political campaigns

It’s hard to believe that election day is now less than a week away. The Economists’ Policy for Women’s Issues has graded the candidates nationally, but here with a special (and first!) edition of Global Exchange, Gwen and Tonni will be grading each candidate on their work in international issues that affect women. We are absolutely thrilled to have them address a topic that has been egregiously overlooked in this election. –Kristen

In just a few days the citizens of the United States of America will cast their ballots and determine their President, the future leader of the Free World (and really anything he so chooses). Today we consider what both candidates’ positions on reproductive health, international trade, the conflict in Darfur, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mean for women internationally.

Toni Ann Brodber: Not too long ago I found myself explaining to a newly baptized American friend of mine why we foreigners watch every 4 years with bated breath as the American public decides our collective fate. Your policy often becomes our policy whether we like it or not. Some of us know this first hand. Frankly many of us faced near asphyxiation as a result of recent US policy decisions. Now, by the time we’ve learned how to breathe with barely any air there’s hope…and the cycle begins again.

Gwendolyn Beetham: I don’t know how many of my friends (including, you, Tonni!) from around the world have told me that they wish they could vote in this year’s election, not least because White House policies very much affect women around the world.

TB: No pressure.

With the current economic crisis, what the next president’s foreign policies will mean for women isn’t grabbing any headlines. There has been some coverage of how the candidate’s different policies will affect US women, but, like our friends at the Center for New Words, we’re of the opinion that there just hasn’t been enough. So, we’ve done the research for you. We’ve looked at how the candidates’ foreign policy positions will affect women globally, and have taken it one step further by grading the campaigns. Our findings may (or may not)surprise you.

Reproductive Health
The Global Gag Rule (also known as the Mexico City Policy) was a Reagan-era policy that made it possible to deny U.S. funding to organizations that that “provide abortion services or counsel, refer, or lobby on abortion”. One of George W. Bush’s first official acts in office was to reinstate this policy, which had been repealed during the Clinton Administration. This rule led to the scaling back of reproductive health programs in approximately 56 countries around the world, which, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, “imperils women’s health and lives both in countries where abortion is legal, as well as where it is illegal.” Reports on the impact of the Gag Rule on women’s lives point to a shortage of contraceptives, clinic closings, loss of funds for HIV/AIDS education, and a rise in unsafe abortions in countries where the rule has been implemented.

According to a survey conducted by RH Reality Check in December 2007, Obama plans to overturn the Global Gag Rule and reinstate funding for UNFPA. McCain supports the Global Gag Rule and voted against repealing it in 2005. He has not addressed UNFPA directly, but, when asked in a town hall in Iowa whether he believed that contraceptives stopped the spread of HIV, McCain responded, “You’ve stumped me.”

Grade:
Obama/Biden: A
McCain/Palin: D-

Comments:
For the past seven years, the Bush Administration has also stopped funding the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), claiming that it “supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.” UNFPA’s office in China as an example of such support, despite the fact that a U.S. fact-finding mission to China found “no evidence that UNFPA has supported or participated in the management of a programme of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization”. More recently, USAID discontinued funding to Marie Stopes International (MSI) in several African countries due to the organization’s ties to UNFPA in China. (Curiously, such moral objections don’t seem to stop the government from letting China buy up much of the U.S.’s debt.) According to UNFPA, the $34 million in funding that the U.S. would give annual could prevent:

2 million unwanted pregnancies;
nearly 800,000 induced abortions;
4,700 maternal deaths;
nearly 60,000 cases of serious maternal illness;
over 77,000 infant and child deaths.

For more policies and grades, click to go past the jump!

more...

I’ve found it fascinating to read here and there that some Civil Rights leaders are fearing a decrease rather than an increase in focus on civil rights and affirmative action issues should the first African American President assume office come January 2009.

Call it the Bill Cosby Effect?

The thinking goes like this: With a black man in office, Americans will be lulled into thinking that all our racial issues have now been solved.  With the election just days away and (dare I say it without jinxing?!) the possibility of a President Obama very real, just thought I’d share these two cheery tidbits about racial and other disparities, just in via the Council on Contemporary Families Briefing, cause I’m feeling all chipper like that today:

Income Gap Between Whites, Latinos Has Grown at Universities

Over the past three decades, the income disparity between Latino and non-Hispanic white students entering four-year colleges and universities has increased fourfold, with the difference in median household income growing from $7,986 in 1975 to $32,965 in 2006.

Declining Black Enrollments at Many of the Nation’s Highest Ranked Law Schools

Over the past eight years black enrollments have declined at a majority of the top-ranked law schools. At nine high-ranking law schools black enrollments are down by 19 percent or more. Three prestigious law schools in the nation show declines of more than 40 percent.

Hmm. Just sayin is all.

Sarah Palin’s wardrobe continues to have political traction nearly a week after Politico first reported that the McCain camp spent $150,000 to outfit their vice presidential candidate for the campaign trail. The New York Times then reported that Palin’s makeup artist was the single highest paid employee in the campaign during a recent two week period (thanks to Allison for the link!). The McCain/Palin team has done their best to explain and back track on the “clothes kerfuffle.” McCain now claims that a third of the $150,000 worth of clothes has been given back, Palin says that she isn’t wearing the designer duds any more and has gone back to wearing her clothes from her “favorite consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska” (which just seems pretty disingenuous and transparently silly at this point), and Elizabeth Hasselbeck from The View, who is on the trail with her, argued “This is deliberately sexist.”

As I said in my first post, I think it is deliberately sexist, but on the McCain camp’s side. They thought it more important to make sure that Palin was perfectly outfitted and make-upped than well-coached on the issues and prepped for interviews and speeches. Perhaps it was to bring in those “Dudes for Palin.” As Bob Lamm noted after my first post, a huge story was made out of John Edwards’ $400.00 haircut during primary season. Like Palin, he ran a campaign based on being one of the people. And like Palin, he experienced a backlash, not to mention a good ribbing from Republicans when his expensive haircut was revealed. Compared to Palin, $400 doesn’t seem so bad now, and it makes me skeptical of the “sexist” arguments.

Our readers had some great comments on whether the wardrobe matters:

more...

Hey all, I am completely excited to announce that GWP will be going global with a new column from Gwen and Tonni called Global Exchange. Global Exchange will be appearing the last Wednesday of every month. Here’s an intro from the authors so you know what to expect. — Kristen