Womenstake, NWLC's Blog

by Kristina Gupta, Policy Fellow
National Women’s Law Center

Yes, it’s true – sex matters in the housing market. Research shows that women are more likely to receive subprime mortgages than men. And because subprime mortgages are a driving force behind foreclosures, as the housing market continues to struggle, more and more women may lose their homes.

by Julia Kaye, Program Assistant
and Taryn Wilgus Null, MARGARET Fund Fellow
National Women’s Law Center

Over the holidays, several of us from the Center took a field trip to see Juno. We laughed, we cried, we debated its implications for minors’ access to contraception– it was a roller-coaster of emotions. For those of you who have not made it to a theater recently, Juno tells the story of a sixteen-year-old girl named Juno who gets pregnant and decides to give up her baby for adoption to an adorable but seriously flawed yuppie couple. The breakout indie film deals with a number of issues that NWLC holds dear; nevertheless, we’ve had more conversations about it than can probably be justified. And after all the talk, we are, in conclusion…ambivalent. 

On the one hand, we were dismayed by the disdainful and inaccurate portrayal of the abortion clinic, with its inappropriate and apathetic receptionist and all-female waiting room (Arthur Shostak from RHReality Check wrote an insightful—and scathing—blog post on these two points). We also fear that this movie might mistakenly convince young women that all abortion clinics are as unpleasant and sleazy as the one Juno encounters (they are most decidedly not). On the other hand, anyone who has seen the film would surely agree that Juno’s decision to continue the pregnancy and put the baby up for adoption was anything but political. It was personal, as the decision to have or not have an abortion should always be.

Beyond the abortion scene, there were two elements of the movie that directly spoke to our work at the Center: minors’ access to contraception (and comprehensive and accurate information about contraception) and Title IX protections of pregnant students.

by Mary Robbins, Program Assistant
National Women’s Law Center

I’ve started to wonder why, after reading countless stories about the upcoming election, is it that I can so easily carry on a well-informed and articulate conversation about what Hillary Clinton wore during her latest appearance or Rudy Giuliani’s numerous marriages, but when someone brings up the nuances of the candidates’ health care reform proposals or plans for saving the sputtering economy the conversation is cut short.

I recently graduated from a respected college of journalism. A basic tenet of journalism is that journalists should not sacrifice ethical standards for watered down, superficial “news” pieces. Everyone knows journalism is about fair, balanced reporting, stories filled with facts that serve as checks on the powerful and give voice to the voiceless…right? Then why am I left digging for displays of these journalistic principles?

There is so much at stake during this election cycle for women and their families. Women care about how much they will have to pay for their children to receive care when they are sick. Women care about their right to make decisions about their bodies and being treated equally in the workplace and in schools. Women care about whether they’ll be able to make their mortgage payments when their adjustable interest rate fixes.

We need less analysis of the inane, less creating and feeding a desire for gossip and drama and more about what ideals each of the candidates holds dear, and how these ideals might manifest if the candidate is entrusted with the highest office in the land.