MOMocrats™

Come On Over to Our New Pad, MOMocrats.com

2012-01-26T09:38:29-08:00

Hi! If you've come to us from the Washington Post article that mentions PunditMom (yay! also a MOMocrat and running the 2012 election coverage at iVillage) and the MOMocrats, you need to read us at our new site! Go to MOMocrats.com and you'll see microblogs of important stories as well as longer pieces featured in the the image slider front and center. Or, come listen to our weekly podcasts, 9 am PT/ noon ET every Wednesday morning.

Check out our action campaigns and participate in our Q&A Ask a MOMocrat series!

Find us here on Twitter

Find us here on Facebook

Cheers!

Digital Bootstraps for Analog Problems -- A Reply to Gene Marks' "If I Were A Poor Black Kid"

2011-12-22T05:35:00-08:00

A truly clueless if well-intentioned column by Gene Marks titled “If I Were A Poor Black Kid” in Forbes magazine is getting righteously ripped from journalists all around the web. They’re correctly pointing out how bereft Marks’ column is of history, research, practical awareness, racial sensitivity, or the sheer realities of hunger or even homelessness that low-income children face. Marks seems to suggest that kids from impoverished backgrounds – all too many of whom are African American – can simply access computers and lift themselves up by their digital bootstraps to use free websites and enter elite prep schools or colleges. Maybe a handful of motivated kids will manage a heroic feat like that despite all the odds, but is this going to work for the majority of poor kids?

--> Read the rest of this post here, at K12NewsNetwork.com.

Cynthia Liu is founder of the grassroots education news site K12NewsNetwork.com, which empowers parents, educators, and students to report on important events at their local neighborhood schools and provides tools for maximum civic engagement in support of public education. This piece originally appeared in Technorati.

2011-12-19T14:37:04-08:00

Statement from Secretary Sebelius on becoming the new Chair of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness

Yesterday, I was pleased to take on the role of Chair of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. I look forward to building on the hard work of this year’s Chair, Secretary Solis, whose accomplishments include: developing a plan to increase access to mainstream benefits and launching Opening Doors-the nation’s first-ever comprehensive strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness.

The implementation of Opening Doors over the last year has given our federal agencies an opportunity to work together on an issue we all care about. Each member of the Council brings a unique approach to this problem and through this collaboration we’re laying the groundwork for future successes with better data collection, better reporting, and better use of mainstream resources. By engaging states and local communities in the plan’s goals and strategies, we’re making sure everyone is in agreement as we move forward.

While I’m proud to say we are making progress, homelessness remains a serious issue and there is more work to do. As I take on the role of Chair for the year ahead, I am looking forward to building on our current foundation as we work to end homelessness altogether. In these tough economic times, continued cross-agency collaboration is more important than ever to help those who are homeless.

Source: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/12/20111214a.html

Pursuit of Happiness Hour: Holiday Edition

2011-12-16T12:15:12-08:00

The government will not shut down -- hurray! And the Most Wonderful Time of the Year is here -- hurray! Both are cause to celebrate (or something). Congress may like to hoist a $1 trillion-plus catchall budget bill, but here at MOMocrats for special occasions we like to hoist a very classy martini or glass of wine or tankard of ale or...you get the picture.

Today's Pursuit of Happiness Hour suggests a very tasty martini:

Danish Christmas Cookie Martini

one shot Vanilla vodka

half shot DiSaronno

shot (or so) of Ginger Ale to taste

It's best to mix this with chilled ingredients versus shaking with ice, but in the event you haven't got them chilled, shake briefly and gently with ice and serve only slightly chilled versus cold.

Pour into chilled martini glass.

If you want to get really fancy, rim the martini glass with powdered sugar.

Mom’s Clean Air Force Twitter Party

2011-12-13T09:13:46-08:00

Thursday December 15th our friends at Clever Girls Collective will be hosting an historic twitter chat sponsored by the women at Mom’s Clean Air Force featuring EPA administrator Lisa P Jackson.

This is an amazing opportunity for MOMocrats readers to actually ask first questions about one of the issues that effects all of us, air quality.

Currently, there are no national limits on the amount of mercury and other toxic air pollution released from power plant smokestacks. The toxic air pollutants from the coal and oil fired plants have numerous and serious health effects, especially on children. Research has shown that Mercury harm’s children's developing brains, including effects on memory, attention, language, and fine motor and visual spatial skills.

The other toxic metals found such as arsenic, chromium and nickel are known to cause cancer. Not to mention the damage Mercury and many of the other toxic pollutants causes our nation's lakes, streams, and fish.

This is just a handful of the reasons why the EPA’s proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule will have a huge impact on our health, the air, the economy and even jobs.

The EPA estimates the value of the improvements to health alone total $59 billion to $140 billion by 2016 by preventing thousands of premature deaths and tens of thousands of heart attacks, bronchitis cases and asthma attacks. Meeting the standards created by the rule would also create new jobs such as building, installing and operating the equipment to reduce the harmful emissions of mercury and other toxics.

Got questions? Well join the Clever Girls Collective community Q & A session with Administrator Jackson where you can get your air quality-related questions by her! They’ll also be discussing clean air—how pollution has affected you and your family sharing tips for ways you can help ensure we leave a legacy of cleaner air to future generations. They’ll also be offering prizes throughout the hour — including Moms Clean Air Force prize packs and gifts.

Moms Clean Air Force Twitter Event ft. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson on Thursday, Dec 15 at 12pm PT/3pm on Twitter! Use the Tweetgrid here: http://bit.ly/uJeZ26

Follow: @momsCAF, @lisapjackson, @clevergirlscoll—and hashtag #momsCAF

RSVP here to let us know you’re joining the event

Please spread the word with your networks by tweeting this out:

Join us! Moms Clean Air Force Twitter Event w/ EPA Admin @lisapjackson! 12/15 @ 12 P/ 3 ET! Fab prizes! #momsCAF RSVP http://bit.ly/mcafrsvp

This is a sponsored MOMocrats post written as part of the Clever Girls Collective campaign for greater awareness of Mom's Clean Air Force.

The MOMocrats Discuss Plan B: Why Did HHS Overrule the FDA’s Recommendation to Offer Plan B Emergency Contraceptive as OTC?

2011-12-12T14:52:38-08:00

It all started with a smart, heated post cross-posted to the MOMocrats from Advocates for Youth (AFY), lambasting the Obama administration and the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ decision to override the FDA’s recommendation to offer Plan B as an over-the-counter drug. Plan B, of course, is known as the “day-after” pill, preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg in the womb, much as can happen randomly in any woman’s cycle without influence by any medicines.

In backchannel emails, we each weighed in.

Glennia: I'm all done making excuses for Obama. I can't even begin to describe my disappointment with Sebelius right now. ...I would have written something, but Kate said it all [in the Plan B post on MOMocrats], as far as I'm concerned.

Julie: This is a lot of how I feel too.

But then again, I'm the one who kept saying he was a lot more conservative than gossip had him. I was worried about a lot of issues.

