Sen. Jon Kyl’s problem with female constituents

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Some of you may have seen an ad running on cable television to "call Sen. Jon Kyl and thank him…" If you are unemployed and you are desperate for your unemployment benefits to be extended by Congress, you should call Sen. Jon Kyl's office to "thank" him – he's the SOB responsible for holding up the extension of unemployment benefits in Congress. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) Holds Up Unemployment Extension:

If your unemployment ran out this week, you can thank Sen. Jon Kyl. Yes, the Republican whip objected to a quick vote that would have helped all those people. You can contact him here and thank him for his compassion.

But I digress…

The Democrats have targeted Sen. Jon Kyl in a "Call 'Em Out" campaign. Today, Jennifer Johnson, the Communications Director for the Arizona Democratic Party, had this "My Turn" opinion published in The Arizona Republic (where she formerly was an editor) Kyl is tuning out his female constituents:

by Jennifer Johnson

My Turn

October has provided two troubling glimpses into Republican Sen. Jon Kyl's unwillingness to fight for his female constituents.

First, he landed in the hot seat by dismissing Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow's call for basic maternity care to be included in insurance plans. "I don't need maternity care," he stated during Senate debate.

An editorial in Tuesday's Republic defended Kyl. He was "debating in the public's interest" to keep costs down, the editorial stated. But Kyl, and The Republic, missed the point: Women are angry, not just because of Kyl's remark, but because their senator claims he is fighting to keep costs down.

Down for whom? Maternity care costs women dearly. And women can be denied coverage because of so-called "pre-existing conditions" such as a C-section or a previous pregnancy.

In general, health insurance costs a 25-year-old woman up to 45 percent more than a man for the same coverage. Shouldn't you be fighting to keep costs down for women too, Sen. Kyl?

The second glimpse into Kyl's priorities may be even more troubling. Last week, Kyl voted "no" on an amendment that would block defense contracts with companies that prevent employees from suing over sexual assault. In other words, Kyl voted to protect the interests of corporations over the rights of sexual-assault victims.

The amendment had been proposed to prevent situations like that of Jamie Leigh Jones, a former contractor for Halliburton/KBR in Iraq who said she was drugged and brutally raped by a group of fellow contractors. Despite solid medical evidence, Jones was blocked from pressing charges in court because her defense contract prevented it.

This amendment easily passed in the Senate and even had the support of 10 Republicans. Yet Kyl voted "no."

Women, men – reasonable people everywhere – were rightfully angry about his vote. But this voting pattern isn't new.

Earlier this year, Kyl voted "no" on the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a measure that strengthens the legal rights of those who suffer gender-based discrimination in the workplace. Again, Kyl sided with protecting businesses instead of women in the workplace.

So yes, we should be angry at Kyl. Why isn't he fighting to ensure women have affordable access to basic maternity care? We live in a state where well over 500,000 women are uninsured.

Why isn't he fighting to protect victims of sexual assault instead of corporations? We live in a state where, according to the state Department of Heaht Services, nearly one of every five women has been a rape victim in her lifetime. Sen. Kyl, these women are your constituents. Why aren't you fighting for them?

As a seasoned politician and lawyer, Kyl probably has well-polished answers for these questions.

But his voting pattern speaks louder.

And when the volume turns up like it has in October, women in Arizona hear a much clearer take of Sen. Jon Kyl.

Unfortunately, Kyl barely hears them at all.