Lawyer Mama

The White House Twitter Town Hall

Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to attend President Obama's first Twitter Town Hall at the White House. And yes, I got to shake the President's hand.  More on that later....

Because I was there representing Blue Star Families, I paid close attention to the tweets regarding the military, defense spending, and veterans.

President Obama indicated that he wanted to cut defense spending gradually, making the right cuts. He said:

We can’t simply lop off 25 percent off the defense budget overnight. We have to think about all the obligations we have to our current troops who are in the field and making sure they're properly equipped and safe.

In some cases we've got outdated equipment; that needs to be replaced. And so I'm committed to reducing the defense budget. As commander in chief, one of the things that we have to do is make sure that we do it in a thoughtful way that's guided by our security and our strategic needs.  And I think we can accomplish that....

Throughout the tweets regarding defense spending, the President made it clear that veterans must remain a priority, “We’ve got to make sure that we are meeting our commitments for those veterans who are coming home.” He pointed out that we haven't fully realized the costs of all of our veterans coming home and that that the cost of caring for veterans of the recent wars won't peak for another 30 years.

One tweet asked, “Can you give companies a tax break if they hire an honorable discharged veteran?” President Obama said that the higher unemployment rate for our veterans - highly trained soldiers - makes no sense.

This is something that I’ve been talking a lot about internally.  We’ve got all these young people coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan; have made incredible sacrifices; have taken on incredible responsibilities.  You see some 23-year-old who's leading a platoon in hugely dangerous circumstances, making decisions, operating complex technologies.  These are folks who can perform.  But, unfortunately, what we’re seeing is that a lot of these young veterans have a higher unemployment rate than people who didn’t serve.  And that makes no sense.

So what we’d like to do is potentially combine a tax credit for a company that hires veterans with a campaign to have private companies step up and do the right thing and hire more veterans. And one of the things that we’ve done is internally in the federal government we have made a huge emphasis on ramping up our outreach to veterans and the hiring of veterans, and this has been a top priority of mine.  The notion that these guys who are sacrificing for our freedom and our security end up coming home and not being able to find a job I think is unacceptable.

You can read the entire Twitter Town Hall transcript here and watch the video here.

I was fortunate enough to be sitting right on the end of an aisle with my friend, Monique, from the Military Officers Association of America.  We made a pact to try and get photos of one another shaking the Presiden't hand as he came down the aisle.

Well, we both got to shake his hand, but all we got was one extremely blurry iPhone photo of part of Monique's head. So you'll just have to take my word for it!

I know that most of you know this, but I'd like to remind everyone that Blue Star Families is a nonpartisan nonprofit. We don't support or endorse candidates or a political party, not just because of IRS rules, but because the issues military families face are not partisan. While I don't make any judgments or pronouncements on White House policy in this blog post, I do from time to time on this blog. Everything I say on LawyerMama.com reflects my personal views and has absolutely nothing to do with the views of BSF.

“We can’t simply lop off 25 percent off the defense budget overnight,” he said. “We have to think about all the obligations we have to our current troops who are in the field and making sure they're properly equipped and safe.”

“In some cases we've got outdated equipment; that needs to be replaced. And so I'm committed to reducing the defense budget,” Obama said. “As commander in chief, one of the things that we have to do is make sure that we do it in a thoughtful way that's guided by our security and our strategic needs.  And I think we can accomplish that.”

Pundit Mom, Friendship, Politics, and Motherhood

When I first started blogging, I was incredibly lucky.  One of the first commenters I had (that wasn't related to me) was Joanne Bamberger.  I had been stalking her blog for awhile because I so admired her mix of smarts, motherhood and politics on her blog, Pundit Mom. When she We had so much in common, but Joanne also challenged some of my views about politics and feminism. She's made me examine my own biases through a critical lens and she does with a deft hand. (Plus, Joanna is also a recovering lawyer.  Although I didn't know it at the time, we would also eventually have the "recovering" part in common as well.)

