Independent Women's Forum RSS feed

Sunday Reflection: Yes, there are gentlemen on campus

Karin Agness — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:04:00 CST

Susan Patton's controversial letter to the Daily Princetonian advising Princeton women to search for husbands while on campus may encourage more college women to focus on dating and finding a man.

But what happens to the college woman who hasn't found someone by senior year? Some such women are embracing the term SWUG -- "Senior Washed-Up Girls."

One senior at Yale interviewed for a New York Magazine article on SWUGs complained that "she's kind of tired of the free-wheeling frat hookup culture that's so compelling to younger students. The guys know this about women her age, she says, and so they don't generally hit on senior girls."

To be a SWUG is to join a group of women who have "given up on boys because they don't so much empower as frustrate, satisfy as agitate." Their self-description is pretty depressing.

SWUGs "don't bother dressing up for class, or even for fancy parties (though they might still attend them), don't seek out meaningful (or just sexual) relationships, spend weekends at their shared homes drinking in the company of other self-identified SWUGs, and feel utter apathy about their personal lives -- all at the age of 21."

The swugdiaries.com blog, which includes anonymous posts about SWUGlife, claims that "being washed up has never been so much fun." Yet the interviews and blog posts convey sadness, frustration and discontent with college men, suggesting that these women aren't really actively choosing SWUGlife, but are describing the sad state of affairs fostered by campus culture.

SWUGs, keep reading.

Rather than reject college men entirely for sweatpants, wine and friends, SWUGs should look around their campus at the men who aren't a part of the dysfunctional hookup culture. They'll likely find that some gentlemen do exist among their peers.

The Network of enlightened Women, an organization for conservative university women, holds an annual contest on Facebook, the Gentlemen's Showcase, to identify such men.

By honoring college gentlemen, the Gentlemen's Showcase seeks to promote mutual respect between men and women, and in turn, better relations between the sexes and healthy relationships.

Alfonse Muglia, a junior at Cornell University, was just named the 2013 Gentleman of the Year. Muglia is a leader on campus, serving as the editor-in-chief of the Cornell Review, treasurer of his fraternity, captain of the intramural flag-football team and a founder of the Campus Liberty Project. He is the type of guy that Patton likely means when she advises the women at Princeton to be on the lookout for a life partner.

Where did Muglia learn gentlemanly behavior? From his father, who "really exemplifies the precious things that a gentleman does to make other people's lives easier. Like the way he will drop my Grandma off at the front door of church, not because she has any trouble walking from across the parking lot but because 'hey, she doesn't have to,' as he says."

Muglia is following in that tradition. He explains, "The best way I think I have exemplified a gentlemen is through the little, daily things I have tried to do in order to make other people's lives easier and show them that they are important to me."

While Muglia is exemplary, the young men identified during this contest are an impressive group. As Muglia said, there are many other gentlemen on campus today:

"Gentlemen absolutely still exist today. I think this contest demonstrated just that. My peers, representing schools across America, displayed the traits of respect, generosity and honor that should be expected of all men, and there are plenty of my classmates at Cornell that are just as qualified for this recognition.

"At the same time, as a society, we should remember to hold these characteristics in high esteem and actually make a conscience effort to encourage gentlemanly behavior."

Muglia doesn't seem like someone who will dismiss all senior women, but instead someone who will respect them. Rather than giving up on men, SWUGs should make sure they are looking for the right kind of men and encouraging the right kind of behavior.

NeW's Gentlemen's Showcase demonstrates that there are some gentlemen out there, so these women might want to take Patton's advice and keep looking

Karin Agness is a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum and founder and president of the Network of Enlightened Women.

Karin Agness is a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum and founder and president of the Network of enlightened Women.

Karin Agness joins KFKA's AM Colorado to discuss how women candidate's appearance can effect their electability

Karin Agness — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:04:00 CST

It isn't your imagination. The media has a tendency to focus on the appearance of women candidates versus what their views on the issues are. Karin Agness joins KFKA's AM Colorado to discuss how this affects the electability of female candidates.

