Take them at their (written) word: How Ryan’s votes in Congress reveal likely Romney-Ryan policy direction

Valley Center : CA : USA | Aug 22, 2012 at 7:45 AM PDT

By CarolynMcGraw

XX XX

Views: Pending

The Republican Party Platform committee calls for a constitutional ban on abortion in the 2012 GOP Platform. The constitutional ban would make no exception for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, according to the examiner.com.

Social policy affecting women’s health issues including access to birth control and affordable health care, legal abortion and the ability to plan families and careers will, arguably, have the greatest, immediate effect on the everyday life of American families after the 2012 election.

Tax policy, the budget, the debt and myriad other issues will affect America’s well-being, but changes in the law which would limit access to reliable birth control, family planning and health care will be felt by women and their families on a daily basis. Such policy has the potential to radically change the lives of millions of American women.

Presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney has supplied little detail about policy decisions he would support if elected president. The swirling rhetoric and political spin surrounding his policy direction provide conflicting information on Romney’s policy positions. Romney’s views on health care, abortion, birth control and family planning are often contradictory. He has made statements both opposing and supporting abortion, federal health care funding, the morning after pill and birth control, among others.

Legislation and policy Romney once supported he now adamantly opposes. Romney once supported a woman’s right to choose. He now opposes that right. Massachusetts’ “Romney Care” was a template for the Affordable Health Care Act which Romney vows to eliminate should he become president. It is difficult to determine what Romney believes today or to predict what policy he would support if elected president. However, Romney’s choice of running mate, Congressman Paul Ryan, provides a clue into Romney’s true thinking on social policy.

Sponsorship of legislation and voting records provide concrete evidence of support, or non-support, for social issues. Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan has co-sponsored and voted on bills which clearly delineate his views on abortion, birth control, family planning, paycheck fairness and violence against women. Romney’s choice of Ryan as running mate, and Romney’s support of his running mate’s record, define as does nothing else, the likely direction of Romney’s social policy agenda should he be elected.

Ryan has served in the House for 14 years. On matters of women’s health care, reproductive rights, birth control and abortion, his record is clear as evidenced by the bills which he has sponsored, co-sponsored and for which he voted.

According to Ryan’s web site, he has co-sponsored bills on women’s health care, contraception and abortion including: HR 2, “Repeal Health Care Act”; HR 3, “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”; HR 212, Sanctity of Life Act”; HR 217, “Title X Abortion Providers Prohibition Act”; HR 358, “Protect Life Act”; HR 361, ”Abortion Non-discrimination Act of 2011”; “HR 2299, “Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.” These bills contain language which could change the lives of American women and their families each day by altering women’s access to abortion and reliable birth control.

Language from act sponsored by Ryan

The Sanctity of Life Act, which Ryan co-sponsored states: “..the life of each human being begins with fertilization…. at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.” The personhood law, as it is also known, would likely make hormonal (the pill) and barrier (such as the IUD) methods of birth control illegal should it become law as Ryan and his co-sponsors intend. This legislation is a significant change in policy and would affect millions of women who currently use these contraception measures. Abortion would be outlawed under this legislation.

According to Planned Parenthood, Romney often has expressed his support for “personhood” laws, but Paul Ryan’s support is enshrined in the black and white text of his co-sponsorship and vote for HR 212. It is written into the congressional record. It is impossible to misinterpret the meaning or intent of the law, nor is it possible to misunderstand Ryan’s vote. Ryan supports this law.

Ryan’s views are consistent with the Republican Party’s position on personhood. The Republican Platform states: “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

An amendment to the constitution as is called for by the GOP Platform, or a law which would apply 14th Amendment rights to unborn children, is a game-changer for millions of American women. This is not ideological posturing or rhetorical dinner table chit-chat. This is policy which could severely change the lives of American women by denying access to reliable birth control and abortion. The law would require women to carry unplanned pregnancies to term.

The cost of raising a child has skyrocketed to an estimated $234,900. This does not include the price of college. An unexpected pregnancy is often an economic burden on families. While proposing law to outlaw two of the most reliable methods of birth control and outlaw abortion, Ryan also supports policy which would decrease social support systems. The Ryan Budget, endorsed by Mitt Romney, would decrease spending on transportation by 25%, decrease social services by 33% and cut assistance to the poor by 16%. Ryan’s proposals for privatization of Medicare would increase the cost of health care for seniors. At the current level of coverage, getting privatized Medicare in 2009 would have cost the average person an added $64 per month, as reported by Daily Finance. This is a significant increase for many seniors. These are specific policy changes which will affect each and every American. Ryan’s support is written in black and white. His intent is clear.