Joanne has done so much for me professionally.  When I wouldn't call myself a "real" writer, she smacked me upside the head.  (Virtually, of course.)  She introduced me to others in the bloggy world of moms and politics.  She was my entree into the DC Metro Moms blog and we both joined MOMocrats at the same time.  She's been a loyal cheerleader and an amazing friend over the last 5 years.

In the same time, Joanne has done some wonderful things.  When we met, she was already an accomplished writer and blogger, but now her name is always mentioned as one of the top female political bloggers. She's debated conservatives on CNN, Fox and others.  She's had policy discussions with our country's legislative leaders. She works tirelessly to do all of this with civility and respect for others, something that is often lost in politics.

Now, my dear friend has written a book. Now, this post isn't a review.  I haven't read the book yet. Although, yes, I pre-ordered it on Amazon like, the moment it was available.  But I already know that it's a must read.  You see, the book, Mothers of Intention, takes its name from the series of guest posts from Joanne's blog.  On Pundit Mom, she's been running the Mothers of Intention series for several years. (My post for the series appears in February of 2008.) She features women writing about politics, bt she doesn't just feature political writers.  Joanne has managed to talk women (conservative and progressive) who swore they knew nothing about politics to open up and realize, well, HECK YEAH, maybe I DO have some opinions!  And yes, those opinions matter.

The book also brings Jo's always thoughtful analysis to the topic of how women and social media are revolutionizing politics on both sides of the aisle.  It's not just the boys' game anymore and Joanne knows it.  I can't wait to read it.  I hope you'll read it too.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should tell you that I'm a contributor to the book, although it's not the post linked above.  But I'm just one of many, many thoughtful voices in the book.  I'm actually amazed to be included with such wonderful women and I have Joanne to thank for that.

You can preorder Mothers of Intention now!

Remembering Elizabeth Edwards

In the Summer of 2007, I attended my first BlogHer convention.  I had been blogging for about a year and had just begun flirting with writing about politics.  I had very firm opinions about everything from women's rights to foreign policy, but I wasn't a political blogger.  Oh no.  Why would anyone listen to what I had to say about politics?

But at BlogHer 2007, sitting in an audience of women (and a few men), I listened to Elizabeth Edwards talk about politics, her battle with breast cancer, and the power of women online, and all of that started to change.

I had supported John Edwards from my cozy armchair during his presidential run in 2004. I supported him again during the Democratic primary in 2008. And shortly after BlogHer in 2007, I heard that a group of women I greatly admire were starting a political blog for mothers supporting John Edwards for president. I asked pleaded begged to be a part of it.  And all of a sudden, I was a MOMocrat.

I don't want to revise history.  Despite the fact that John Edwards turned out to be a complete asshat and a poor excuse for a human being, leading up to the 2008 primary he was the only one talking about the issues that mattered most to me.  He was the first Democratic candidate to come up with a comprehensive health care reform plan and his talk of "Two Americas" brought the plight of poverty in the US to light.  Poverty isn't something that politicians like to talk about.  Not a lot of poor people are out there making political donations and their advocates don't have a lot of money either. But John and Elizabeth Edwards were acting as the voice for the people in this country who need it most.  I admired that.  I still do.

Elizabeth Edwards inspired me to write about my convictions. She inspired me to become a MOMocrat, to let my voice as a mother, a woman and a citizen be heard. I like to remember the time I had a chance to participate in a conference call with Ms. Edwards. (Some of my lucky fellow MOMocrats in California got to meet with her in person.)  Here's an excerpt from my blog post after the call:

Read the rest of this post on MOMocrats....

Becoming a Real MOMocrat: 2010 Election Night

My husband and I have taken our sons to vote every year since they were born.  It's important to both of us that our boys know and understand that voting isn't just a privilege, but a responsibility of citizenship.  We want them to pay attention to politics and what is happening in their country and seeing us vote was a good way to start out.