The Effects of Media's Focus on Women Candidates' Appearance Aren't Pretty

Karin Agness — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:04:00 CST

If Hillary Clinton's new haircut "sends a signal of shimmering intention" about another presidential run according to New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, then I wonder what signal Vice President Joe Biden's hair is sending.

While predicting a person's political future by a haircut seems harmless, research released this week by Name It. Change It., a joint project of the Women's Media Center and She Should Run, suggests that how the press covers the appearance of women candidates matters in elections.

Name It. Change It. seeks to "end sexist and misogynistic coverage of women candidates by all members of the press -- from bloggers to radio hosts to television pundits." Since Gloria Steinem spoke at Name It. Change It's launch, it might be tempting to dismiss the effort as that of another left-wing feminist group meant to advance the interests solely of liberal women candidates. Yet Representative Michele Bachmann is featured on the group's homepage, along with Representative Nancy Pelosi and Senator Elizabeth Warren under the tagline, "when you attack one woman, you attack all women."

The research shows the importance of discouraging the media's focus on the appearance of women candidates. Using an online survey of 1500 likely voters nationwide with an oversample of 100 young women voters, age 18-35, Lake Research Partners and Chesapeake Bay Consulting conducted an experiment with a hypothetical Congressional contest between a female candidate, Jane Smith, and a male candidate, Dan Jones. Survey participants read a profile of the two candidates and then heard a series of news stories containing different details on the appearance of the woman candidate, with a quarter hearing no appearance description, and a quarter each hearing a negative, positive or neutral appearance description.

It is not surprising that the research found that negative coverage damages the woman's candidacy. But what about the positive coverage? The positive description stated, "In person, Smith is fit and attractive and looks even younger than her age. At the press conference, smartly turned out in a ruffled jacket, pencil skirt, and fashionable high heels..." Many women candidates would probably like being described as looking fit and attractive, but not after this survey.

As Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners explains, "Women candidates pay a real price when they are covered in a way that focuses on their appearance."

The study found that any coverage of a woman candidate's appearance had a detrimental impact on her candidacy. Regardless of whether the coverage of her appearance was framed negatively, positively or in neutral terms, it damaged her candidacy with these potential voters. Appearance coverage dragged down how appealing the woman candidate was on some key traits, with the greatest average losses on the qualities of being in touch, likeable, confident, effective and qualified. Someone might want to mention this to President Barack Obama, who last week told a group of donors that California Attorney General Kamala Harris is "the best looking attorney general in the country." He later apologized.

While Name It. Change It. may work to discourage the media's focus on women candidates' appearance, this group may face an uphill battle. So, what is a woman candidate to do? The research found that the woman candidate can regain ground by responding directly to the coverage, saying something like it "has no place in the media," "my appearance is not news" or "we must end this type of coverage for women candidates."

This is helpful information for women running for office. The fact that we have a record number of women in the Senate shows that more women are figuring out how to navigate being a woman candidate successfully.

One key lesson from this research for women candidates is that they are better off if they can limit press coverage of their appearance. That means that if Michelle Obama decides to run for office, she would be wise to turn down the next offer to appear on the cover of Vogue.

Karin Agness is a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum and founder and president of theNetwork of Enlightened Women.

Reexamining Women’s Success at the Workplace

Karin Agness — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:03:00 CST

Each day seems to feature yet another story about another woman weighing in on that always touchy subject: How do women succeed at work without sacrificing too much of their personal lives? And how do women define success anyway?

Yahoo’s CEO Marissa Mayer—she’s the one who caused the storm with her decision to end Yahoo’s policy allowing employees to work from home—touched on another third-rail in this debate, and that’s whether she even accepts the term “feminist.”