Still this stunned me. Et tu Brute and Brutette?

Donna (SoCalMom): As for Obama -- as upset as this decision makes me, I do feel that by becoming President at this time in our country's history, he simply can never win with us -- let alone the vast right wing conspiracy that is making it impossible to do even the simplest things. Every tiny little victory is won with the greatest effort -- just look at how impossible the GOP has made it to get the Federal government fully staffed (or the CFPB, which Slate said they are "nullifying" by refusing to even vote on Cordray).

I think it's correct for those of us on the left to point out bad policy decisions -- but we also need to strengthen our support more than ever. 2012 is going to be an epic fight on every level of government and we need to be vigilant against all the misinformation the Fox and CNN machine and superPACs are going to throw at us. MOMocrats is filling a real vacuum by disseminating facts that are going to be drowned out by all the right wing noise.

I am reserving my disgust for the religious zealots that believe in freedom, so long as you're an evangelical Christian with a trust fund (everyone else is bupkis).

Glennia: Donna, for the most part, I agree that Obama needs to win 2012 election, but what kind of choice is that, really? All that he and Sebelius had to do was let the FDA do its job. No HHS Secretary has ever overturned an FDA decision, so why not just let it ride and let the zealots do the dirty work? I think that this may have a chilling effect on future decisions that might benefit women’s health.

I'm not giving money to Obama or fundraising for him this time. Sorry, I just can't do it. I'll vote for him, but any funds I have will go toward down-ticket women and advocacy groups. I will vote for him, but that's it.

I haven't had much to say about politics lately because I am disgusted by the whole scene. I can't watch or listen to anyone from either party anymore.

Donna: I think that's a perfect strategy -- that the usual "coattail riding" effect this year will be reversed, with Obama doing well only if the Democrats do in state and local elections (and we need them there!)

The down-ticket women and advocacy groups are going to need all the money they can get.

I wonder what will happen in a second term, when there is no pressure to be re-elected. I know I would love a President who did what was right and didn't worry about re-election -- but I would be just as angry at him for doing a Jimmy Carter and making it impossible to elect another Democrat for another dozen years.

I often feel depressed over the direction our country has taken and the zealotry of the Right. Politics is more dispiriting than fun.

Karoli: I understand the strategy and to a large extent, agree with it. But I confess, I'm a little bit confused over the whole PlanB thing. I have basically been told I'm not a liberal because I don't think it should be available to younger children so easily. I also understand the arguments for making it available. It is a difficult, complex, emotional issue. I'm not sure there is an absolute wrong or right in this case. Only gray, murky areas. For example, Yaz was sold to younger women as the best birth control ever. After the fact, it emerges that it carries some pretty severe and even deadly side effects for some. PlanB is a hormone. I don't think it should be dispensed without some minimum instruction and oversight. That's just me. I also understand the arguments on the other side and respect them. But in the end, is this really a black and white, cut and dried issue?

Cynematic: Karoli, one of the more effective arguments for keeping Plan B OTC, aside from the fact that studies on pubescent girls under 17 showed they understood how and why they would use Plan B, is that when it's under the pharmacist's lock & key to dispense, women 17 and older are now effectively prevented from buying it when the pharmacy desk is not open but the rest of the drugstore/supermarket is. (That's setting aside the "conscience clause" -- for CONTRACEPTIVES!!! -- that some pharmacists might exercise, and might extend to Plan B. Like seriously, we're all Roman Catholics now??!?!? Rhetorical question.)

So in effect, young teen girls are being used as the excuse to curtail access for the older women who in all likelihood are the ones needing to use it. This fear of pregnant 12 year olds is being put forth at a time when teen pregnancy rates are actually declining, as are abortions in that age group. The same study shows that girls are using more effective contraceptives more frequently:

There are currently no direct data available to tell us why teens are changing their contraceptive practices. However, anecdotal reports indicate that recent changes in medical recommendations that allow teens and young adults to access hormonal contraceptives without a pelvic exam or Pap test have made it easier for them to start—and continue—using these methods.

Given the timely nature of Plan B's effectiveness, 12-24 hours delay in purchase and use could make a big difference to the woman who needs it.

I’m glad we’re talking about this on MOMocrats because there are no doubt many pro-choice women, especially moms of daughters, who feel this issue keenly both in disappointment with Obama *and* on another side with relief that he may have put his thumb on the scales by voicing his opinion on disallowing it to girls 17 and under.

Glennia: I think what set me over the edge was the fact that the administration put itself out in front of an FDA decision when it has not on any number of things that benefit pharmaceutical companies. Why this? Why now? was what I first thought. The answer seemed clear: at risk teenage girls are an easy target to throw under the political bus because they have no political clout. The second thing that irked me was the fact that the decision was not based on science, but politics.

I guess we all have a line, and this was it for me. I think one of the things that I love most about this group is the fact that we don't always agree and that we can discuss things.

Donna: Like you, I love the fact that we are not a monolithic, marching orders type of group. (As in the famous Will Rogers joke, "I don't belong to an organized political party - I'm a Democrat.")

And I can only stomach so much of it, too -- I take frequent breaks from the news, because it's depressing when it's all so bad. That's why I'm grateful that there is a large group of us to populate the MOMocrats' blog, Facebook page, podcast, Twitter stream, et al with material.

Erin (QueenofSpain): The Plan B, abortion for teens with out parental consent, etc is a fight I have with my husband daily ... ok not daily but a lot.

He thinks anything to do with giving a drug to his daughter or doing a procedure on his daughter, who is a minor, requires his consent. HE doesn't care what other families are like. He doesn't care what could happen to some other girls, he just see it through the eyes of HIS daughter. And I think that's what happens with this issue. We're dealing with a President who had two young girls so I have ZERO doubt this is a discussion he and Michelle have had. Why the admin went this route, I am SURE has something to do with what they are going to get on the other end- which very well may be part of the upcoming battle over Affordable Care Act repeal and decisions and discussions. At least, that's what I hope. That there is some damn good reason we are unaware of. Of course, like in most cases, there is no good 'enough' reason and teenage girls certainly can't vote...so.... sigh.

I don't think anyone can see logically on this one. Regardless of how hard we try. If it were up to me abortions would be like flu shots right now -- at every CVS and Rite Aid and advertising out the wazzooIoo -- I have taken the morning after pill 'just in case. Once. And it admittedly was not the greatest experience and I was too embarrassed to ask my OBGYN questions. It would be typical of our society that any guy could easily grab a condom but for women it must be complicated -- drugs, hormones, etc.

I can see both side of this argument, and I live in a liberal household, I guess is what I'm trying to say. And the President has never been shy about how moderate he can be and there is a crap load going on behind the scenes as they deal with what is the most ignorant bunch of Republicans ever assembled.

I just hope everyone keeps their eyes on re-election. Because knowing he won't have to campaign again in his second term makes me very hopefully he'll be tougher on somethings he can't be tough on now.

Or I'm a big sucker. One of the two.