Of course, Hollis and Holden are incredibly lucky little boys. There have been no shortage of politicians in their short lives. Hollis still talks about seeing Barack Obama and the time he met Vice President Biden.  With our close proximity to DC, they've visited the White House several times and love to visit the "Capitol City," singing "I'm Just a Bill" from School House Rock all the way.  With the parents they have, it will also be difficult for them to miss the political screaming matches vigorous political disucssions that take place in our home.

But I think we took it to the next level today.

A good friend and I took our 6 year olds to a local watering hole for dinner with the intention of watching the election returns.  They very nicely turned one of the 50 or so TV's to MSNBC for us and we settled in to watch.  Unfortunately, we were getting frustrated with the lack of local coverage of Virginia's 2nd Congressional District race.  We both campaigned for Congressman Glenn Nye and I even appeared in a commercial for him.  We asked the eatery to change another tv to a local station and they said no.  "No more politics."  (Buffalo Wild Wings in Chesapeake, Virginia, I'm talking to you!)

Read the rest of this post on MOMocrats.com....

Bob McDonnell's Republican Response to the SOTU: A Military Misstep

Last night, the MOMocrats hosted a live blog of the State of the Union address and the Republican response.  It was an inspiring speech by Obama and, I think, one of his best.  The Republican response, however, had me out of my seat hollering at the TV, and not in a good way.

The State of the Union is, I think, a marvelous example of how inspiring our political system can be.  I never fail to be moved when I hear the Congressional Cryer yell, "Madame (or Mister) Speaker, the President of the United States!"  It doesn't matter whether the President in question is a Republican or a Democrat; it's always a thrilling experience.  The State of the Union is required by Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient...." Since 1790, the State of the Union has been delivered approximately every 12 months.

All members of Congress, from both sides of the aisle, are present, as are some of the Supreme Court justices, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President's Cabinet, with the exception of the designated survivor. (As an interesting side note, the designated survivor for last night's address was Shaun Donovan, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.)  While Congress invites the President to attend, it is typical for the White House to invite guests as well.  Last night, several military service and family members were in the box with Mrs. Obama and Dr. Biden. 

There are many perks to being President, one of which is having the military and military backdrops at your command.  This use of the military and its service members as props became much more common during the term of George W. Bush. The most prominent being Bush's landing on an aircraft carrier and then speaking with a huge "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background.

Make no mistake, the State of the Union, while definitely a political event, is not a partisan political event.  The Joint Chiefs of Staff and invited military guests attend as part of their service to our country.  The rebuttal to the State of the Union is another animal entirely.  It is completely partisan, begun only in 1966 and traditionally given by a representative from the party not currently occupying the White House.

Virginia Governor (of only 11 days) Bob McDonnell gave the Republican response from the Virginia capitol building in Richmond.  McDonnell had an audience of mostly regular people. (Oh, and some Virginia Republican legislators.  Bob apparently failed to invite any Democrats until about 2 hours before the drop dead RSVP time on the afternoon of the speech.)  There were even people behind McDonnell on risers as if it were a political rally.  The setting was a smart move on the part of Republican strategists.  It gave McDonnell and audience responding to him, giving the speech a much more "official" and emotional appeal than canned studio speeches given in the past.

The content of McDonnell's speech was not surprising.  It was rendered somewhat irrelevant by most of President Obama's speech, but that tends to be par for the course when you're responding to a speech you haven't yet read or viewed, with pre-loaded teleprompters.  Plus, I read the rebuttal before the State of the Union began, so I knew what was coming. No, what surprised me was the individual sitting behind McDonnell and to our left.

Continue reading this post on MOMocrats....

Pot, Meet Kettle - I Mean Harry Reid

I'm sure you've all heard about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's really stupid comment from those book excerpts that are floating around.  He apparently said that people would support Barack Obama for President because he was a "light skinned" African American who didn't have a "Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one."  Now, don't get me wrong, that was, in hindsight, kind of a stupid thing to say for someone who lives his life in the spotlight as the U.S.'s most visible senator.  But racism?  I don't see it.  What I do see is a lot of Republican spin.

