Bush vs. Clinton: The ‘Year of the Woman’--and of Families : The two leading presidential candidates struggle to define ways to cope with new problems at a time when money is the object

That we are in the midst of “The Year of the Woman” is, by now, almost a cliche. An unprecedented 2,500 women are vying for state and national offices, and there is much speculation about whether there will be a “gender gap” in the voting in the presidential election. But underneath the numbers game is a genuine concern among many men and women that the federal government in recent decades has not adequately dealt with issues affecting American women and their families.

Both political parties have tended to treat family issues as “women’s issues.” For that reason, the spirited debate over “family values” this election resonates strongly with many. But at the same time, George Bush has drawn that discussion narrowly. While defending “traditional family values,” he has not always presented real solutions to the pressing needs of parents--fathers and mothers--children and extended families, whether “traditional” or not.

Proof of True Commitment Is in the Appointment Process

A true commitment to women and families must begin with a commitment by the next President to appoint more women to the judiciary and to executive agencies and departments. Of President Bush’s appointments requiring Senate confirmation, 19% have been women. His record is better than that of his predecessors but given the enormous pool of talented women at all levels, the goal should be closer to 50%. Bill Clinton, the Democratic nominee, promises to do better than Bush, and his record of appointments as Arkansas governor is encouraging. As for spoiler-candidate Ross Perot, he has offered precious few details on this issue.

Appointing more women is not simply a matter of “window dressing.” Rather, putting women in key decision-making spots will determine the success of the next Administration’s effort to support women and families. Women sometimes raise different questions than men simply because they have had different experiences; their questions can result in policies that are more inclusive.

Abortion Rights as a Special Concern to Women

Women’s health care is one of the few truly “women’s issues.” Only women get cervical, uterine and ovarian cancers, and one in nine women will develop breast cancer. Heart disease, long considered a men’s problem, is finally acknowledged as a frequent killer of women. Both candidates believe the federal government has too long ignored medical issues of concern to women. Bush created the Women’s Health Initiative to study women’s special health problems and to ensure that women are represented in clinical studies of diseases affecting both sexes. But funding for this effort has been meager; Bush promises more money, Clinton even more.

The highest health concern for most women is the same as it is for most Americans--quality and affordable health care. But for many women, the health issue of most concern is reproductive choice. And it is on this issue, more than any other, that there is a very clear difference of opinion between the two leading candidates. The President’s opposition to abortion is by now well known. His opposition has been a stumbling block for the reproductive rights movement. Worse still has been Bush’s insistence on blocking fetal tissue transplantation and clinical trials of the drug RU486--promising technologies in the treatment of deadly diseases--simply because of his unsubstantiated fear that they “might” encourage some women to seek abortions.

Clinton supports a comprehensive approach to reproduction. He supports a woman’s right to an abortion, as does Perot. Clinton says he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act, and he supports repeal of the gag rule and the Hyde Amendment banning discussion of abortion and the use of federal money to pay for abortions on indigent women. But Clinton believes that the best way to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies--and the number of abortions--is by offering all Americans access to a wide range of contraceptives and family planning information, and by aggressively supporting research and development into new contraceptive technologies. We agree.

It’s time to move beyond the destructive demagoguing on reproductive rights. As a nation, we must agree to disagree on this issue--to acknowledge that not all Americans will either support a woman’s right to choose an abortion or condemn that choice as wrong. However, we must leave the decision about abortion where most Americans think it belongs, with individual women.

Family Values Are Vital--but Policies Must Not Undermine Them

Families are a chief source of support, rewards and pleasure for many Americans. But women--and men--also report that their families exact more stress, demands, sacrifices and pain than any other facet of their lives. Large-scale demographic and economic transformations in the past generation have put the squeeze on families. These forces have combined, as well, to radically redefine what we mean by “family.”

The American dream now requires two wage earners. About 60% of women with children under 5 years of age now work outside the home, along with nearly 80% of women with older children. Half of all marriages now end in divorce, and the number of children born to single mothers is increasing. As a result, only one in four Americans lives in a two-parent family, compared to 40% in 1970.

Policy has not kept pace with these big changes; families have suffered as a result. The challenge is to set forth an agenda that solidifies families--one that encourages initiative and brings together community resources. That agenda should recognize the central role that women have in family life but encourage men to share more equally in its burdens and rewards.

Clinton and Bush differ significantly in their approach to this agenda. Bush sees some reforms, if made mandatory, as having negative consequences for business and, ultimately, for the economic strength of families. But Clinton regards many of the same changes as necessary to the nation’s economic well-being and, therefore, to the health of families.

Family leave is a case in point. Bush has twice vetoed laws to guarantee unpaid leave to care for newborns or ill family members. For Clinton, signing a leave bill would be among his highest priorities. Challenging Bush’s claim that unpaid leave would be an unacceptable burden to businesses, he notes that 122 nations provide some form of parental leave. It is a telling argument.

Struggle to Support a Family Needs Better Economic and Tax Programs

Enhanced tax incentives should also be on the family agenda. Clinton supports a children’s tax credit for middle-class families or a significant reduction in the family’s income tax rate; Bush wants a $500 increase in the per child personal exemption. Perhaps Clinton’s plan would be more helpful--but why not also create tax incentives for parents who adopt? Now, the expenses associated with adoption are not deductible.

High-quality and affordable day care is another priority, but one that neither candidate has adequately addressed. Poor families often have trouble finding care because existing federal aid is so low. The federal Dependent Care Tax Credit assists families with higher incomes, but it covers, at most, 30% of child care expenses. The next President should make quality child care a reality for more parents by encouraging private investment in new facilities; encouraging states to set higher child care subsidies, and allowing tax credits or deductions for the full cost of care.

Only about half the mothers who are due child support payments receive the full amounts. The growing number of “deadbeat dads” has led both Clinton and Bush, as well as Perot, to push for stricter enforcement of court orders. The programs of Bush and Clinton both involve federal agencies and the creation of national databank to track scofflaws. Clinton’s proposal is of long standing; Bush assembled his only last week.

Despite the huge numbers of women in the work force, too many still earn far less than men and face discrimination in hiring, harassment and a “glass ceiling” that blocks promotion. The candidates advocate different--but not well-defined--approaches to eliminating these inequities. Bush has undertaken an initiative to eliminate the barriers to promotion. Clinton wants tougher sexual harassment guidelines for all federal agencies and pay equity.

This election has offered Americans an unprecedented debate on issues ignored by too many presidents and it offers, as well, a clear choice on these issues, central to the lives of so many Americans. Neither candidate has fully addressed all the problems, but on balance Bill Clinton’s proposals for women and families are more sensible.