Julie: I hear [Erin's husband's] point here. I'm uncomfortable with abortions for a lot of reasons. I know you guys know this. But I strongly believe it’s a personal decision so I support the right to choose. And when it comes to this, I see babies in school bathroom trash cans. It is 2000 times more important to me to prevent, to prevent a greater tragedy or trauma. And sure babies are blessings and sure many teen moms see it as a great making of their lives. I'm glad for that. But sometimes it is just better for some people if things had not gotten to that point. I do carry a bit of a que sera sera belief, but when asked to choose, I always prefer prevention.

Donna: I take solace in the fact that Plan B is available to all but minors without a prescription -- especially since the anti-Choice crowd did not want it on the market in this country at all.

If my daughter should need it before she turns 18, I'll get it for her -- no questions asked. Unfortunately, I don't think she would come to me.

In the UK, almost all the meds we are used to getting over the counter must be obtained through consultation with a pharmacist. It threw me for a loop the first times I needed decongestant or a cortisol cream -- but I got used to it.

When I was a teen, condoms were also kept behind the counter. I worked at a drugstore when I was a teen; I don't recall it being a deterrent for those who wanted to buy. Just something to get used to, I suppose.

And when you remember what a fight it was to get Plan B approved in any form, I am just glad that most of us can get it without a prescription. If my daughter needs it before she's of age, I'll gladly purchase it for her (that is, if she feels comfortable enough to ask me - but that's another matter).

Erin (QueenofSpain): You never know Donna. It was hard but when I was 14 I asked my Mom to take me to get the pill. She told me over, and over, and over again that she would take me and not say a word when I wanted. And she was true to her word. I asked her, nearly puking I was so scared, to take me. She made the appointment, we sat in the waiting room (God I will never forget) and said very little ...we went in. I asked the doctor to go on the pill and got my pap smear...and that was that.

She filled it for me every month and left it on my dresser top. Eventually we talked a lot more about it and stuff but that initial visit was her in my head, promising me over and over and over again. Had she not done that, I never would have asked.

Joanne (Punditmom): Actually, I do doubt the Prez has consulted Michelle, at least regarding policy for all girls. And it makes me sad that I have that doubt.

Erin (QueenofSpain): Well as I said I'm sure they have discussed it because they have two daughters. Consulting her in an official capacity is entirely different. They have two daughters -- we have one who is 6 and we've discussed it already at our house. If they have any sort of marriage and speak about their daughters’ futures, I can't imagine this hasn't come up.

I'm curious if you actually doubt he and Michelle discuss matters that affect their daughters or if you mean he consulted her in an official capacity as decisions on this were being made?

Because that leads to a larger question of what sort of father and husband you think he may or may not be as opposed to what sort of President. Which is entirely different.

And that doubt may speak to what some voters are feeling- that he's an overall jerk who doesn't even talk to his wife about matters concerning their daughters OR if he simply wouldn't talk to his wife about matters on his desk about women and girls.

Considering the type of woman our First Lady is, I doubt very highly she is not involved. Much like First Lady Clinton. But Michelle has to be even more careful as the entire world seems to pounce on every word she says, which of course is a country not ready for a strong black woman. But that's another story. I wish she could be as outspoken as Hillary was when First Lady...but sadly our country isn't ready for it. And hasn't been, and made that VERY clear during the last election.

Stephanie (Lawyermama): This one stunned me too. I knew he was the most conservative of the 3 real choices we had, but overruling the FDA really bothers me.

As for whether Obama consults Michelle, of course we can't really know what their marriage is like. But having interacted with her quite a bit and, as Erin mentioned, knowing the type of woman she is -- I think she'd fit in nicely here, I can't believe she wouldn't offer her counsel whether solicited or not. She is definitely a women with strong opinions and a fierce mama bear. I've heard from some people in the administration that she has been very firm with her husband (and his administration) about what they need to do to help military families. But then, that's not terribly controversial. And that's the thing, I think it's hard to guess what Mrs. Obama's personal opinions would be about Plan B. She's been very diplomatic about not delving into controversy. For all we know, she fully supported his decision for the same reason Erin's husband does.

Cynematic: I get it that reasonable pro-choice parents can be deeply squicked by the idea that their daughters could be 1) sexually active before all family messages have deemed it wise 2) pregnant and then not without parents ever knowing and 3) that my abstract position of "yes teen girls including some very young early-onset puberty pre-tween and tween girls should have access to Plan B" is AN ABSTRACTION for me as the parent of a son. I do not have skin in the game directly with a daughter to think of in the way that I do as a grown woman.

Yep, I get it.

But I am still troubled that by making the pharmacist the gatekeeper, women older than 17 will be potentially subject to someone else's "conscience" about the taking of what otherwise would be OTC medication with the same status as other OTC medications. And scared young teens won't have access when they need it most.

Is the regulation standing in for what should be parental vigilance, especially parental vigilance in helping pre-tween and tween girls develop healthy sexualities, as well as older teens? Should or can an FDA/HHS regulation do that? It seems we’re freighting a regulatory decision with more than it can reasonably handle.

Karoli: Digby has a post up reporting that there is ZERO political upside to this decision. So stop for a minute and think about why a man who is as smart as he would have made it. I have two thoughts. First, as Erin says, he came at it as a father. That's certainly one possibility. The other is the possible concern that it would create issues with Sibelius' directive that BC be free under the Affordable Care Act. If Plan B lands in that classification it would not be covered 100% as OTC.

Erin (QueenofSpain): I get nervous asking for the real sudafed. Seriously. Like they think I'm going to make meth. But it's like EVERYONE is a suspect when the pharmacist has the lock and key. I think about how hard it is for teens to buy condoms. They get all embarrassed, etc. But to have to ask the pharmacist for Plan B... wow. I can't even imagine as a young girl. It was hard enough as an adult.

Cynematic: It's true that Plan B may be tied to the overall battle to get contraceptives covered for free under health insurance. There was noise about the latter last week, then radio silence. There's also been radio silence from many trusted pro-choice legislators who we'd ordinarily expect to have kicked up a fuss.

I had postulated on Twitter that perhaps it was horse trading: appearance of "capitulation" to the religious right/US Conference of Catholic Bishops on this one very circumscribed issue surrounding Plan B in exchange for their yielding on contraceptives as preventative care and therefore free under all health plans. (Why these things have gotten politically muddled, as they seem to, is a different question than whether they should’ve gotten muddled to begin with. And I think that’s what was so maddening -- the FDA gave cover and HHS did not take it.)

As we know, this president has had to thread the needle finer than any other president in recent history to get anything accomplished. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some mixture of the horse trading and/or "prescription/pharmacist-as-gatekeeper-but free-covered under ACA" or "24-7-access-but-OTC-costing $40+" calculus involved.

Joanne (Punditmom): I just doubt he [Obama] would have thrown at risk teen girls under the bus if he had talked with her [Michelle]. Just as I wonder about whether he consults with her on things like Paycheck Fairness Act. He's had Jarrett out front for years telling people -- including us -- that it's a priority. Yet nothing. Part of my doubt stems from Michelle's own accounts of how little he consulted her on big decisions before he was President, which makes me wonder -- if he cared so little about the opinion of his worldly & highly educated wife, why should I believe he cares about women in general ?