I was floored by the Republican Party's response.  Sensing weakness, Republican leaders have decided to try and take Reid down.  I find it amazing that Republicans and TeaBaggers are apparently allowed to say anything they'd like about our President, including calling him a Communist and saying that he hates America. (Listen to the story on NPR).  Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) even loudly called Obama a "liar" during his State of the Union speech. Apparently the standards applied to Reid don't apply to Republicans, who have suddenly become self-proclaimed guardians of racial sensitivity in this county.

Michael Steele couldn't help himself and engaged in some righteous indignation, stating that Reid should step down as majority leader because of his remarks.

Really, Michael Steele?  Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle.*

I frequently refer to Michael Steele as the "gift that keeps on giving" to the Democratic Party.  I look forward to his public statements on a daily basis.  Every day seems to bring new treasure caused by the vomitus of the mouth Steele seems to have.

How can anyone forget that Steele recently said, "Our platform is one of the best political documents that's been written in the last 25 years. Honest injun on that?"  Steele also famously indicated that he would reach out to black voters by offering them fried chicken and potato salad. 

I think that Steele's "honest injun" comment was extremely insensitive.  It's akin to stating that you "got gypped" or that someone "jewed you down" in price.  So Michael Steele should definitely tone down the anti-Harry Reid rhetoric before that one bites him in the ass. Despite Steele's inability to self-censor, however, I don't think that his fried chicken comment was racism or some sort of self-loathing.  Steele was using a stereotype about black people to a largely black audience to get a laugh.  He meant it in a, "You know, those crazy white people think we just eat fried chicken.  Ha ha," kind of way.  It wasn't racism.

What Harry Reid said wasn't racist either.

My friend Gunfighter has a great post over on his blog today about the whole debacle.  Go read it.  In his post, GF wrote this:

What I can tell you with all of the certainty that I can muster, is that Harry Reid's recent comments described above, don't prove that he is a racist.  Indeed, his statement proves that despite the unpleasant things I just said about him, Harry Reid knows a little something about the American political process and the pulse of the American electorate.

I think Gunfighter is right on the money.

People have missed an important distinction here.  If Harry Reid had said that *he* would vote for Obama because he was light skinned and didn't speak with a Negro accent, that would be a racist remark. Simply stating an opinion that other people would vote for Obama because of his light skin and speech patterns is not racism. It's political candor. 

* I'm using this statement to make a point.  Because, black, in the pot and kettle sense, does not refer to race.  But I'm sure a good Republican strategist could have the FNC crowd frothing at the mouth over  it in no time at all.

BlogHer Interviews Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

This morning, BlogHer's Morra Aarons Mele interviewed Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius about health care reform.  BlogHer landed the interview late last week and then had to get the word out in the middle of Snowpocalypse 2009.  I'm really impressed that Secretary Sebelius kept the scheduled interview at 9:30am, even though the federal government was officially closed today because of the Winter storm.

You can see all of the questions posed by BlogHer members on the BlogHer website, including my own question regarding restricting access to abortion.  If you scroll down a bit after my comment, check out the comment by Cyn.  I think she asked the question far more thoroughly, and more coherently, than I did!

Secretary Sebelius answers my question, in part, at about 3:20.

Here is my question/comment in full:

I'm concerned about the possibility that several states will pass mini-Stupak amendments, severely restricting abortion access for many women.

It seems that the media, and even most politicians, have focused solely on the affect Stupak (on the national or state level) would have on optional abortions.  What seems to be missing from this debate is any knoweldge about medically necessary abortions - otherwise known as a D&C.  D&C's are frequently performed when a natural miscarriage is incomplete to prevent hemorhagging and infection.  

Perhaps I'm hyper aware of this because of my own struggles to have a child and the 2 medically necessary d&c procedures I've endured - both covered by insurance. But I am absolutely infuriated that a woman's health and future fertility could be put at risk by such an amendment.  I fail to see how this is any different from restricting access to medical treatment for any other condition.