In a recently released PBS/AOL documentary, Mayer didn’t just reject the term, she spoke out against some of the problems with this increasingly antiquated movement: “I don’t…have sort of the militant drive and sort of the chip on the shoulder that sometimes comes with [feminism]. And I think it’s too bad, but I do think feminism has become, in many ways, a more negative word.”

If Mayer may be ambivalent about feminists, feminists are certainly ambivalent about her. Mayer, who had her first child in September, has been denounced for eliminating the option of telecommuting for her employees. A staff memo from Yahoo’s head of HR, who commutes 6,000 miles a week roundtrip, explained that “speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home,” and that working physically together would help Yahoo become a better company. Some call Mayer a hypocrite for having a nursery built at the office, while taking away flexibility from the company’s employees. Building an office nursery would normally be cheered as an example of workplace flexibility benefitting women, but not after her decision to end remote work.

Yet Mayer has been a problematic figure for feminists long before this telecommuting decision. Her rise to power raises many questions that traditional feminists seem loath to answer: How does feminism define success in the workplace today? Is it considered feminist for a female CEO like Mayer to bring her baby to work? Or anti-feminist for Mayer to show her caretaking side so publicly at the workplace? Was Mayer’s decision to end the company’s work-from-home policy a sign of progress that a woman CEO can make that decision as a business decision? Or should it be viewed as a step backwards because women (and it is important to acknowledge that this change also affects men) lose workplace flexibility?

Mayer, for her part, probably doesn’t have time for worrying about these distinctions. In addition to being a CEO, she is a new mother, and as her posting of a picture on twitter of her and her baby at the office shows, she doesn’t seem to linger on any perceived conflict between these two roles.

Mayer isn’t alone in her discomfort with the term feminist. When I speak on campuses, college women are quick to point out the negative connotation surrounding the word feminism. Feminists have fought back on campus with “This is what a feminist looks like” t-shirts, trying to show the many different types of people who proudly call themselves feminists. But feminists have to be especially frustrated to have one of the few female CEOs of a Fortune 500 company disclaim the term. No t-shirt is going to fix this.

Perhaps feminists would benefit from embracing a little of the flexibility that they push for the rest of the world. Many feminist organizations have defined success as getting women to the top of the most elite professions. Yet feminism set women up for failure when it decided to measure the success of women in the workplace with this numbers game. Not all women want top jobs at big companies like Mayer. Some want part-time positions, and others would prefer to not work at all. To achieve real success, we need a truly flexible work world—and, yes, that includes the flexibility for executives to decide not to offer telework or flextime.

As Women’s History Month comes to an end, we should celebrate how much women have achieved both inside and outside of the workplace. Mayer may not even be aware that it is Women’s History Month—and that may be a great sign of just how far women have come.

Karin Agness is a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum and founder and president of the Network of Enlightened Women.

From Hope And Change To Persevere

Karin Agness — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:03:00 CST

In four years, we’ve gone from hope and change to perseverance.

Although millennials were a core part of President Barack Obama’s winning coalition in both the 2008 and 2012 elections, young people continue to struggle in our beleaguered economy. Worse, there is little reason for optimism that their prospects will brighten any time soon and much reason to expect that their financial burdens will increase even more. Our persistently gloomy economy is one obstacle to millennials’ advancement, but Obama’s second-term plans are another.

According to Generation Opportunity, the unemployment rate for 18- to 29-year-olds in February was 12.5 percent. If you count the additional 1.7 million young Americans who have quit even looking for jobs, the unemployment rate jumps to 16.2 percent — meaning that nearly one in six young people is out of work. And this doesn’t even include all of the underemployed millennials — all of those who are working part-time in retail, for example, instead of using their degrees to start the careers of their dreams.

Younger workers lucky enough to have jobs face a tightening monthly budget. January brought a 2 percent reduction in take-home pay as the Social Security payroll tax holiday expired. This, along with student loan repayments and rising costs of gas and food, means that many millennials are just scraping by and can’t afford to live on their own.