He talked the talk in the campaign, but forgot to walk the walk.

Karoli: Let's not forget that the decision-maker was Sibelius, a woman. Also intelligent and thoughtful. I thought her public reasoning was thin, it felt like an excuse. As Glennia rightly pointed out, she overrode the FDA for the first time in history. I keep asking 'why', and I keep coming back to her also-unprecedented decision to require 100% coverage of BCP. I believe they're related to each other and she may have sacrificed one for the other. I have no hard evidence of that, but I simply don't believe it was a 'throwing under the bus' moment without nuance and possibly some other undisclosed circumstances.

Joanne: Well, she announced the decision. I have no doubt she was directed, in some way, by the White House. It's been too much of a hot potato for the administration to be out of the loop.

Grace: I'm leery of ascribing decisions to POTUS not caring about women that can just as easily be ascribed to him having male privilege, and women's and girls issues being an issue he can afford to table (again, because of male privilege). Similarly to what Jay Smooth says about conversations about racism, I think the conversation is more productively focused on what someone has done rather than who they are as a person. I doubt that POTUS doesn't care much for the opinion of women, but even caring about women's opinions wouldn't make him immune to male privilege in his decision-making.

I've been thinking of writing up a post for MOMo about POTUS's comments about his daughters from the perspective of having grown up Republican/pro-life and having a lot of friends who were convinced Senator Obama was the "most radically pro-abortion presidential candidate in history." One reason cited for this was his comments that he didn't want his daughters "punished with a baby" or STDs if they “made a mistake,” which pro-lifers pounced on as evidence that he thinks all babies are burdens. It's interesting to juxtapose that comment with the one re: Plan B and his daughters, because it shows how paternalism can go both ways when it comes to rights, but even when "benevolent" is no basis for real equality.

Glennia: I think the folks at AFY would like knowing they stirred up some discussion among moms. Like Cyn, I don't have skin in the game on birth control for girls as the mom of a boy (and am glad that condoms are sold OTC). I think it is a very worthwhile discussion and would like to hear all views.

I too thought of how they have Sudafed [sold with pharmacist's assistance] because adults are not responsible enough to not make meth out of it.

Melissa: The linkage between the contraception debate as a basic benefit
(opposed by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops) and emergency contraception/Plan B might seem like a natural one but they don't bear on each other. The decision to include contraception in the basic benefit package follows a recommendation by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF). It covers drugs and devices approved by the FDA. As emergency contraception is an OTC medication, its status is unchanged. The basic benefit package will only concern itself with prescription medication.

I do think this was an incredibly cowardly act. When I was ranting to my husband over his shaky internet connection, he was especially taken by a quote from Norm Ornstein in this article: "I think they’re trying to create some political balance." To which my husband, replied, "Does this political table look wobbly to you? Yeah... just shove some women's bodies under the corner, that'll shore it right up."

And that's what it boils down to for me. I am not a political token. My reproductive freedom is not a political bargaining chip. I am REALLY tired of being told to wait. Give in on abortion in the health reform bill, give in as the administration waffles and plays nice with the United Conference of Catholic Bishops over contraception as a basic benefit (even though a Guttmacher survey found that 98% of Catholic women used birth control methods not approved by the Church) and over "conscience clause" wording in federal programs. I am TIRED of this administration assuming that because -- to paraphase Pat Schroeder -- because I have uterus and brain and they both work I'm just an automatic "yes" in their 2012 battle. I won't vote for any of the crazy GOPers. But that doesn't mean I'll spend this election season working for Obama either. It doesn't mean I'll open my wallet or checkbook. It doesn't mean I'll stand out in the cold for GOTV. It doesn't mean I'll put up a lawn sign. It doesn't mean I'll put a bumper sticker on my car. It doesn't mean I'll go to town halls. It doesn't mean I'll offer to volunteer as an election judge or drive people to the polls. It means I'll sit on my hands.

Except it has become so. Sure, sure, the argument is about the under 17 crowd and I'm just about twice that age. But can someone tell me what differentiates a 16 yr old from a 17 yr old? And if we can't make that distinction, how does a young woman magically change from not-studied to well-studied in a year? After all, we allow young people to access sensitive health services without parental consent in many states. Not just repro services, either; mental health and substance abuse counseling and treatment are protected in 20-odd states. We allow them to buy tylenol which, when mixed with alcohol, can be deadly.

I get the parental consent issues. I look at Ruth, just shy of 4, and of course I'd want her to come to me but here is what I ask myself: If she didn't want to come to me, felt she couldn't, does my desire for parental involvement outweigh the potential consequences? The answer is no. My desire for parental oversight is not great enough to overcome my dread at her becoming pregnant and having to make a much harder decision. We have a very open house -- my father-in-law practically turned purple when Ruth asked at breakfast one morning "How do babies come out?" and I answered "They come out of their mommy's vagina." (A friend's mom just had her 2d baby so we'd had a lot of questions about how the baby breathes in the tummy, how it eats and pees and poops, etc.) I would love it if every household had open and honest discussions around sexual health, pleasure, reproductive rights, biology, etc. I know that isn't realistic and so again, I weigh my desire for parental oversight against the potential consequences.

Spring Adams was raped by her father in Idaho. She told her mother who refused to consent to the abortion as she feared her husband. Some sympathetic Idaho Health Dept workers contacted Planned Parenthood workers who arranged for her to have an abortion in Oregon (she was 16 weeks by that point). When her father learned she planned to have an abortion, he shot her. He tried to commit suicide but failed; last I heard, he is in prison. Why she was still living anywhere her father might have access to her is beyond me.

And Glennia, AFY is awesome.

Julie: Here is the thing. The group of us sit here and discuss this. We’re educated women who work hard to provide good, safe, supportive, open homes for our kids. I’m a daughter, a woman, sister, friend, and also mother of daughters. My life is filled with females of all ages. But how typical are we? And how typical are some of our experiences, such as Erin getting such unconditional support from her mother?

My mother tried to be comfortable with this conversation but she wasn’t, and as a result, I never felt comfortable talking with her. Maybe it was a style difference, I don’t know. But I am trying to do differently with my girls. I want to talk with them, be open and honest, supportive, while still sharing my values. It’s most crucial to me to teach my girls that they own their own bodies -- and how can I not be contradictory and hypocritical when the government is naysaying this and saying it owns the girls’ bodies?

“Well, yes, girls, you own your bodies and can say no and make your own choices, until it comes to reproductive health care, in which case, the government -- predominantly the very people who keep advocating for LESS government -- think they get to choose for you and me and your doctor, and let themselves and other health care practitioners get in between you and the medical decision you believe is best for you all around because of their opinions, not fact, but OPINIONS.” It’s maddening.