Is the administration aware of this?  What will the administration do to ensure that women (and this does solely affect *women*) aren't put at risk by the willingness of politicians to serve up abortion rights as "compromise."  The reproductive health of so many women could be at stake.

For those of you who aren't aware, Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) negotiated an amendment to the Senate version of the health care bill that would permit states to place further restrictions on funds used for abortion.  This will allow states to create their own mini-Stupak amendments.  The Stupak-Pitts amendment from the House version of the bill, restricted federal funds used for abortions in plans on the exchange, except in cases of incest, rape or the where the life of the mother is in danger.  There is no exception for procedures that are medically necessary to protect the future fertility of the mother if it doesn't rise to the level of risk of death.

Secretary Sebelius didn't address the more specific concerns that I mentioned in my question, but to be fair, the whole question wasn't asked. I understand why the more general question was asked.  Morra had a set amount of time and it's nearly impossible to ask someone in Secretary Sebelius's position to comment on individual situations.  I should have crafted my question more broadly to specifically address how restrictions will impact medically necessary abortion procedures.  

Don't get me wrong, even if the bill had been drafted more precisely, I'd still be annoyed.  Abortion is a legal procedure.  And it definitely needs to be.  A good friend, and fellow local progressive, became a nurse before abortion was legal.  She still shudders when she talks about what happened to some women forced to seek back alley or do-it-yourself abortions.

Unfortunately I think the concerns many women have about restricting abortion access are simply being ignored.  My fear is that restricting optional abortion access will lead to restrictions of medically necessary abortions, ensuring that only women of means will be able to obtain an abortion, whether optional or medically necessary. The idea that a legal procedure, one that is frequently necessary to preserve the future fertility of women, will be restricted, is infuriating to me. I don't see why the Nelson amendment couldn't have been crafted more creatively and specifically to prevent this.  Unfortunately, Congress is using an axe and a sledgehammer when they should have used a surgical knife to carefully carve out restrictions to a legal medical procedure.

Sarah Palin: When Reality is Irrelevant

By now you've all heard about, and possibly read, this month's Vanity Fair piece about Sarah Palin by Todd S. Purdum, It Came from Wasilla.  (If you haven't, go read it!)  It's an expose about the train wreck that was the McCain-Palin campaign in the final few months.  But this time, we hear a bit more than leaks about Sarah Palin being a "whack job," a "diva," or "going rogue."  My favorite revelation?  Apparently Palin's handlers started calling her the "Little Shop of Horrors" within a week.

There's a nice follow up article in Politico today about the Republican infighting generated by the Vanity Fair piece.  Bill Kristol, an adviser to the McCain campaign and someone rumored to have been responsible for McCain's selection of Palin as a running mate, started off the bitch fest with a post on The Weekly Standard's blog criticizing the Vanity Fair article.  Since then, he and Steve Schmidt, McCain's campaign manager, have basically traded school yard insults, dragging in Randy Scheunemann, a McCain foreign policy adviser.  Keep it up, boys.  We really don't care who leaked all the stuff about Palin during the campaign or whether one of you suggested she might have post-partum depression.  It's all good for the Democrats!

Here's a sampling of the pissing match:

“Bill Kristol, going back to the time of the campaign, has taken a lot of cheap shots at the campaign without ever offering a plausible path to victory,” Schmidt said. “He’s in the business of ad hominem insults and criticism.”

Responding to Schmidt’s counterattack, Kristol directly fingered Schmidt: “It’s simply a fact that when the going got tough, Steve Schmidt trashed Sarah Palin, both within the campaign and (on background) to journalists. This was after Steve took credit for the Palin pick when, at first, he thought it made him look good. John McCain deserved better.”

At this, Schmidt unloaded in a lengthy telephone interview, suggesting that Kristol was carrying out a personal vendetta based out of anger over the attempt to fire Scheunemann in the final days of the campaign.