Sadly, it seems as if each new policy proposal from the White House leads to fewer, rather than more, job opportunities and increases the financial burden on young people.

Take the Affordable Care Act, for example. It was praised as a step toward delivering affordable health insurance for everyone. According to a comprehensive joint House-Senate report, younger Americans could see their premiums climb by as much as 189 percent. Another study predicts a 42 percent increase for those between the ages of 21 and 29 due to the Affordable Care Act’s age rating restriction. This restriction limits the amount insurers can charge older people — who have considerably higher health care costs — to a maximum of three times the rate charged to younger people. The study also predicts that single people in their 30s purchasing coverage can expect more than a 30 percent increase in premium costs. Why should young people — who also tend to be poorer people — bear more of the financial cost of health care? Is this the hope and change we were promised?

During the State of the Union, the president proposed raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.00 an hour. Such mandates are often billed as a boon to the young and poor, yet out-of-work millennials know differently. Making it more expensive to hire people means fewer first jobs. Of course millennials want to earn more than $7.25 an hour, but those first, lowest-paying jobs tend to be more about skill-building and work experience. They are a step on a pathway up the economic ladder. Making it more expensive for a business to offer such positions means that fewer Americans will be getting on the economic ladder at all.

Morehouse College recently announced that Obama will speak at its commencement ceremony in May. Expect him to offer an inspirational address and promise a brighter future for this year’s graduates. But college seniors and other young people would benefit from some candid advice that Obama offered Barnard College students last year at commencement:

“My last piece of advice — this is simple, but perhaps most important: Persevere. Persevere. Nothing worthwhile is easy. No one of achievement has avoided failure — sometimes catastrophic failures. But they keep at it. They learn from mistakes. They don’t quit.”

Unemployed Americans of all ages might wish that the president himself would learn from his mistakes — the failed economic policies that have made this economic downturn so intractable. Undoubtedly, encouraging young people to embrace the virtue of perseverance is an appropriate message as students transition into a new phase of life. Such advice may be particularly helpful to this generation of young people as they prepare to endure the next four years under President Obama. Perseverance, and a lot of it, certainly will be required.

Karin Agness, who founded the Network of Enlightened Women (NeW), is a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum and the director of academic programs at the American Enterprise Institute. She earned her undergraduate and law degrees at the University of Virginia.

Karin Agness discusses the record number of women in the Senate on AM Colorado

Karin Agness — Mon, 7 Jan 2013 21:01:00 CST

Would more women in the Senate mean less gridlock? Senior Fellow Karin Agness joins KFKA's AM Colorado with Devon and Tom to discuss the importance of policy over gender stereotypes.

Karin Agness discusses the record number of women in Senate on the Randy Tobler Show

Karin Agness — Sat, 5 Jan 2013 18:01:00 CST

Would more women in the Senate mean less gridlock? Senior Fellow Karin Agness joins Randy Tobler on St. Louis' KFTK-FM to discuss the importance of policy over gender stereotypes.

More Than a Woman: Voters Must Pick Candidates Based on Policy, Not Gender

Karin Agness — Fri, 4 Jan 2013 08:01:00 CST

Exclusively in U.S. News Weekly and U.S. News & World Report

When the new Congress convened this week, it opened with a record number of female senators—20, up from 17 last term. ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer recently gathered 19 of these women for an interview. According to the preview , electing more women is the solution to our nation’s fiscal problems.

Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill explained that women are “less confrontational and more collaborative,” and that “all of us, not only do we want to work in a bipartisan way, we do it.”

I’d like our fiscal problems solved—and solved sooner rather than later. But putting a budget deal together isn’t difficult because there is too much testosterone in the room. The real problem is that the parties, and the people they represent, have fundamentally different views on economic issues and how we should move forward.