How can I teach my girls they get the choice of when and how and what for their bodies when all around us is the constant message about everyone else owns a piece of them -- from the government and reproductive care, to commercials using female form to sell, to popular media that drills the message that girls exist to pleasure, and on and on.

As a parent of girls how can I not believe that the best and safest thing is to let the individual and her unbiased doctor (who keeps her or his moral choices in her or his own life and lets individuals guide their lives by their own morals and ethics -- otherwise, hello, major boundary issues) choose the best course of medical action? And that’s the point, right? Plan B keeps it from getting to a tougher place. A trickier wicket. Plus, when it comes to so many cases, kids have to feel safe to take care of themselves and not all do. Not all grow up in safe homes, or homes where dealing with sexuality and bodies and self care is safe and supported. Many girls grow up like me and need respectful support from people who are supposed to provide it. Like pharmacists. And doctors.

Melissa, your point is so on point. 1 in 3 girls are molested. I think rape stats are about the same. And that is what is based on reports. Those who need respectful support the most -- these victims -- are the least likely to get it. I'm also going to say I know very few women who were happy and ready when sex began in their lives. So many had times when they felt pressured beyond comfort and unsure of how to "be nice" like girls are supposed to be and please the boy, like girls are supposed to, but still care for their own needs. I really don't think we get enough healthy sex and sexuality in the world and the last thing we need is to create more of a culture where girls get more and more boxed in -- forced to sex, forced to parenthood. I love being a parent. I feel blessed by my children, who are so amazing. I am glad that my life worked that I was able to fulfill my plan of college, work, adulthood then parenthood. Had I been unable to do that....what would my economic and life prospects be now?

I don’t think we came to a single conclusion as a group, but I do know many of us tempered our initial reactions -- I know I did, feeling that my outrage over how anti-choice politics seemed to win out over what would otherwise be a simple recommendation from the scientific community would now have to take into account the numerous other real-life and very messy factors affecting this one ruling by the HHS, political and personal. I continue to wrestle with both the emotional sides of the argument (what good is knowing that teen pregnancy rates are down if it’s *your* teen daughter who is pregnant?) and the rational sides that say, Wait a minute, what *are* the numbers of at-risk girls specifically who are affected by this? Should access to Plan B by very young women set the bar in practice for all women? Is this really the case or is this my own bogeyman I’ve invented, and what are the moral implications of protecting young women and also needing to ensure that single adult women as well as women with kids have access -- because they’re some of the people most in need of Plan B because of their obligations to their existing children? So here it is, behind the scenes at MOMocrats. We wrestle with tough questions and have differences of opinion and yet are all at our core profoundly committed to pro-choice as part of reproductive justice. --Cyn

Guest Post: Disappointed Doesn’t Cut It Anymore: A Mother’s Rebuttal of President Obama’s Plan B Politics

2011-12-09T09:55:41-08:00

The MOMocrats welcome this guest post, written by Kate Stewart. Cross-posted with permission from Amplify.

Disappointed doesn’t cut it anymore.

Disappointed, angry, dismayed -- these are only some of the emotions I am feeling this afternoon after hearing President Obama's poor excuse for restricting access to Plan B One Step.

I am also scared.

Scared about the health of my daughters. As the mother of two daughters, just like President Obama, I try to use "common sense" as much as possible. But, also like President Obama, I am not a doctor; I am not a scientist. I use my own judgment when it comes to things I am confident I can handle -- a case of the sniffles, a little cold.

But, I also understand that it is my responsibility as a parent to know when I don't know all the answers and it’s time to turn to experts. And that, apparently, is where the President and I disagree.

When my daughter’s pediatrician gives me medical advice, I listen. Carefully. American Academy of Pediatrics and the Society of Adolescent Health and Medicine make recommendations about my daughters' health, that matters to me. A lot. And I believe it should.

Today, President Obama has made the irresponsible – and nearly incomprehensible -- decision to support HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ move to block the FDA from expanding access to Plan B One-Step emergency contraception. Whether the President’s decision was motivated by well-intentioned ignorance or political cowardice is beside the point. Either way, this move will adversely impact millions of women, particularly young women, across the country.

President Obama has decided to ignore scientific research and medical advice and has sacrificed the health of young women. And I want to know why. Why, Mr. President? Why would you reject years of research and the best scientific thinking the medical community has to offer? Why, for the first time in U.S. history, did your administration intervene to overrule the FDA’s ability to make decision about medical science?

On Monday, I was optimistic. The FDA was expected to expand the availability of Plan B One-Step, a form of back-up birth control that can prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex or if something goes wrong with regular contraception. Indeed, the FDA tried to do just that: make Plan B One-Step available to all women — without age restrictions and without needing a prescription. If either of my daughters ever needs back-up birth control, I hope I will be among the first to know and I would help them in whatever way I could. But, life is not always as we want it to be, and therefore, it is essential that young people have the access to the information and services they need to ensure their health and safety. I thought we were headed in this direction on Monday. But, my optimism suddenly turned to dismay.

Yesterday, in a shocking move, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius took the unprecedented step of overruling the FDA and blocking its decision to expand access to emergency contraception. I held out a brief hope that President Obama would intervene and allow the FDA to do its job unhampered by politics, but those hopes were soon dashed as well. Today, President Obama came out in support of Secretary Sebelius' action – and, in doing so, decided to play politics with the lives and health of young women.

To say I was shocked when listening to the President is an understatement. It’s not just that I disagree with his position, it’s that his reasoning is so hollow and unsubstantiated. This Harvard-educated legal scholar who has signed presidential directives about the importance of science-based policy suddenly sounded eerily like Rep. Michelle Bachman. He framed his reasoning “as the father of two daughters,” when my own two daughters most needed him to be acting like the President of the United States. He invoked the specter of 11 year-olds buying Plan B next to “bubble gum and batteries,” as if 11 year-olds wander into CVS to buy $50 medications every afternoon. In the end, he felt that these concerns should overweigh the best advice of every major medical organization, years of research, and the recommendations of the FDA itself. How is this different than Rep. Bachman condemning HPV vaccines because of unscientific misinformation from a woman in the grocery store?

I understand that President Obama is uncomfortable with the idea that young teens may need emergency contraception. That worries me too. Rather than deny them access to a fully safe medication that could help prevent unintended pregnancy, perhaps we should be doubling down on comprehensive sex education -- and expanding access to contraception in the first place -- so that fewer of our daughters ever need Plan B at all. But, for those who do, we still have a responsibility to make sure that any woman who needs emergency contraception has access to it when they need it.

As I write this my daughters are at school and I am figuring out how to get them a quick dinner before heading off to a school holiday party this evening. Of all the other things, on my to do list today as a working mom, I really did not believe I would be writing about my shock and disappointment in President Obama and, yes, my fear for my daughters' future.

Was this part of a back-room deal, trading away the rights of all our daughters for some inside-the-beltway political ploy? Mr. President, why? I still want to know. I need something more than your current, cowardly excuses.

Mr. President, many of us were stunned by your remarks today. We need a better explanation for why you decided to sacrifice my daughters' safety and well-being.