Man, it doesn't get much better than this.

Finish reading Sarah Palin: When Reality is Irrelevant on MOMocrats....

Moms Inspired to Change History

8 Women Making a Difference

by Joanne Bamberger aka Pundit Mom

They refer to us as soccer moms. TV commercials still show mothers, not the fathers, as the ones wiping up spills and wiping noses. As important as parenting is, plenty of mothers have more on their agendas -- they're finding their own ways to make their mark and change the world. Here are eight we found particularly inspiring.

Stephanie Himel-Nelson and Vivian Greentree, Blue Star Families
Stephanie Himel-Nelson and Vivian Greentree, each a mother of two young sons, were never political activists until the 2008 presidential campaign. Both had connections to the armed services, though, and wanted to help highlight the many issues faced by military families. From the Hampton Roads area of Virginia, both women played integral roles of Blue Star Families for Obama (BSF4O) -- Greentree as the group's director for leadership, and Himel-Nelson as deputy outreach director.

Read more at MSN....

Now personally, I think Joanne should have included herself in this article.

Would Women Rather Have Equal Pay or a Prayer Caucus? Hmmm....

Please welcome Progressive Gal, a dear friend of mine who blogs at The Liberal Life of a Navy Wife. She's been my political partner in crime since she cyber-stalked me and we met for the first time in July of 2008.

Although you probably wouldn't know this from reading my political posts at MOMocrats, Glenn Nye is not really my congressman.  My actual congressman, Randy Forbes, is a right wing Republican.  He was also running against a Democratic candidate in 2008 who didn't have a bat's chance in hell or two nickels to rub together.  So PG and I threw our efforts into the congressional race in the 2nd District between Thelma Drake and Glenn Nye.  Sometimes we like to pretend that we live in his district but, alas, we do not.

When PG wrote our actual congressman about his vote regarding the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, he wrote back an email that pissed us both off. We had to reply, and so we wrote this response together. 

Snark by PG, wonk by me.

***************************************************

With the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act by both the House and Senate, we wanted to take the time to share the rationale of one Congressman who voted against it. Congressman Randy Forbes (R-Va.) is one of the 171 Congressmen who voted against equal pay for women. Here is an excerpt from his (or apparently a less able staffer's) lackluster rationale to defend his vote against women along with our critique of his arguments. The short version is: I really care about fair pay, really I do. I just don't want to take any measures that actually ensure any regulation. You'll just clog up the court system when they need to be concentrating on other things like ensuring my rights to use taxpayers' time and money to host Congressional Prayer Caucuses. It's all about family values, dontcha know?

Here is his response:

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, by a vote of 247 - 171 without my support. This bill would allow employees to file charges of alleged employment discrimination within 180 days of the last paycheck received that is affected by alleged discrimination. By permitting such claims to be brought within 180 days - not of a discriminatory pay decision, but of a paycheck affected by that decision - the measure would effectively eliminate the statute of limitations on such cases. While this bill's stated intention was to improve pay equity, this ill-advised provision would almost certainly encourage the filing of claims that are not timely, and thus add to the already considerable burden on the courts. There is no evidence to suggest that the current statute of limitations has resulted in any demonstrable prejudice against claims by employees for pay discrimination.

Well, Congressman Forbes, let's talk about your "problems" with the bill.

1. Statute of Limitations

Congressman, you state that permitting claims to be filed within 180 days of the last paycheck affected by that decision would effectively eliminate the statute of limitations. Ummm, we're not seeing how. Once an employee leaves the company, she has 180 days to file suit. Looks like a pretty clear limitation to me.

