Women are disproportionately affected by poor health care coverage

Because of gender differences in work patterns, women are less likely to have employee coverage, and more likely to have less efficient individual coverage. Compared to men, women report being more likely to delay needed care, and more likely to spend over 10% of their income on health care.

The White House, driven by the First Lady, has made some effort to bring women into the health care debate. But until just recently, those efforts seemed less successful, at least in generating interest.

Women, particularly younger women, are paying less attention to the debate

Thanks to the kind folks at Pew, we were able to get crosstabs from recent surveys about attention paid to various issues in the news. They found women to be paying less attention to the health care debate than men up until their October survey.

Examining gender by age, younger women were substantially less likely to be following the debate. In early September, this group was largely divided between following the debate closely (53%) and not closely (48%). At least two-thirds of other gender/age groupings were following the debate closely. In the most recent survey, younger women have begun to catch up with younger men in extent of interest.

Women, particularly younger women, are more supportive of health care reform

While they might not be paying as close attention, polls suggest younger women make up a strong base of support for reform. Gallup has shown more women would advise their Member of Congress to support health care reform, while men would advise their representative to vote against it.

There's actually quite a large difference between older and younger women on this, but little age difference among men. Younger women are one of the demographic groups most likely to advise their representative to vote for health care reform. Older women, however, are evenly divided.

Open Republican hostility to women's health care provides a real opportunity to gain support for reform

Supporters of health care reform should talk to younger women about more than Stupak and abortion. There is plenty of material with which to draw a contrast with reform opponents. See, for example, Senator Kyl's (R-AZ) sneering hostility to maternity care, or Representative Session's (R-TX) likening coverage for woman-specific treatments to coverage for smokers. The very same Senator Enzi (R-WY) who introduced legislation to allow companies to deny coverage of mammograms is now incorrectly using the recent mammogram recommendations as an attack on health care reform. Left unchecked, insurance companies are calling rape and domestic violence pre-existing conditions.

Right now supporters have a good opportunity to make women's health care central to the national conversation. Supporters should remind women which party has been consistently hostile to women's health, and which has not. Politicization of mammograms, and perhaps even the revival of Sarah Palin, threaten to cede some ground among women voters. But women, especially younger women, are ready for our message on reform.

UPDATE:  Thanks to the person who alerted me to this 2006 vote, in which ten Senate Republicans voted against coverage to victims of domestic violence.  The link also has some other important facts about women and health care reform, such as a C-section frequently being considered a pre-existing condition.

With even a casual examination of past turnout data, this seems to be an unbelievably high standard by which to define turnout success.  An odd-year election simply cannot hold a candle to a record turnout presidential year.  Voting groups who turnout less frequently--like minority groups and younger voters--are not going to be solely responsible for the dropoff.   The charts below show turnout since 1978.  In both states, not one time has either odd year or mid-term turnout surpassed presidential year turnout from that cycle.  In fact, only once (in Virginia) does mid-term turnout appear to just surpass presidential turnout from a different cycle.

Many have yet to learn about the thesis contents, and learning about it is good for Deeds

Recent polling shows about half of voters haven't heard about the controversy surrounding McDonnell's thesis.  The Clarus research group poll showed 48% hadn't heard about the thesis, but those who had were more likely to feel unfavorable than favorable toward McDonnell as a result.  This recent Washington Post poll showed over half (54%) to know "just some" or "hardly anything" about the thesis.  And when read some about the thesis, they too become more unfavorable toward McDonnell.  Further, this strong Washington Post analysis of the poll shows awareness of the thesis is even lower among younger women--who are particularly likely to find the contents objectionable.  There is clearly more room for growth on the thesis argument, and those who hear about the thesis seem to move away from McDonnell.

McDonnell wrote about the scourge of working women--a far out of the mainstream view

McDonnell's thesis included a wide range of extreme views on everything from abortion, homosexuals, birth control for married couples, an unusual use of the word "fornicator," and the opposition of working women.  This last point--his views toward working women, represents a huge departure from attitudes toward and the reality of work and gender.

But don't take my word for it.  In his own words, McDonnell calls working women, "detrimental to the family."  He ridicules "some women's" desire for "individual self-actualization," "workplace equality," and "the private choices of individuals to increase their family income."   He laments, "Must government subsidize the choices of a generation of with an increased appetite for the materialistic components of American society?"   By singling out women at fault, McDonnell implies that when men try to increase their family income, it is not materialistic. 