I hope you will join me in expressing your outrage and demanding that President Obama reverse this decision. CLICK HERE TO TAKE ACTION.

Kate Stewart will be joining Advocates for Youth as Executive Vice President for Communications and Public Affairs beginning in January 2012. She is a public opinion research and communications specialist who has worked with a wide-range of advocacy and non-profit organizations on communications, policy, and public affairs. Most recently, she was a partner in the research and strategic communications firm, Belden Russonello & Stewart, LLC, where she created communications and public relations strategies for clients on civil liberties, public education, reproductive health, and reproductive justice. Kate has also been an adjunct professor at American University, where she taught public communication research and served on the Governing Council of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. Kate has been a member of Advocates' Board of Directors, mostly recently serving as Board Chair. Kate received a B.A. with high honors in history from Haverford College and her M.S. in survey methodology from the University of Maryland.

Disclosure: I am a member of the Board of Directors of Advocates for Youth. -Glennia

Michele Bachmann: Terrible GOP Presidential Candidate, But Terrific Democratic Party Opposition Researcher

2011-11-16T17:05:39-08:00

The proof's right here:

I think Congresswoman Bachmann saved President Obama some legwork, don't you?

And something tells me she won't be on the GOP nominee's dance card to fill the seat for Vice President after pointing out all the Presidential nominee's inconsistencies like that.

So what do you say we help her spread this useful video around?

;)

Cynematic would like a nice, sane, democratic, fact- and reality-based country to entrust to her child for safekeeping. Wouldn't you also?

Run, Mama Run!: Bock the Women's Vote

2011-10-31T09:02:04-07:00

It may not be 2012 yet, but important elections are already being held -- and one mission of MOMocrats is to shine a light on the races of progressive women running for office on all levels: Federal, state and local. This piece was written by EMILY's List Executive Director, Amy Dacey, who spent the weekend in San Francisco doing what the organization does best: training women in the art of politics and supporting their choice for District Attorney, candidate Sharmin Bock.

Last week, I touched down in sunny California ready to spend a weekend helping candidates and speak at an EMILY’s List training.

I was able to attend an event for Sharmin Bock’s campaign for San Francisco District Attorney, and when I arrived on Chestnut Street on Saturday afternoon she welcomed me with open arms. We talked briefly about how things are progressing and how close the race is. She’s up on television with an ad about her experience as a prosecutor and her success rate putting criminals behind bars.

The more we can tell San Francisco about Sharmin, the more people see she’s the best choice. While we met, Sharmin was jumping up every few minutes to talk to voters about her experience and what she hopes to do to keep up the good work in the District Attorney’s office. Supporters arrived and they talked about the importance of this race, not just locally but across the country, because strong women in office help create better public policy and ensure our values are represented.

Sharmin talked about what it means for her to run for office. She said women running help set an example for her 13 year old daughter Fiona who told her that more women need to be serving in government. I couldn’t agree more!

Elections like these are won and lost by the little things. We've got one week until the Election Day on November 8th. Whether you can canvass neighborhoods, support financially, or spread the word about the campaign on Twitter, your help makes a difference.

Everyone had a great trip, but we were most excited about Sharmin Bock. She’s the most experienced and, by far, the best person for the job.

This year, we've seen the EMILY’s List pipeline in action over and over again. With our Political Opportunity Program (POP), we have recruited and trained local and state leaders who are well-prepared to move up to the next level:

EMILY’s List alum Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin moved from local office to Congress, and now we’re excited to endorse her for the U. S. Senate.
Right behind her, we’ve got “On the List” candidate State Rep. Kelda Roys moving up to run for the open Congressional seat, and that’s just one state.
In California, we’re so happy to have Attorney General Kamala Harris, who was previously the San Francisco District Attorney.

Now Sharmin Bock is moving up from the role of prosecutor to run for that District Attorney seat, and we’ve got to help her win!

If you want to get involved in the EMILY’s List Political Opportunity Program you can learn more here, and help us change the face of politics at the local, state, and national level.

Kirsten, Debbie & Gabby: "In Friendship We Trust"

2011-10-20T14:54:38-07:00

(Photo from UPI.com, 2009) I originally read this at the great site, Off the Sidelines. I appreciate an organization that encourages and supports women to becomes active in public policy and more, but more than that, I appreciate seeing examples of when Washington (that dehumanized amorpohous entity) works: because people work with other people to accomplish important acts that improve how our country functions.

It seems as if we forget all too often that Washington, citizenry, constituencies, companies, everything...is made of people. Because I've always been people-focused and because I'm reading this mind-blowing book called Humanize (which is so good I actually put a review up on Amazon), it's really on my mind, and that's probably why this post so spectacularly resonated with me that I was moved to shift from reader to poster.

When I see action coming from Congress that is true grassroots beneficial legislation, time and again it seems to come from Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. What makes some politicians so accessible, their actions so transparent, and their efforts so targeted to what citizens want...and how, in a House (and Senate) divided, are these politicians such as Gillibrand able to consistently succeed in their efforts?

Connections with people. Connections to the people.

Those bonds of connection--of being people-centric (as Humanize explains it)--are crucial to actually accomplish and be productive, successful. That's because it enables the person to hear the people, talk to other people, and enlist people to help get what needs to be done, done.

Gillibrand has spent her tenure (and she's one example) building connections with people in and out of Washington. In Washington, in particular, she has connected with Gabby Giffords and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. This article, which I was graciously given permission to repost, showcases exactly how these bonds and connections have not just supported Giffords, Gillibrand, and Wasserman Schultz, but have encouraged and empowered them to succeed---despite tragedy.

Most importantly, it shows that women can work well together (despite a lot of media and culture rumors to the contrary), can encourage each other's success, and can, by connecting, accomplish what this country needs now most.

Here's the article:

The new issue of Good Housekeeping has an inspiring article about the bond Kirsten has had with Gabby Giffords and Debbie Wasserman Schultz ever since they all served in the House together and became fast friends and a tight mutual support system.

Early in their careers, they met, bonded, and became one another’s champions, helping one another through crises ranging from minor to major to unimaginable. All young by Washington standards (Gabby is 41, Kirsten is 44, and Debbie is 45), the three represent a significant part of the roughly 20% of the Congressional voice that is female—of 535 Senators and Representatives, only 93 are women and the average age is 53.

As the article makes clear, their bond is unique in Washington, D.C. not just because of the dearth of women serving in the Congress, but also because of the unique way women work together.

The reasons behind the trio’s friendship are the reasons why women are so valuable in Congress, and the clout that they embody is changing the way business is done on Capitol Hill. They have committed not only to meaningful alliances with Republican Congresswomen, but also to a concerted effort to get more women involved in politics and elected at every level of government. [...] The women who enter the battlefield that is Capitol Hill have to be warriors, and courage—mixed with a decidedly female bent toward consensus—is at the heart of not only this friendship, but also a new generation of women leaders, Republican and Democratic, that is emerging across the country.