Moreover, the "statute of limitations" effectively set by the Supreme Court case the Ledbetter legislation overturns, only permits women to recover for pay discrimination in the 180 day period before they file an EEOC complaint, no matter how long the discrimination has occurred, how the company concealed it, or how egregious the violation. This limitation effectively nullifies the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Most people don't openly discuss their salaries, particularly when starting a new job. In fact, some company policies prohibit employees from discussing their salaries with other employees. If that's the case, no employee could ever discover that they had been discriminated against in a salary decision. The Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, effectively places the burden on the employee to prevent the pay discrimination. This burden should be on the company not the employee. The company is the only party with all of the pay information. Placing this onus on the employee effectively permits companies to discriminate at will. Is that what you mean by wanting to "ensure that businesses are able to operate in an environment where they can grown [SIC] and thrive."

2. Overburdened Courts

You also claim that the new legislation will "encourage" untimely pay discrimination suits and increase the burden on our court system. Let's talk about what "untimely" means. If a suit is filed within 180 days of a paycheck affected by a discriminatory decision, how is that untimely? See paragraph #1 if you're still confused about why it is that employees can't jump on the lawsuit bandwagon immediately after a pay decision.  Pay discrimination often adds up in small increments over time, only become noticeable or "lawsuit worthy" after the period set by the Supreme Court in the Ledbetter case.

You are correct that the intent of the new legislation is to increase pay equity. Without this legislation, pay inequity will almost certainly continue. The easy fix for this is, of course, for companies to carefully consider the basis for their pay decisions and to ensure that inequity doesn't result from gender bias. You may find this surprising, but most companies don't change their practices unless they will suffer financially if they do not.  Therein lies the "motivation" behind much of our country's workplace legislation.

Following your line of reasoning, perhaps we should stop prosecuting claims of civil rights violations, or maybe we should let rape and murder slide. After all, our courts are awfully busy. Where do we stop? Where is the line? When exactly is it acceptable to discriminate? Congressman Forbes, I guess you have decided the line is drawn right before women get equal pay. Thanks so much. Professional women and girls across America thank you for attempting to prevent our judicial system from becoming overburdened.

3. No Evidence of Demonstrable Prejudice

Congressman, you really saved the best for last, didn't you?  You state that there has been "no demonstrable evidence" of employees prejudiced by the current statute of limitations.  Amazingly, you did this without a hint of irony given the personal moniker of the Act. Who do you think Lilly Ledbetter is, Congressman? We've read her court cases. We know that the trial court did indeed find that Ms. Ledbetter was discriminated against by Goodyear in pay decision after pay decision. The 11th Circuit and the Supreme Court decided to rewrite the statute of limitations, effectively limiting Ms. Ledbetter's recovery for 20 years of discrimination to pay decisions made in 1997 and 1998. I'd call that prejudice.

Oh, and Mr. Congressman, the fact that you responded to our initial query with an email addressed to "Mister," assuming the writer was a man, does perhaps explain your indifference to women's issues. Perhaps you also assume that the absence of a "Women's Issues" link on your website's issue page is compensated for by having a "Family Values" link. Or, maybe you just don't want to highlight your dearth of support for your women constituents and hope we'll all be satisfied by you praying for us at one of your prayer caucuses or writing letters in support of funding abstinence-only sex education.

Whatever the case, we can assure you that women can, and do, follow the issues. We also read court cases, legislation, and voting records. We also happen to campaign against those politicians we feel don't share our value systems. And, we do all this while being wives and mothers.

We know you have two years until your next election, Mr. Congressman, but this is your warning notice. You've seriously pissed off these two constituents. First with your vote and then with the thin, unsubstantiated response you provided. Perhaps you don't care about the voices of two women, but we should warn you that we have big mouths, a political network of progressive women (many of whom happen to live in your district) and the motivation to make sure you aren't in office in 2011.

Sincerely,
Progressive Gal &
Lawyer Mama

P.S. Please teach your staffers how to proofread if you want to be taken seriously.

Cross posted at MOMocrats, where Lawyer Mama joins other powerful lady bloggers in using her voice to call out politicians like Randy Forbes, and at The Liberal Life of a Navy Wife, where Progressive Gal does the same.

In case anyone is wondering, Glenn Nye voted for the Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act.  Yet another reason why we are his political "groupies."