Americans don’t just want a deal. They want to vote for officials who will enact certain principles into law. People on the left don’t like Rep. Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, because she is collaborative, pushes bipartisan legislation, and is good at just getting a deal. They like her because she aggressively champions liberal ideas and gets liberal policies enacted. The fundamental conflict between the parties—Republicans calling for spending reductions to downsize the government and Democrats seeking more taxes to expand government—would persist regardless of who is representing the parties.

Calls for President Obama to increase the number of women in his cabinet presume that women leaders create different outcomes from men. In a post-election interview, Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, argued for gender parity in the cabinet, stating that “clearly, it should be 50 percent.”

Why, exactly, should more women be in the cabinet? “I think that if half of the cabinet were women and half of the Supreme Court and half of Congress were women, we would see a lot more policies for expanding education and healthcare and social services that allow communities to thrive,” O’Neill told the Daily Caller last month. “We’d see a lot less spending on military weapons systems, and we would also see a lot less of the most powerful, moneyed people not paying their fair share.”

O’Neill is conflating gender with policy outcomes, presuming that more women would lead to more liberal policy outcomes. Yet what O’Neill should be arguing for is the men or women who would best advance the liberal cause. Being a woman isn’t enough for her support. If the real purpose of O’Neill’s call for gender parity in the cabinet is to advance the cause of women, rather than liberalism, then she should be arguing for specific women on their merits. Indeed, there are many qualified women eligible for office, and President Obama is surely considering them.

Personally, when I look at a candidate, I’ll be listening for his or her guiding principles and plans for how to fix our fiscal problems and create the conditions that allow Americans to flourish in these tough economic times.

The key to having more women in high office is for those women to make the case for their vision of the role of government and offer such solutions. Being committed to just making a deal isn’t enough, and neither is just being a woman.

Karin Agness is a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum and founder and president of the Network of Enlightened Women.

More Women in the President's Cabinet Continued

Karin Agness — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:12:00 CST

As Charlotte noted, pressure is mounting for President Obama to increase the number of women in his cabinet, but this is actually a conversation that has been going on for awhile.

Earlier this month, The Daily Caller ran an article on the number of women in the President's cabinet, Women’s group: Obama’s cabinet “clearly” needs to be 50-percent female. In an interview with The Daily Caller, Terry O’Neill, President of the National Organization for Women (NOW), argued for gender parity. The Daily Caller reports:

O’Neill said the women’s movement is making its hopes known to the administration — often at coalition meetings that she said are occasionally attended by White House staff.

“I’m happy with where the president has gone; I’m positive that he’s going to have a lot of women in his cabinet,” O’Neill added. “Clearly, it should be 50 percent.”

In 2008, Kim Gandy, who was then the President of NOW, expressed her dissatisfaction when Obama’s cabinet was announced, “When you are looking at a Cabinet and you have such a small number of women in the room when the big decisions are being made, there need to be a lot more women’s voices in this administration.”

Why should more women be in the cabinet? According to O’Neill, we would see policy differences, specifically more time, energy and money spent on expanding education, health care and social services and less on the military.

“I think that if half of the cabinet were women and half of the Supreme Court and half of Congress were women, we would see a lot more policies for expanding education and health care and social services that allow communities to thrive,” O’Neill explained. “We’d see a lot less spending on military weapons systems, and we would also see a lot less of the most powerful, moneyed people not paying their fair share.”

Interestingly, O’Neill isn’t arguing that more women should be chosen because there are some specific women who are equally qualified or even more qualified than certain men on the short lists. Instead, her main justification for more women in the cabinet is that they would expand the role of government in our everyday lives and the services the government provides. That is important to point out. Is this really a reason to argue for more women in cabinet positions?

Karin Agness discusses Obama's female pandering on AM Colorado

Karin Agness — Mon, 5 Nov 2012 21:11:00 CST

Joining Tom and Devon on KFKA's AM Colorado, Karin Agness discusses her recent column in the Washington Times: Obama's Failed Female Pandering.