The article also explores another key part of the relationship among the women: the mentor role that Debbie Wasserman Schultz -- who had been elected to Congress in 2004 -- served for both Gabby and Kirsten as they considered their runs for Congress in 2006. For example, in 2005, as Kirsten weighed the decision to run, she, as Good Housekeeping puts it: "was able to ask [Debbie] the kinds of questions she couldn't ask a Congressman:"

“How did you juggle a newborn, an election, your husband, and your child—with the two homes a Congress member needs to keep?” [...] During these talks, Kirsten recalls, “Debbie was very inspiring. She said, to both Gabby and me, ‘Not only does your voice matter, but, as women, you can weigh in in ways that can help move an issue. Because we’re women—because we’re mothers—we have a different perspective, a different lens. We’re able to bring people together, to consensus-build.’ ”

And then when Kirsten and Gabby were elected and arrived in DC in January 2007, that bond only grew tighter.

There were events for the freshman Congressional class, but the two women had their own orientation with Debbie. “The three of us became immediately close,” Kirsten says. “We’re all fighters. We’re all policy wonks. We’re all consensus builders.” They would talk about substantive issues—and make private jokes about Congress still being a Good Ol’ Boys Club “all the time, all the time,” Kirsten says...They had so much in common, but the deep trust and loyalty that blossomed among them, in a town where the term “friend” is thrown around lightly, felt like nothing short of a gift. As Debbie puts it, “Our friendship is a refuge.”

The entire article is well worth reading. It explores not only the relationship among these three extraordinary women but also their individual journeys both throughout their careers in Congress and as they've dealt with the attack on Gabby and her miraculous recovery. Through the prism of Kirsten's, Debbie's and Gabby's friendship, the article really delves into what makes women unique in public service and why we need more women to get off the sidelines. But it also highlights one of the most important aspects to what will make women successful once they do embark on that journey off the sidelines: the support, mentorship and guidance that only other women can provide.

Salon op-ed compares Melissa Harris-Perry to Bachmann, KKK

2011-09-29T14:26:06-07:00

Yesterday, Salon.com published an op-ed by white liberal columnist Gene Lyons in response to Melissa Harris-Perry's recent writing for The Nation on racism as a factor in declining white liberal support for the President. Rather than disagreeing thoughtfully and respectfully with Harris-Perry's argument, Lyons chose not to focus on criticizing the substance of her articles but instead on attacking her as a black female intellectual.

The short version: Lyons dismissed Harris-Perry as a "fool" and "a left-wing Michele Bachmann, an attractive woman seeking fame and fortune by saying silly things on cable TV." He claimed her argument that white racism may be a factor in liberal disillusionment with POTUS is a "photonegative of KKK racial thought," and dismissed her writings on race as "useful for intimidating tenure committees staffed by Ph.D.s trained to find racist symbols in the passing clouds." On top of all that, Lyons mocks black experiences of racism and our right to speak out about it thus: "Furthermore, unless you're black, you can't possibly understand. Yada, yada, yada. This unfortunate obsession..."

There's absolutely no question that this is an outright attack on Prof. Harris-Perry's race, gender, and professional accomplishments. Even more disturbing, it's an attack on all black people and all other people of color who dare to study or publicly raise the issue of racism on the left.

Lyons makes no serious attempt to engage with, much less disprove Harris-Perry's hypothesis. Instead he tries to discredit her by sexualizing her appearance and portrays her as a silly, greedy, self-interested woman with nothing of worth to contribute to public discourse. He basically mocks her for having a Ph.D and dismisses her training and expertise as not just worthless, but actually fraudulent ("trained to find racist symbols in the passing clouds"). Again, this is not just about a personal attack; his comments imply that the entire field of critical race studies is a joke and a con.

Lyons' comparison of Harris-Perry, a careful, accomplished, and much respected scholar of race, to Michele Bachmann, a woman who believes that black families were better off under slavery and praises the policies of an era where the U.S. placed racial and geographic caps on immigration, is particularly outrageous. Given that virtually the only thing Bachmann and Harris-Perry have in common is their gender and presence in the public sphere, Lyons' implication that any woman he disagrees with must not be worth listening to is unmistakable. So too is his apparent belief that the physical appearance of any woman who exist in public is open to his appraisal.

The bottom line is that Harris-Perry's great offense is daring to be a black woman, publicly saying something about race that Gene Lyons didn't like and found irritating. And this irritation apparently justifies thinking that being a black woman with an opinion on race a white liberal finds inconvenient is tantamount to the kind of racial thinking that led to black people being lynched, burned alive, raped, beaten, and terrorized by white Klansmen. Lyons clearly either has no clue what the KKK did, or simply doesn't care. He clearly needs an education, or a reminder, in what the effects of actual KKK racial thought looked like [warning: images of violence]. To take this history so lightly as to use it as a tool to lecture people of color about how we should talk about race, as a label to undermine a woman of color, is an incredible affront to all people of color and a breathtaking display of clueless white privilege.

This is how white privilege and racism work. Lyons' article is poorly written and incoherently argued. He makes comparisons that are logically and factually insupportable, and wildly inappropriate and irresponsible. His thinking on race and gender is both prejudiced and sloppy, yet he got paid to mock someone who is trained to think and write about race, and has done so with distinction. And he got the privilege of being paid to do all this in a nationally respected "progressive" new media publication.

This is so much more than an attack on one black scholar. If Salon allows this article to stand without making any comments or apologies, it's sending a chilling message to people of color and anyone who attempts to have an honest, substantive discussion about race in American politics.

Salon is sending the message that it's appropriate for a white man to equate a black woman talking about race to violent white supremacist thinking, which supported a decades-long campaign of racial terrorism that devastated countless black bodies and communities; to use black people's history of enduring and surviving domestic white terrorism as a weapon against us, simply because we point to the continued legacy of the forces and attitudes that drove such terrorism in the first place; to undermine the credibility of an entire field of study pioneered by and centered on people of color because he finds it annoying; to denigrate the physical appearance, educational achievements, and intellectual competence of women he disagrees with. They're sending the message that they are comfortable with paying writers who rely on white male privilege rather than logic, fact, and nuance to make their arguments.

MOMocrats MOMochat: The Battle in Seattle -- Which Way "Ed Reform"?

2011-09-27T17:45:33-07:00

The morning of Wednesday, September 28, 2011, join Cynematic, Karoli and Donna Schwartz Mills for a lively Blog Talk Radio podcast with four women running for school board in Bill Gates' backyard up in Seattle. Sharon Peaslee, Michelle Buetow, Kate Martin and Marty McLaren have a vision for education in their district, and we'll hear why it doesn't completely mesh with that of Gates and the Broad Foundation's plans for education reform in America. What's the difference between what these candidates have to offer and "ed reform" (or as some say, "ed Rheeform")?

How did the Seattle Public Schools end up with a School Superintendent, Dr. Marie Goodloe-Johnson, who badly mismanaged school district finances? (Read more about graduates of the Broad Superintendent School in the Parents' Guide to the Broad Foundation. They're awfully high-flying but seem to run into trouble no matter where they're posted around the country.)

