No Laughing Matter

Below the Belt: A Biweekly Column by NOW President Kim Gandy

October 14, 2005

Well, well, well. DeLay under indictment, Frist and Rove under investigation, Bush (as always) under average, and Republican party unity in freefall... If it weren't for the absolute seriousness of the events that have gotten us to this point, I'd almost be having fun here!

Sadly, life in D.C. these days is no laughing matter, as the boys in charge are determined to slash and burn critical programs (including Medicaid), using the cost of Katrina as an excuse, while giving the rich even more tax cuts that we can't afford. Still, the nomination of Harriet Miers has revealed deep fissures in the G.O.P. foundation — and a deep hypocrisy in their "rules" for Supreme Court nominees.

It's strange to find myself in agreement with some of these conservatives, as they point out Miers' lack of a real record on which to determine whether she should be confirmed for such an important position. But that's where the agreement ends — unlike them, I don't doubt her conservative credentials for a second. Here is a Bush devotee who, as president of the Texas Bar Association, lobbied to reverse the American Bar Association's pro-choice stance.

Our sources in Dallas tell us she is "vehemently" pro-life. And it turns out she's anti-gay, too. She argued against overturning Texas' law criminalizing sodomy, and she has publicly stated her opposition to equal marriage rights for all. Such an ideologue on social issues would be a disastrous replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been the critical swing vote on so many issues important to women, including abortion, Title IX, privacy rights, and family and medical leave. And to see Bush carefully hinting at all this to appease his right wing supporters, without saying it outright, is simply nauseating: "Just ask her about her church, fellas" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

So it's pretty clear that NOW doesn't want Miers on the Court, right? Good. Because I want that to be clear while I take a step back here and view the conservatives' assault on Miers in a broader perspective. The harsh ridicule she is facing, the sheer viciousness and vitriol of these attacks has to make you wonder whether she would face this same onslaught if she was a man. In politics (and life in general), men are assumed to have a basic level of competence, whereas women constantly have to prove they are not incompetent because of their gender.

As my friend Ellie Smeal said the other day in the New York Times, it looks like Miers is being subjected to a double standard. While not supporting Miers, Senator Barbara Mikulski has said she is "shocked at the sexism and double standard coming out of the far right."

Well, I wouldn't say I'm shocked.

But it is a double standard and, though I don't like Miers' opposition to women's fundamental rights, public sexism against one woman hurts us all. If we're going to defeat her, let's do it on the merits of her positions and her judicial philosophy, and not on the back of outdated assumptions about women. Stand up and say it with me proudly: she's unworthy because she's a blank slate and a Bush crony, not because she's a woman!

On a different front, the Bush administration didn't want to wait for Miers' confirmation to take something away from women. The Department of Labor's "Bureau of Labor Statistics"(BLS) has decided that it no longer needs to collect and disseminate information on women in the workforce — presumably because there's no more need, since there are no more gender disparities on the job, right? Wrong! As a group, we still make about 77 cents for every dollar men make. But boy, the BLS knows how to fix a problem: gender gap in pay? Just stop collecting statistics, no more problem! This is truly scary, and very close to outright government deception about the status of women. Join us in protest! Write to the BLS now! Don't let them sweep discrimination under the rug (or the computer).

Meanwhile, I'm shuddering to think what is at stake for reproductive rights this November. That's when the new "Roberts Court" will cut its teeth on two big abortion cases scheduled for hearing on November 30 (now do you see why Bush is pushing SO HARD for a Miers confirmation by "the end of November"?).

The first case is Scheidler, et al. v. NOW, et al., commonly called Scheidler III because this is our third trip to the Supreme Court on this racketeering case against anti-abortion clinic violence, which NOW filed in 1986. The Supreme Court will decide whether NOW's nationwide injunction, which has dramatically reduced the violence at women's health clinics, will stay in place or be overturned.

The second case, which will be argued the same day, is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood. In Ayotte, the Court will decide whether state abortion restrictions must be followed even if the woman's health is in danger. This has been the Court's ruling in past cases (on a slim 5-4 margin), and Sandra Day O'Connor is the swing vote to protect women's health (just another reason Bush wants Miers on the Court right away). In Ayotte, the restriction at issue is a 48-hour parental notification requirement, and whether an exception must be made to protect the pregnant teen's health — but this case will have implications for any restriction, such as the federal abortion procedures ban, waiting periods, and public funding regulations.

There's even a third case on the Court's horizon: Gonzales v. Carhart, where the Court will review the constitutionality of Bush and Congress' attempt to outlaw specific abortion procedures without making an exception for the health of the woman. O'Connor was a critical vote in a case very much like this a few years ago — and with Miers there in her place, it would be a disaster for women. And this could be just the beginning — with a Roberts-Miers Court, we can pretty much bid farewell to judicial protection of so many of the rights we have fought so hard to win.

Stand against Miers, and let's do all we can to keep O'Connor there — at least through November. After that, hold on to your hats, folks. If we lose the Court, we'd better be willing to work long and hard on the 2006 and 2008 elections, because the whole enchilada will be up for grabs then. Everything.

Some things are too important to give up without a fight. See you in the trenches!