The New York Daily News points to Ryan’s voting record as being “bad for women” citing his vote against The Lilly Ledbetter Act, which has given women more recourse against discrimination in the workplace. A perusal of Ryan’s voting record, according to Business Week, reveals Ryan has supported 38 anti-abortion laws, including some which make no allowance for rape. Add to this Ryan’s position on The Paycheck Fairness Act, which would have outlawed paycheck discrimination based on sex, and The Violence Against Women Act. Ryan’s position on issues which would advance the well-being of women is clear. The GOP hardline position against legislation which would benefit women and Ryan’s voting record leaves some women convinced the GOP is indeed waging a war against women and that Ryan is one of the generals.

Ryan advocates policy which would outlaw the most dependable methods of contraception, outlaw abortion, restrict access to family planning, cut social services, transportation and assistance to the poor. He supports policy which will raise the cost of Medicare. He supports tax cuts to the wealthy while increasing taxes on the middle class. His policy positions are recorded in Congressional record. They are clear and concise. They provide the best evidence of what policy a Romney-Ryan ticket will endorse should they win the presidential election in 2012.

Voters have a choice. Those of us who believe policy changes advocated by the Romney/Ryan ticket will be positive ones for the country can vote for the ticket with confidence after reviewing congressional records. Those who do not believe the Romney/Ryan policy changes would improve life for the American family may vote against the Romney/Ryan ticket with the same confidence. We need not rely on verbal records and partisan spin. We can take them at their written word.

If you like to write about U.S. politics and Campaign 2012, enter "The American Pundit" competition. Allvoices is awarding four $250 prizes each month between now and November. These monthly winners earn eligibility for the $5,000 grand prize, to be awarded after the November election.

RESOURCES

http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-2012-platform-to-include-call-for-constitutional-ban-on-abortion

http://www.ontheissues.org/mitt_romney.htm

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.212

http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/elections-politics/press-releases/fact-sheet-mitt-romney-supports-dangerous-personhood-amendments-1155.htm

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/paul-ryan-supports-personhood

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/16/paul-ryan-budget-plan-average-american-family/

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/08/paul-ryan-just-plain-bad-for-women

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-22/ryan-opposition-to-abortion-consistent-with-akin-s-no-exceptions

1 of 1

Paul Ryan at a rally (Reuters photo)

CarolynMcGraw is based in Valley Center, California, United States of America, and is an Anchor for Allvoices.

Report Credibility

Credibility
Reach

More News From: Valley Center : CA : USA

Post a Comment Comments: 7

Posted By

MaleMatters | 9 months ago

Re: "NY Daily News points to Congressman Ryan’s voting record as being “bad for women” citing his vote against The Lilly Ledbetter Act"

Here's why Republicans, including Paul Ryan, voted against the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act:

The sole driving force behind the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is the belief that women earn 77 cents to men's dollar in the same jobs.

Contrary to what pay-equity advocates say, women's 77 cents to men's dollar does NOT mean women are paid less than men in the same jobs. Nor does it mean, even more incredibly in the vein of “men are stronger than women” (which means to many that every man is stronger than every woman), that every woman earns 23% less than every man, perhaps leading some of the more benighted and the blinkered ideological to believe Diane Sawyer of ABC News earns less than the young man walking back and forth on the street wearing a “Pizzas $5” sign.

The figures are arrived at by comparing the sexes' median incomes: women's median is 77 percent of men's. In 2009, the median income of full-time, year-round workers was $47,127 for men, compared to $36,278 for women or 77 percent of men's median. http://www.catalyst.org/publication/217/womens-earnings-and-income

Median means 50% of workers earn above the figures and 50% below. That means that a lot of female workers in the higher ranges of women's median make more money than a lot of male workers in the lower ranges of men's median.

The advocates' use of “women's 77 cents to men's dollar" doesn't account for the number of hours worked each week, experience, seniority, training, education or even the job description itself. It compares all women to all men, not people in the same job with the same experience. So the salary of a 60-year-old male computer engineer with 30 years at his company is weighed against that of a young first-year female teacher. Also, men are much more likely than women to work two jobs; hence, more often than women, a man earning, say, $50,000 from his two jobs is weighed against a women earning $25,000 from her one job, so that he appears to be unfairly earning twice as much as she.