What needs to be done to get SPS finances on the right track going forward? And what, if any shadow, does the Gates Foundation cast on public schools in its own back yard?

These issues may seem local to Seattle but they're national in impact. Schools across the country are grappling with the same problems -- and it's no wonder. Gates Foundation money is everywhere, as are Broad Foundation school superintendents.

All four candidates will also appear at The Stranger's School Board Candidates' Debate the same evening, Wednesday, September 28, 2011, at the Town Hall in downtown Seattle starting at 7:30 pm PT.

Cynematic blogs at P i l l o w b o o k and education news at K12NewsNetwork.com.

This Week on MOMochat: The Case Against Genetically Modified "Frankenfoods"

2011-09-20T15:42:23-07:00

Should we be concerned about produce that originated in a laboratory? Or the results of cross-pollination from a GMO crop into the food chain?

These are some of the questions that are posed to this week's special guest, dietitian Ashley Koff, author of the new book, Mom Energy, and one of the spokespeople for this month's Right2Know March. Ashley talks in-depth about the dangers of GMO foods and what to do about it with MOMocrats Cynematic and Jaelithe Judy (who also writes extensively about food and politics at Care2.com).

MOMocrats Donna Schwartz Mills and Karoli are also on hand to discuss this week's news.

Listen to the podcast live Wednesday, September 21 at 12:00 noon Eastern/11:00 a.m. Central/9:00 a.m. Pacific or catch the podcast here.

Brought to you by Bubble Genius.

APEC Summit on Women & the Economy

2011-09-19T08:31:00-07:00

Recently, I was privileged to be able to attend a part of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Women & the Economy Summit in San Francisco. The conference brought together women leaders, government officials, diplomats, and corporate innovators to discuss actions to improve the lives of women in the Asia-Pacific region, and by doing so, the world's economy. Recognizing that women are a vast, largely untapped resource for change and growth, the group spent a week in San Francisco working on plans for change. This was one of several meetings around the Pacific Rim leading up to the APEC Summit in Hawaii in November that President Obama will attend.

The Conference Keynote was delivered by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Secretary Clinton has inspired a generation of women to enter political life to try to dismantle the political barriers that keep women from fully participating in economic growth. Her speech was a call to action, for all nations to tap the power, creativity, and drive of women to help elevate all people, across all regions.

Although characterized by some in the media as a "call for equal rights," Clinton's vision was much broader than that. In her speech, she stated,

Now there will be a temptation on the part of those observing or covering this summit, perhaps on the part of those of us attending it as well, to say that our purpose is chiefly to advance the rights of women, to achieve justice and equality on women’s behalf. And that is, of course, a noble cause to be sure and one that is very close to my heart. But at the risk of being somewhat provocative at the outset, I believe our goal is even bolder, one that extends beyond women to all humankind. The big challenge we face in these early years of 21^st century is how to grow our economies and ensure shared prosperity for all nations and all people. We want to give every one of our citizens, men and women alike, young and old alike, greater opportunity to find work, to save and spend money, to pursue happiness ultimately to live up to their own God-given potentials.

Secretary Clinton went on to give specific examples and data illustrating the issues that Summit attendees hoped to offer specific, concrete actions to resolve. She went on to note that her husband is fond of saying that "we don't have a person to waste" in this effort, and she added, "We certainly don't have a gender to waste."

The full text and video of Secretary Clinton's speech can be found at the US State Department's website.

After the speech, the high-level diplomats and delegates from all the APEC countries convened in a closed-door session to work out the details that would become the San Francisco Declaration. The key elements of the Declaration that are required for economic empowerment of women are:

Access to capital;
Access to markets;
Building capacity and skills; and
Promoting women in leadership positions.

All twenty-one nations represented at the Summit unanimously adopted the declaration.

I was not able to stay very long at the Summit, but I was able to attend one Plenary Session moderated by Tina Brown of The Daily Beast and Newsweek. Also on the panel were Ilene Lang, President & CEO of Catalyst, a research and advisory firm that specializes in promoting women in business; Blanca Trevino, CEO of Softtek, a global Information Technololgy firm based in Mexico; Romi Haan, CEO of Haan Corporation, an appliance and beauty products company in South Korea; Susan Fleishman, Executive Vice President of Commincations for Warner Brothers Entertainment; and Cherie Blair, wife of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and founder of the Cherie Blair Foundation for Women.

The Plenary Session was called "Women at the Top: How Diverse Leadership Benefits Everyone." It featured a candid discussion among these high-powered women of issues surrounding workplace diversity, being a woman leader in male-dominated industries, and work-life balance for women. The panel enthusiastically endorsed nurturing a work-life balance to promote creativity and productivity in the workplace. Romi Haan noted that she didn't want workers who were just successful on the job, but "successful in life" as well. On the need for work-life balance and the issue of childrearing, Blanca Trevino commented, "Someone can always fill in for you at a meeting, but no other mom can fill in for you to help your daughter get ready for her first date."

Cherie Blair's foundation is leading the way in impoverished nations in encouraging women-owned businesses and entrepreneurship. Their approach is to offer women in developing nations the tools needed to start and maintain their own businesses through "confidence, capacity and capital". One of the innovations her foundation has initiated is a Skype-based mentoring program for women in developing nations to be paired with successful women around the globe, so they are not limited to the resources available locally.

The week-long Summit featured a number of other plenary sessions and workshops with equally impressive leaders in discussions on how to solve some of the most pressing problems and opportunities of our time. The message of the Summit was that in a time of global economic crisis and concern, women may be the key to unlocking a new era of prosperity. The underlying message was "when women are successful, the world benefits."

--Glennia

This Week on MOMochat: Want More Women in Office? She Should Run, with The Women's Campaign Forum

2011-09-13T11:34:53-07:00

When women sit at the table, the conversation includes topics that are near and dear to us: Education. Healthcare. Eldercare. Living Wages. Work-Life Balance. Reproductive Rights.

So it's a shame that so few women have seats in our nation's legislatures: According to the Women's Campaign Forum, we're ranked 87th in the world for the number of women in our national legislature. Even Cuba and Afghanistan have more female representation than us!

Next Wednesday, the WCF is holding its the She Should Run Inaugural National Conversation, a conference designed to address the "urgent need for women to advance in leadership across all sectors." We'll be hearing more about that on tomorrow's edition of MOMocrats MOMochat, when our special guest is Women's Campaign Forum President Siobhan "Sam" Bennett.

Bennett has served as the President and CEO of the Women’s Campaign Fund (WCF) and its affiliated programs The She Should Run Foundation and WCF PAC since March 2009.

Sam has lent her unique perspective as a candidate at the local and federal levels to broaden WCF’s impact on women leaders at all levels of government who support reproductive choices and options, and women who may run for office in the future.

Join Cynematic, Julie Pippert and Donna Schwartz Mills live tomorrow at 12:00 noon Eastern/11:00 Central/9:00 a.m. Pacific, or catch us on the podcast here.

Brought to you by Bubble Genius.