Obama’s Failed Female Pandering

Karin Agness — Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:11:00 CST

Democrats thought they had a winning campaign theme in the “war on women.” Yet the president’s fall in the polls among women voters shows this strategy isn’t working. This campaign theme’s failure is a big victory for women.

According to a recent Associated Press-GfK poll, Gov. Mitt Romney is pulling even with President Barack Obama among women voters at 47-47. Just a month ago, Mr. Romney was lagging by 16 points, and Mr. Obama seemed destined to repeat his 2008 performance of commanding 56 percent of the female vote.

The Romney campaign adopted a different strategy to appeal to female voters, aiming to convince women, like all Americans, that Mr. Romney’s preferred policies will improve the economy and that fostering job growth will be his top priority if elected.

Which appeal has succeeded in winning women? According to the Associated Press-GfK poll:

“A month ago, women favored Obama over Romney on the economy 56 percent to 40 percent. Now, the split has shifted to 49 percent for Romney and 45 percent for Obama. Similarly, Obama’s lead among women as the candidate who better understands the people’s problems has narrowed considerably, from a 58-36 Obama advantage last month to a 50-43 Obama edge now.”

For everything we hear in the news about the gender gap Republicans face for women voters, this most recent poll really is incredible.

While Mr. Romney has been offering women a vision of economic freedom, opportunity and prosperity, the Obama campaign has continued to push the tired idea that women are all victims and that anyone who questions further expanding government power is party to a “war on women.”

Such arguments are plainly insulting to women. Rather than treating women as strong, independent individuals, those perpetuating the idea of a “war on women” advocate policies that cast women as helpless without government support. As if this wasn’t bad enough, the other campaign tactic has been to reduce women to their body parts.

The Obama campaign’s troubling depiction of women came into focus earlier this election cycle with the release of the Life of Julia, an infographic detailing how women will supposedly benefit from Mr. Obama’s policies from ages 3 to 67. Website visitors are invited to “take a look at how President Obama’s policies help one woman over her lifetime—and how Mitt Romney would change her story.” In Julia’s life, government is the solution—providing tax credits, student loans, health care, business loans, retirement benefits and more.

This Life of Julia infographic grabbed national headlines because it raised questions about how the Obama campaign viewed women and the relationship between women and the government. At each major stage in her life, Julia is dependent on the government, apparently unable to do things on her own.

Then there was the Obama campaign’s Tumblr, which sought to appeal to women with an image that read, “Vote like your lady parts depend on it.” And most recently, we have a new ad by the Obama campaign, “Lena Dunham: Your First Time,” which compares a young woman’s “first time” with her first time voting.

Is this really what Mr. Obama thinks appeals to women?

Mr. Romney’s approach sharply contrasts with Mr. Obama‘s. The Romney campaign cut an ad featuring women who were Cabinet members while he was governor ofMassachusetts, called “Cabinet Members — Humanity.” There were no celebrities, sexual innuendoes or attempts at peer pressure — just women who had worked hard to reach high levels in their careers.

The difference in ads demonstrates the different visions these two candidates offer for women. One candidate offers a vision of women dependent on government who vote based on their body parts, while the other offers a vision of independent women who make their own choices about careers and family. Based on this poll, it looks like more and more women are choosing the latter. That’s not just good news for Mr. Romney, but for all American women.

Karin Agness is a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum and founder of the Network of Enlightened Women (NeW).

Romney Pulling Even with Obama Among Women

Karin Agness — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 06:10:00 CST

Throughout this election cycle, Democrats have played up the idea that there is a war on women. This strategy does not seem to be working with women voters. According to a new Associated Press-GfK poll, Mitt Romney is tied with Barack Obama among women voters.

The AP-GfK poll, taken Friday through Tuesday, shows Romney pulling even with Obama among women at 47-47 after lagging by 16 points a month earlier.

Romney’s effort to reach women voters largely has been centered on convincing them, like all Americans, that his policies will improve the economy.

