In this day, some assume that social issues like racial and gender discrimination are a thing of the past, but that’s far from true. It may not exist as often in explicit forms, but it’s still here living and breathing. As a matter of fact, the insidious, underlying, institutional discrimination is sometimes a worse evil. Among the bevy of topics hitting the election horizon are women’s rights, especially in regards to medical care. Abortion legalization is usually at the center of this discussion, but women right’s infringement goes far beyond that and I'll come back to it later.

Equal Work Pay
I think many will be surprised to learn that in 2012, women still do not receive identical employment wages as men for the same position. Research shows that in many cases, women receive $0.77 for every $1.00 men earn. $0.23 may not seem like a huge difference, but it definitely adds up. For instance, if a female is employee is earning $11.55 hourly to a male employee’s $15.00 for 8 hours of work, there’s going to be $27.60 difference in wages by the end of the day- and that’s before taxes are withheld. Single-income houses supported by women and single mothers are hurt most by this divergence. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed into law in 2009 by President Obama, removing statutes of limitations to file an equal pay lawsuit. Earlier proposed versions of the bill did not readily get support from Republican officials and candidate Mitt Romney remained elusive on his views on the act until April 2012 when he confirmed he would not repeal the legislation if elected.

Healthcare Cost/Coverage Discrimination
Results from a study conducted by the National Women’s Law Center revealed that many insurance companies charge higher premiums to women and often exclude coverage of services that only women need, like maternity care. The report also explained how the Affordable Healthcare Act (A.K.A “ObamaCare”) would help eliminate discriminatory practices and expand coverage. As far as I know, Romney’s campaign has not addressed premium gender-bias specifically. There has been much debate about the federal funding of Planned Parenthood, a reproductive health and sexual education organization and chief provider of low-cost women’s health services (ex. cancer screenings and birth control). Some politicians want to cut funding to the organization to reduce government spending or because they feel uncomfortable with Parenthood’s offering of abortion education and procedures (Planned Parenthood maintains that government funds are not used provide abortions). Considering what the group affords women, this stance is sometimes viewed as insensitive to the demographic.

Birth Control/ Abortion
The inclusion of birth control in insurance packages has been as hot of a topic as abortion lately. Some feel that birth control is a voluntary, discretionary medicine that will increase insurance prices if included. The reality is that birth control is often prescribed to help with an array of illnesses influenced by hormonal changes and the reproduction system, such as ovarian cysts. Birth control does indeed have a medicinal purpose other than preventing pregnancy.

On the subject of abortion legalization, it’s often deemed a gender issue because pregnancy and abortion primarily affect women and is decided by a male-dominated U.S. government. Roe V. Wade was the landmark court decision that lead to the legalization of abortion across the nation. Mitt Romney describes himself as “pro-life” and seeks to have the decision overturned, leaving the choice of legalization to individual state government. President Obama wants to uphold Roe V. Wade. “Pro-life” means that one believes each child conceived should live. Those that are “pro-choice” believe that the mother should have the freedom to decide whether or not to carry her child to term. There are many inaccurate stigmas about both. Pro-lifers are often stereotyped as sexist, intense, judgmental individuals who try to traumatize people into disagreeing with abortion by flashing pictures of aborted fetuses. Pro-choicers are sometimes labeled as “baby-killing” murderers who endorse promiscuity and nonchalantly consider abortion as a form of birth control. Neither stereotype is true. There are some fiery pro-life groups and “sexual freedom” pro-choicers, but that isn’t everyone. At the heart of pro-life concern is the loss of a potential life, while freedom and option is the concern of pro-choice.

