Lisen: The Town Hall Presidential Debate? Roosters in a Ring, but When It Comes to Women’s Issues, We Have a Clear Winner.

Roosters in a ring

President Obama and his feisty competitor, Mitt Romney squared off again last night. They pecked and clawed their way over key issues including immigration, energy independence, the tax code, gun control, and the economy, to name a few. As they debated whose policies would be better for our country, they went at each other like two roosters in a ring. Candy Crowley, (playground moderator or referee?) had to crawl her way between the two to keep them on point and off each other. The best way to describe it? Yep, a cockfight…pun intended (apologies to those with tender sensibilities).

However, as these two blusterers talked over and under each other, it became increasingly clear we do have a real choice here. Romney may have some good ideas when it comes to tax code (yep, let’s simplify it) and he may think he knows something about balancing a budget (although the non-partisan Office of Budget Management argues his recommendations wouldn’t balance it), when it comes to understanding the needs of women in the workplace, the clear winner is our president.

Obama recalled his single mother who, while raising him and his sister, went back to school and concurrently worked hard to support her family. He mentioned his grandmother, the secretary who hit a glass ceiling. And we know he personally understands the challenges of having two working parents as his wife was the primary breadwinner before Obama became president. This man gets it.

Romney? Shockingly out of touch is the only way to describe his words last night.

Everyone needs binders full of women

“I had a chance to pull together a cabinet and the applicants were all men…and I said, ‘gosh, can’t we find some women who are qualified?’ “ Well, Mitt, I guess not. There couldn’t possibly have been one single woman who was qualified to do the job. But we have binder full of men who are qualified. Oh wait, Romney has a binder full of women too! Phew.

Pause a minute. Let’s think this through. Is he saying his very own advisors couldn’t find a single woman to recommend? In this day and age, what idiot group of political advisors would ever offer up a cabinet filled exclusively with men? Wouldn’t it be obvious that politically that would be a fiasco? Which leads me to wonder, who does he surround himself with? White men who got lost in a 1950s time warp? And, do you think there was a man of color in that original group of “qualified” applicants. Oh, let’s not even go there.

 Then, the man who would be president said, “If you are going to have women in the workforce, then sometimes you need to be more flexible.” Really Mr. Romney did you mean to stay that?  IF?! According to the US Department of Labor, Women make up 47% of the workforce. 40% of us earn more than our husbands. This isn’t a matter of if or even when. We are already here and your economy needs us.

And then there was that word, “SOMETIMES”? We have children to raise, parents to care for, homes to manage, all of this in addition to being an essential component of our family’s financial stability. We don’t need flexibility SOMETIMES, we need it always.

And by the way, creating workplaces that offer flexibility for these myriad responsibilities shouldn’t just be considered making accommodations for women.Gosh, last time I checked my husband has children too. He also has parents he needs to support and a large pile of laundry that needs to be folded. Apparently in Rmoney’s world, this all gets done by someone else. But back in the real world, the men I know need flexibility too.

Kind of says it all, doesn’t it?

When Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act in 2009,

 it was an important step towards rectifying the gross inequities that women face in the workplace. As of 2011, women across their careers still make only $.77 per $1.00 made by men. According to the National Women’s Law Center, “The wage gap occurs at all education levels, after work experience is taken into account, and it gets worse as women’s careers progress.”

Do you think Mitt would have signed that bill into law? I don’t. But at least he has binders full of women if he ever needs to put one on a cabinet.

Ladies, when it comes to selecting our next president, the choice is clear. As Obama said last night,  “This is not just a women’s issue, this is a family issue, a middle-class issue and that’s why we’ve got to fight for it.”

The Dawn of a New Day

Aimee: How Will America Protect the Lives of Our Unborn Citizens?

duck caddy

as seen at Target

Abortion. The word ushers tension into any conversation. No matter what I write, someone will be offended. It’s a sensitive, complicated subject and a tough post. 

This election season, I’ve been surprised by the ease with which some pro-choice women assert they speak for all American women when, in fact, they don’t. Gallup reports 50 percent of Americans now call themselves pro-life while a record-low 41 percent are pro-choice.

January 22, 2013, is the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion in the United States. More than 53 million unborn American citizens have been killed by abortion in this country since 1973. More than 53 million American citizens. More than 3,200 a day.

What would our nation look like today if those people had not been killed? 

Imagine what our economy might look like if those people had been allowed to live, mature, and enter the workforce. Imagine what the demand for goods and services of 53 million more people would mean to American businesses today. Imagine what 53 million more taxpayers would mean to our underfunded Social Security. Imagine the leadership, ingenuity, talents, and service our country lost when we sacrificed 53 million of our citizens to abortion. About two million families are waiting for children to adopt in the U.S. Imagine what it would mean to them if children who were aborted were adopted instead.

Celebrities like to repeat the pro-choice rallying cry: If abortion is limited rather than expanded, women’s rights will somehow go back 40 years. If you’re not pro-choice, then you’re not pro-woman! Hypothetically half of the people who have been killed by abortion in America were women. That’s more than 26 million women who’ve been killed by abortion in this country since 1973. The pro-choice position cannot support this killing of female babies and call itself pro-woman at the same time.

Guttmacher Institute reports if current rates continue, three in 10 American women will have an abortion by age 45. I don’t condemn women who’ve had abortions. But I wonder about their private suffering. What are the emotional and psychological costs to parents who abort their children? How does abortion desensitize our culture, cheapen the value we place on human life, and threaten the well-being of our society?

Some will argue that the child who is subject to abortion is inside a woman’s body so it’s different. But the child inside the womb is still a child. The old school feminist arguments that the child in the womb is a piece of disposable tissue or an unwanted intruder no longer hold. Science shows and common sense knows life begins at conception. Even feminist Naomi Wolf admitted abortion ends human life.

Other women will say that although they would never choose abortion for themselves, they remain pro-choice because they don’t want to tell other women what to do. They don’t want the government to meddle in our personal business.

duck wash cloth

as seen at Target

Is killing another person ever really just an order of personal business? 

Our government declares it’s illegal to abuse or kill dogs, cats, whales, and all sorts of other creatures. We agree it’s illegal to murder people. It’s illegal to abuse or kill children. How can we apply a different standard to the killing of unborn children?

President Obama and Mitt Romney part ways when it comes to abortion. Obama’s pro-choice position is well-known. For him, gone are the days of “safe, legal and rare.” Liberal media and pundits have tried to spin Romney’s position on abortion as murky. But Romney’s own website states his pro-life views quite clearly.

Pro-life and pro-choice advocates believe the sun rises and sets with Supreme Court appointments. What if Roe v. Wade was overturned or made more restrictive? Would prohibiting or limiting the killing of our own people really be that bad?

There are many questions and no easy answers. I would say the same to Obama and Romney. Whether or not you agree with my beliefs, surely we agree the abortion issue is wildly unsettled in the hearts of Americans. We will continue to struggle with this. As well we should.

To read more of my thoughts about abortion, please see my post entitled Whisper.