republican women [...]
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...