I am pro-choice and believe that overturning Roe V. Wade would be an injustice towards women; let me tell you why. If abortion is illegal, women WILL back-door the procedure and seek the help of those who are ill-quipped to perform it, opening themselves to infection, illness or death. We don’t want that. 2nd, I believe we have to watch what we allow government to control. The government should not force any woman to carry (or abort, like in China with the one-child policy) a child to term, especially if doing so will threaten the mother’s life or she is a victim of rape or incest. Forcing a woman to carry or abort is violation of personal choice. No, I do not approve of promiscuity or using abortion casually, but that’s just it- it’s never casual. For pregnant women in crisis, deciding to keep, abort or place their child to be adopted is NEVER a causal or easy choice and there are social and personal ramifications with every option. I know this first-hand as I completed an internship at a post-abortion counseling center and met women who all handled their crisis pregnancy differently. I wanted to try diffuse the idea and typecast that abortion is a game for those who seek to receive one.

These are all major issues that profoundly impact the lives, health and freedoms of women and it’s important for the sake of gender equality, we analyze them and question our presidential candidates on how they plan to approach them.

As some of you may or may not know, a video of presidential candidate Mitt Romney leaked earlier this week in which he said the following about some American voters:

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president [Obama] no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Romney was reportedly speaking at a private fundraiser and was unaware of the fact that he was being videotaped (you can view the footage here). If you don’t already see how Romney’s statement is quite misguided, let me attempt to explain how. Romney mentions how this voting cluster doesn’t pay income taxes. If your personal income is extremely low (i.e. the working poor) or non-existent, you may qualify for a tax credit (ex. child tax or earned income credit). According to the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), 60% of non-taxpayers were low-income workers, 22% were elderly individuals on Social Security and 17% were students, unemployed or disabled. These telling figures aside, Romney’s comments are reflective of the negative, stigma-based attitudes about the poor and those on government benefit programs. His statement implied that those who use government benefits are lazy, spoiled and comfortable in the state they’re in. This is a STEREOTYPE. Living below the poverty level is FAR from a comfortable lifestyle. As mentioned before, there are thousands of Americans who work hard and daily for very small wages. Minimum wage in most states is not a livable income, especially if one has children or is taking care of an elder parent. Lots of others have trouble gaining and retaining employment-particularly in this economy-for various reasons, including limited resources (ex. transportation), lack of education and prejudice. When I was working at a fast-food restaurant as a teen, a 50-something year old woman with hardly any teeth turned in an application. The manager told an associate to throw it away and said “She doesn’t have any teeth.” It never ran across his mind that perhaps she couldn’t afford dental care and if he gave her a job maybe she could. Imagine if every potential employer was that prejudiced. She would never find work.

When those in poverty speak of the obstacles that exacerbate their situation, they’re often told that they are complaining, making excuses or think that “they are victims.” This attitude is part of the reason certain things do not improve; few are willing to listen, accept and act when the impoverished or downtrodden speak. They’re called liars and met with judgment and heartlessness. Many have held Romney’s personal financial wealth against him, proposing that he’s “out of touch” and cannot relate to majority of voters. I don’t think it’s fair to assume that he cannot efficiently lead the country or help others simply because he is wealthy (let’s face it, most politicians are well-off and don’t match the demographics of most citizens), but when he makes comments like this, it gives evidence to the argument. Gail Gitcho, a Romney campaign spokeswoman, stated “Mitt Romney wants to help all Americans struggling in the Obama economy…the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government…struggling to find work. Mitt Romney's plan…grows the economy and moves Americans off of government dependency and into jobs." It’s hard to believe that someone is concerned about you when they imply you’re lazy and playing the victim. What’s really confusing is that Romney acknowledges the economic downturn is part of the reason for “government dependency” and unemployment in one breath, but suggests complacency and idleness is the reason in another. Which one is it? As columnist Melissa Harris-Perry wrote: “There is some messy logic involved with insisting people get a job & while campaigning on platform that there are not enough jobs.”

Also on the tape are Romney’s opinions on ABC’s “The View,” saying that appearing on the program would be “high-risk, because, of the 5 women on it, only 1 is conservative and 4 are sharp-tongued and not conservative.” Is it high-risk because the “sharp-tongued” women will challenge his views and he might feel backed into a corner? His views are supposed to be challenged, whether he’s with fellow republicans or not. I would like to think that any citizen or journalist, regardless of political affiliation, would ask the important questions. What are your thoughts on Mitt Romney’s statements?