Over the decades, strategically ignoring the true meaning of "women's 77 cents to men's dollar" has been less than productive:

No law yet has closed the gender wage gap — not the 1963 Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, not Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not affirmative action (which has benefited mostly white women, the group most vocal about the wage gap - http://tinyurl.com/74cooen), not diversity, not the countless state and local laws and regulations, not the horde of overseers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.... Nor will a "paycheck fairness" law work.

That's because women's pay-equity advocates, who always insist one more law is needed, continue to overlook the effects of female AND male behavior:

Despite the 40-year-old demand for women's equal pay, millions of wives still choose to have no pay at all. In fact, according to Dr. Scott Haltzman, author of "The Secrets of Happily Married Women," stay-at-home wives, including the childless who represent an estimated 10 percent, constitute a growing niche. "In the past few years,” he says in a CNN report at http://tinyurl.com/6reowj, “many women who are well educated and trained for career tracks have decided instead to stay at home.” (“Census Bureau data show that 5.6 million mothers stayed home with their children in 2005, about 1.2 million more than did so a decade earlier....” at http://tinyurl.com/qqkaka. If indeed a higher percentage of women is staying at home, perhaps it's because feminists and the media have told women for years that female workers are paid less than men in the same jobs — so why bother working if they're going to be penalized and humiliated for being a woman.)

As full-time mothers or homemakers, stay-at-home wives earn zero. How can they afford to do this while in many cases living in luxury? Because they're supported by their husband, an “employer” who pays them to stay at home.

The implication of this is probably obvious to 10-year-olds but seems incomprehensible to or is ignored by feminists and the liberal media: If millions of wives are able to accept NO wages, millions of other wives, whose husbands' incomes range from moderate to high, are able to:

-accept low wages
-refuse overtime and promotions
-choose jobs based on interest first, wages second — the reverse of what men tend to do
-take more unpaid days off
-avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining (http://tinyurl.com/3a5nlay)
-work part-time instead of full-time (“In 2011, 22% of male physicians and 44% of female physicians worked less than full time, up from 7% of men and 29% of women from Cejka’s 2005 survey.” http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/03/26/bil10326.htm)

Each of these job choices lowers women's median pay relative to men's.

Women are able to make these choices because they are supported — or, if unmarried, anticipate being supported — by a husband who must earn more than if he'd chosen never to marry. (Still, even many men who shun marriage, unlike their female counterparts, feel their self worth is tied to their net worth.) This is how MEN help create the wage gap: as a group they tend more than women to pass up jobs that interest them for ones that pay well.

So we can stop blaming the income gap on women's job choices and start blaming the choices of both sexes. Which means blaming no one. Which means ending the "equal pay" legislation that acts to lower wages for both male workers and female workers and to create higher prices for customers.

Points to ponder:

If the roles were reversed so that men raised the children and women raised the income, men would average lower pay than women.

Why would "greedy, profit-obsessed" employers, many of whom where possible hire illegal immigrants for their cheap labor, pay men more than women for the same work? If employers could get away with that, they would not hire one man, ever.

The power in money is not in earning it (there is only responsibility, sweat, and stress in earning money). The power in money is in SPENDING it. And, Warren Farrell says in “The Myth of Male Power” at http://www.warrenfarrell.org/TheBook/index.html, "Women control consumer spending by a wide margin in virtually every consumer category." Women (white women) also control most of the wealth. See http://www.she-conomy.com/facts-on-women (Women's control over spending, adds Farrell, gives women control over TV programs.)

“There were fewer cases charging sex-based wage discrimination last year than the year before the [Ledbetter law] was signed, and the wage gap was wider in 2010 than it was in 2007.... The bottom line: In Obama’s first three years in office, the EEOC filed six gender-based wage discrimination lawsuits — down from 18 during Bush’s second term." -BusinessWeek, May 13, 2012, at http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-17/to-lure-womens-votes-obama-turns-to-lilly-ledbetter” and at http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-13/obama-pitches-equal-pay-to-win-women-even-as-charges-drop

The Fact Checker at the liberal Washington Post gives President Obama "One Pinocchio" for lying about the gender wage gap. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-white-houses-use-of-data-on-the-gender-wage-gap/2012/06/04/gJQAYH6nEV_blog.html

Excerpted from "Will the Ledbetter Act Help Women?" at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/will-the-ledbetter-fair-pay-act-help-women/

Reply By