A month ago, women favored Obama over Romney on the economy 56 percent to 40 percent. Now, the split has shifted to 49 percent for Romney and 45 percent for Obama.

Similarly, Obama's lead among women as the candidate who better understands the people's problems has narrowed considerably, from a 58-36 Obama advantage last month to a 50-43 Obama edge now.

This poll is consistent with a poll Charlotte wrote about earlier this month. For all that we hear in the news about the gender gap Republicans face for women voters, this most recent poll really is incredible.

The issues have always been more complicated than Democrats have conveyed in their war on women rhetoric. It is a victory for women that so many women are rejecting this rhetoric and seem to be supporting candidates based on their policies.

Don’t forget about the men! At the same time as Romney is soaring with women voters, the candidates are also fighting to reach male voters.

Obama, meanwhile, has been working to shore up his support among men, who tend to be more Republican than women. In the 2008 election, men broke 49 percent for Obama to 48 percent for John McCain, even though Obama got 53 percent of the vote overall. The president's job approval ratings among men have tended to fall below his ratings among women throughout his first term.

A month ago, Romney's advantage among men was 13 percentage points. Now, it's down to 5 points, with most of the shift toward Obama coming among unmarried men.

We hear so much about the candidates trying to reach unmarried women. It will be interesting to see if unmarried men turn out to be a key voting block and the new focus of the gender gap research.

Gottlieb: ObamaCare v. women

Karin Agness — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:10:00 CST

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a practicing physician and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has an article in the New York Post today, ObamaCare v. women: Beware of what it takes away. We have heard different aspects of healthcare policy discussed in these last few weeks before the election.

Have you heard of the US Preventive Services Task Force?

Gottlieb describes it:

ObamaCare empowers a host of new boards and committees to arbitrate over what insurance will pay for, and what remains uncovered. They’ll rule over not just health plans sold inside the ObamaCare exchanges, but even private insurance.

One such board, the US Preventive Services Task Force, will evaluate preventive health services like contraception and decide which benefits must be part of the coverage that insurance plans offer — indeed, which services must be covered in full, with no co-pays.

But requiring first-dollar coverage for those services is expensive, so health plans will have to offset those costly mandates by dropping coverage for things that don’t make the board’s grade.

Problem is, what the board deems essential is often out of sync with patient preferences, conventional medical practice and even experts like the Centers for Disease Control — which has clashed with the Preventive Services Task Force over recommendations like screening for HIV and hepatitis C.

The Task Force has already taken action:

Americans first became familiar with the Preventive Services Task Force in November 2009, when it made the controversial decision to advocate that women ages 40-49 shouldn’t get routine mammograms. More recently, it rebuffed routine use of tests for detecting the viruses that can cause cervical cancer. And now it’s calling the shots for what benefits must be included and what can be nixed from our plans.

The question about healthcare policy in this country really is a fundamental question about the role of government. Gottlieb’s article is a reminder of the practical consequences of this question.

Students can only hear Obama speak if they pledge support

Karin Agness — Tue, 9 Oct 2012 09:10:00 CST

President Obama won the youth vote 2-to-1 in 2008. The University of Wisconsin seems to assume that its students are all in President Obama’s camp this time around. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the University of Wisconsin hosted President Obama in less of an educational atmosphere and more as a campaign cheerleading event. Students could only get tickets to hear the president speak by signing up on the Obama campaign website.

In order to get a ticket for the speech, students were forced to go to Mr. Obama’s campaign website and pledge their support for the president—in the process giving the Obama campaign a gold mine of contact information in a key swing state. The university even provided direct links to the website—free advertising to 40,000 students in one of Mr. Obama’s most important demographics.

While studying at the University of Virginia, I attended an event featuring Michelle Obama. It was free and open to the public, and I did not have to register to attend. I enjoyed listening to what she had to say, and I learned more about her positions and her husband.