It is obvious to most, of course, that many women have no choice but to work.  Some are widows, or unmarried or never married, are caretakers for parents, or have husbands or partners who have lost their jobs.  But also, many women simply would prefer to work.  A 2007 Gallup poll showed more women would prefer to work rather than stay at home if they were free to do either.  And recent labor statistics confirm  what we know to be true; women, mothers or not, participate in the workforce in huge numbers.   More than 70% of women aged 35 to 44 are employed.  These findings highlight how out of touch McDonnell is with how women live their lives. 

It's also important here to stress that McDonnell wrote of working women, not just working mothers.  Not that working mothers are necessarily controversial, although some debate the costs and benefits for one's personal circumstances.  But as we've written elsewhere, voters want to see more help to working mothers, not less.

But this particular extreme view needs more exposure

Public polling on the race doesn't quite capture voters' attitudes toward the full panoply of McDonnell's extreme views.  The Washington Post poll described the thesis this way:  "In his thesis, McDonnell criticized working mothers and homosexuals as detrimental to families and urged the promotion of traditional values through government.  McDonnell calls this not in-line with his current views while Deeds says this shows McDonnell's real positions on these issues. "  This description lacks some precision by replacing "working women" with "working mothers," and it does not measure reactions to McDonnell's extreme view that women do not have the right to workplace equality, or to increase their family's income. 

Of Deeds two recent televised ads on the thesis, only one mentions, briefly, the thesis's points on working women.  (There is an excellent video on his website, however, which you can view here.)  Instead, much of Deeds's advertising ties McDonnell's position in the thesis on birth control and abortion, to his sponsoring 35 bills restricting a woman's right to choose. 

I understand the need to attach McDonnell's thesis to his votes in office.  The large number of sponsored bills shows the thesis was more than an "academic exercise" as McDonnell claims, but an actual "blueprint" for his political career.  But McDonnell also voted against getting tough on gender discrimination at the workplace, and against improvements to day care that would help working women.  And while McDonnell is certainly to the right of most Virginians when he opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest, abortion is still the more controversial topic. 

McDonnell's thesis response ad further belies his views toward women.  In his own defense, he touts his work cracking down on child predators and domestic violence.  While those are undoubtedly important, as his only legislative defense, it suggests McDonnell views women chiefly needing to protection from physical danger, rather than from economic inequities.  The Deeds campaign should keep McDonnell defending his thesis all the way through November; they might well be preparing to shift to the working women argument in the remaining weeks.

Even on the hit show Mad Men, set in a 1960s New York ad agency where blackface is accepted and homosexuality is not, women have entered the workforce.   If 1963 is too modern by Bob McDonnell's politics, then what does that say about his plan for Virginia's future? 

Update (10/15) and subsequent interests disclosed: Partly because of the work I did for this post, I am now part of a group called "Working Women for Virginia" that is raising money to educate voters about Republican candidate Bob McDonnell's extreme views.  We have a video up here.

News outlets reported this as "people are more concerned about the deficit than the economy."  But in fact, when asked that question, respondents were quite clear that they were more concerned about the economy.  More said "job creation and economic growth" (31%) should be the top priority for the federal government than said "the deficit and government spending" (19%).  Similarly, more said unemployment was the most important economic issue (35%) than the deficit (24%).

So why does the longer question show an inflated emphasis on the deficit?  One hypothesis is the wording of the question.  The "focus on the deficit" answer category ends on a positive note--the implication is the economy will eventually recover.  The other answer category ends on a negative note--the potential for deficits down the road.  I don't know if this explains the results to the question, and, for the record, I don't doubt the balanced intentions of the researchers (Hart/McInturff).  But the difference between this question's results and the rest of the survey warrant discussion.

This single result is framing the current debate in terms of "voters are concerned about Obama's spending," as in the first sentence here. But not only does a recent NYT analysis show the deficit is hardly caused by Obama, Americans don't blame Obama either.  Nearly half (46%) in the NBC/WSJ survey blame former President Bush, and only 6% blame Obama. A good reminder as we enter a debate over the cost of health care reform.