The year of the woman has been declared more than once—it was most famously the slogan in 1992 when a number of women got elected to the U.S. Senate. But that year, attention was focused primarily on five women. This year, there’s plenty more.
EMILY’s List President Susan Schriock says her group has endorsed 11 U.S. Senate candidates from Hawaii to New York, including Nevada’s own Rep. Shelley Berkley. That’s a record, Schriock says.
Six of the 11 endorsed candidates are running for re-election. The remaining five—including Berkley—are all running in states that have never elected a woman to the U.S. Senate.
Recent debates over the health-care reform law and contraceptive insurance mandates have highlighted the need for more women’s voices in places such as the Senate, Schriock says.
“We’re up against a Republican Party that has been kidnapped by this extreme social agenda,” she said.
EMILY’s List’s membership has grown in the last year from more than 500,000 members to more than 1 million members today, Schriock said, evidence of what she thinks is a shift toward her group’s point of view. Many of those new members also become donors, whose money goes to candidates such as Berkley, who has received EMILY’s List support since she ran for the House in 1998.
“This is really the time to hit the gas,” Schriock says. “Every one of these women can win.”
Loading ...
How many conservative Women have they endorsed? (Oh, got it, don’t bother)
You and your liberal friends are not even mentioning separation of state from church these days.
Health care mandates require all religions of any denomination, depending on their beliefs, to break with their religion and follow the state mandated law.
So separation of church and state means no church in state but does mean state in church. King George the third’s bones are laughing at us from the grave.
Here’s another question, with as much significance: How many pro-choice women has the Susan B. Anthony List endorsed? Or the Concerned Women for America? EMILY’s List makes no bones about their policy: They endorse only pro-choice Democratic women.
Not many religions are against health care, but you’ve got the law wrong: It requires individuals to purchase health insurance, or pay a penalty. It doesn’t require churches to do anything.
I don’t agree with your construct on church and state, but I don’t think it applies here.
So how many Women in total have been endorsed across the board by any and all organizations, or are you singling out Emily’s list to make a point?
My construct on Church and State?
usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
“it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.”
Note the phrase “might be misconstrued”
Perhaps state is not such a descriptive word in this case, lets replace the word state with national government. States would have the right within their constitutions to set these very laws in place and enforce them. For example, Massachusetts.
If the health care law doesn’t require churches to do anything, why the mess about church provided insurance being required to provide coverage for things they do not allow in their religion?
More than that if it only requires people to buy insurance or pay a tax penalty then these church employees can buy insurance outside the church to cover those items all by themselves. Then the church really does not have to do anything, right?
This is the reason my thoughts do apply here, I am certain Emily’s list would disagree with me too. I am simply agreeing with Jefferson.
No state may abridge federal constitutional rights. “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…” — 14th Amendment. The law preventing the establishment of religion is a federal constitutional right, and thus may not be superseded by any state law.
Churches are exempt from insurance mandates already. If you’re talking about church-affiliated or church-sponsored entities, such as hospitals or social service agencies that provide benefits, the compromise struck by the president and Congress would mandate that insurance companies provide contraceptive coverage. But yes, individuals may seek such insurance in the private sector if they wish. And church-affiliated entities may elect to not offer insurance benefits, at which point employees would have to seek insurance via state-based exchanges or in the private market.
Its also a first amendment right. Yet the Massachusetts law remains in effect to this day. They did change it a little to allow for parents authority. Still not constitutional but shows the progression IMO. But I and others lost that one.
Is not the chance that employers will elect to stop offering insurance one of the things progressives hope for? This would lead to the single payor system, right? My opinion, I know you probably will disagree and cite a bunch of things your job allows you time to research. I have been watching it for a long time and I see it as incrementalism.
Contraceptive coverage but no condoms. Could lead to the spread of STD’s and probably will. Look at the disclaimers on boner pills (filter does not like the brand names) and all BCP’s. This product does not prevent the spread of STD’s….
If they have to put it on the packaging, some lawyer thinks people will decide the opposite and probably already have.
Medical necesstity for women? Sure, I am certain all those girls in high school on the pill needed their periods regulated, yep thats it, lets sell that one.
Check it out, run a spell check on the boner pill that starts with C and the first choice is Socialist.
I thought the over-the-top law that was voted on in Virginia about women having to undergo a “transvaginal ultrasound” is actually the most preposterous thing I have ever heard of in America.
Now that it has been decided to shelve it, my thoughts became moot.
But I had immediately thought that, in that bill, before passing it, it should have been added that every Tea/Republican Party politician in Virginia that voted for that bill should have been required to undergo that same procedure also.
I know, I know. You’re thinking pretty much every one of them that voted for it were men. And that “transvaginal ultrasound” would not make any sense.
Simple solution. They still be required go to the doctor’s office, but they have to turn around.
Anyways, the new amended law is just as draconian, if you ask me. Just another case of the war on women from neo-conservatives who don’t even have the slightest clue about womens anatomy.
Enjoyed the article though, Steve.
Just as an observation, it really, really appears the women vote in America, which comprises just about HALF of the population, is now energized.
All indications show, as of right now, they are going to crush the Tea/Republican Party in November 2012.
There is no wrath like a woman scorned. This is a known fact. And there damn sure won’t be any mercy given when you make a woman mad.
Tea/Republicans all throughout the planet, after the women vote in November 2012 and smack them hard, won’t even be afforded the opportunity to utter those famous last words: “Yes, Dear….”