It seems odd to me that students have to “pledge their support” for President Obama just to listen to him speak. Shouldn’t we expect college campuses to foster an environment where candidates present their best arguments and then students make informed decisions?

This is a sign that Obama is moving away from making his case to young people and instead assuming tacit support from college students. With students facing such a tough economy, it must be challenging for Obama to argue for his reelection on campus.

(cross-posted at AEIdeas)

(photo credit Crossroads Generation)

Are young voters taking down their Obama posters?

Karin Agness — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:09:00 CST

The Democratic National Convention included speakers such as recent Georgetown Law School graduate Sandra Fluke, actress Eva Longoria and actor Kal Penn, all designed to convince young people that the Obama administration is still cool and to motivate young people to vote for Obama.

The youth vote is supposed to be a lost cause for Mitt Romney. Yet new analysis suggests that Millennials are open to persuasion, so it is no surprise that the Obama campaign is working overtime to try to hold on to young voters.

For the first time, a poll in August found that Romney has the support of more than 40 percent of those 18 to 29 years old. Crossing 40 percent might not seem like much of a reason to celebrate, but keep in mind that Obama won the youth vote 2-to-1 in 2008.

Why the shift? Young voters are facing a tough economy, which is making them rethink how economic policies impact their job prospects and life decisions.

At the Republican National Convention, Romney and Paul Ryan offered a vision of economic freedom, opportunity and prosperity that young voters, weary from the tough economy and disappointed with the unfulfilled promises of the Obama administration, were eager to hear. One of the most repeated lines of the convention came from Ryan: "College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life."

This is reality for many Millennials. Each month seems to bring more bad news for young people. A study earlier this year showed that 53.6 percent of people under age 25 with a bachelor's degree — about 1.5 million people — were unemployed or underemployed, the highest percentage in more than a decade. The summer jobs reports confirm that approximately one in eight Americans age 18 to 29 is unemployed.

What does this unemployment mean for young Americans' lives?

One survey found that 84 percent of young adults had delayed or plan to delay a major life change, such as buying their own place, getting married or starting a family, because of the weak economy. The Census Bureau reports that the number of adult children living with their parents increased by 1.2 million between 2007 and 2010.

These are tough numbers, and they translate into a lot of true hardship for young Americans eager to start careers and independent lives. Unsurprisingly, these realities also are affecting the issues young voters are considering in the run-up to the November election. A recent USA Today/Gallup Poll confirmed that job creation is the top-ranked issue for 18- to 29-year-olds.

Rising support for Romney suggests many are starting to make the connection between their own job prospects and national economic policy — and that they are ready for a different national approach.

Even those not focused on our economic policies might be giving Romney's ticket a second look because of his pick for vice president. Young people in 2008 were attracted to Obama largely because of his personal story and charisma. Romney has struggled in this area, but his selection of 42-year-old "young gun" Ryan as his running mate might be a game changer for Millennials.

As the first Generation Xer on a major party presidential ticket, Ryan appeals to young people because he embodies energetic youth — he is in better shape than lots of Millennials, leading intense P90X workout sessions on the Hill. He walks the halls of Congress with earphones in, reportedly listening to Rage Against the Machine and Led Zeppelin. And he grew up as a hardworking Midwesterner, even holding a summer job driving the Oscar Meyer Wienermobile.

Ryan also appeals to young people for the same reason Obama did — he optimistically presents a bold vision for how to fundamentally change Washington. Like Obama in 2008, Ryan stands in sharp contrast to the status quo and promises to confront issues that older politicians have avoided as too politically dangerous.

Indeed, four years is a long time to keep a poster on the wall. To keep the youth vote, President Obama is going to have to do more than just convince young voters that those Obama posters are still cool. He has to demonstrate that he has a positive plan for improving their economic prospects.

Karin Agness is the founder of the Network of Enlightened Women (NeW) and a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum. She earned her undergraduate and law degrees at the University of Virginia.