Knowing the demographic breakdown is important when trying to understand the politics and voting tendencies of a region such as Washington state. As a means to inform readers about the region that Cantwell represents, here is some basic information about Washington state.
Historically, Washington is a state that has legislatively supported the pro-choice position. In 1970, during an era when America’s legal position on abortion was still being heavily debated in court, the state of Washington had already passed a legislateively-reffered state statue to legalize abortion (Connelly). Three years after Washington passed this statue, the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade (1973) declared the Texas law restricting women from accessing abortion unconstitutional (Janda et. al 426). It was determined by the court in Roe v. Wade that states could only restrict abortions if the fetus was viable and the pregnancy did not threaten the female’s life or health (Poligu.com).
Cantwell’s ideology surrounding the issue of abortion and women’s reproductive rights has been clear and stable since she first entered politics, given she has always asserted herself as an advocate and a fighter for women’s rights, freedoms and privacy (On The Issue 1). As senator of Washington and even prior to her position in Congress, Cantwell always held the ideology of “100% pro-choice” (On The Issues 1). Since 1995, Cantwell has consistently received a 100% rating by pro-choice organizations such as the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, Planned Parenthood and the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) for her support of pro-choice legislation (Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Ratings). The list of examples that display Cantwell extending her support to pro-abortion legislation is extensive.
Supporters of Planned Parenthood (Source: S.MiRK)
To begin, in 1993 Cantwell co-sponsored the Freedom to Choice Act, a bill that protects the reproductive rights and freedoms of women by disallowing the state from “restricting the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability or at any time, if such termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman” (On The Issues 7). In recent years, Cantwell has fought against the erosion of the Roe v. Wade decision, stating she “fundamentally believes that private medical decisions should be made by women in consultation with their doctors — not politicians. And this includes the methods by which a physician chooses to treat his or her patients” (Poligu.com). Along with the fight to uphold pro-choice abortion laws, Cantwell has also taken a strong stance against the minimization and privatization of women’s sexual health medication such as birth control and emergency contraceptives.
Cantwell has fought against Conservative attempts to restrict Planned Parenthood services and funding (On The Issues 7). In 2007, Cantwell co-sponsored the Prevention First Act, a bill that seeks to increase national access to family planning and preventative methods as a means to reduce unwanted pregnancies (On The Issues 7). This includes providing females with access to the emergency contraceptive known as Plan B as well as expanding family planning to be covered under Medicaid (On The Issues 7) (Wikipedia Post). As a major advocate for increasing the number of avenues that one can access family planning and sexual health education, Cantwell also argues that increasing sex education is necessary to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies (Poligu.com). Cantwell not only advocates for women’s reproductive freedom but she also recognizes the need for implementing bottom up approaches that allow adolescents to access more affective ways to learn about sex, pregnancy and choice.
Cantwell is heavily endorsed by pro-choice political action committees such as EMILY’s List and NARAL (Project Vote Smart: Campaign Finances). In her 2012 campaign, Cantwell received significant financial support from EMILY’s List because of for her position on women’s reproductive rights and freedoms. EMILY’s List is currently Cantwell’s second highest corporate contributor, donating $78,300.00 in 2012 alone (Project Vote Smart: Campaign Finances). Other pro-choice organizations, such as NARAL, also endorse Cantwell because of her voting record on abortion issues. Cantwell has consistently received 100 percent ratings from NARAL as well as Planned Parenthood (On The Issues 4-5).
Alternatively, anti-choice organizations such as the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), has given Cantwell a score of zero percent, given she goes against the organization’s attempts to “restore legal protection of innocent human lives” (On The Issue 7). Cantwell’s position in supporting universal access to emergency contraceptives, including to females under the age of sixteen without the need for a prescription or parental consent, has been a stance that has been heavily criticized by organizations such as NRLC as well as by Republican opponent Michael Baumgartner.
Baumgartner has argued that because Cantwell is an unmarried woman without children, she does not have the authority to state what the appropriate level of parental involvement in children’s sexuality is or what level of autonomy children should have in reproductive decisions (Terkel). Baumgartner states that Cantwell has “frequently voted to undermined the role of parents in child-rearing’” (Terkel) because of her lack of parental experience and, for this reason, someone with family experience should instead be speaking on behalf of Washington’s parents. In reflection of Baumgartner’s comment on Cantwell’s supposed inability to speak on behalf of females and mothers given she herself is not a mother or wife, is nonsensical. Not only has Cantwell been a strong advocate for women’s rights since she first entered office but she has been hailed by organizations such as Planned Parenthood for “standing up for American women…time and time again” and for always advocating for women’s health (Cantwell, Maria). Simply because Cantwell does not engage in child-rearing does not mean she herself cannot represent female’s reproductive rights and decisions. If Baumgartner’s own logic was applied on himself, it could be argued that he is not fit to represent females either because he himself is not of the female sex. In turn, Baumgartner’s own logic is internally incoherent, given it cannot be applied to himself without creating an obvious contradiction in this argument.
During the Bush era, the U.S experienced a slow but steady decrease of abortion services, dropping from 2,680 in 1985 to 1,787 in 2005 (Enloe and Seager 69). Although we have seen slight improvements since Obama has taken office, anti-choice measures are still being enacted, “inculding 29 in 2009 alone” (Enloe and Seager 69). Still to this day, those in the military are not able to access abortion services even if the “pregnancy resulted from an act of rape or incest” and in eight states a women still needs to acquire “written consent from, or give notice to, her husband prior to receiving abortion care” (Enloe and Seager 69).
In a time where American is seemingly going backwards, rewinding the clock to an era of anti-choice rhetoric and female patriarchal enslavement, I argue that having a strong female representative such as Cantwell in Senate is absolutely necessary in order to protect the rights and freedoms of women. So, if you are making the vote based on women, vote Cantwell.
Enloe, Cynthia and Joni Seager. The Real State of America Atlas: Mapping the Myths and Truths of the United States. Penguine: New York, 2012. Print.
Janda, Kenneth, Jeffery Berry, Jerry Goldman and Kevin Hula. The Challenge of Democracy in American Government in Global Politics. Boston: Wadsworth, 2012. Print
Maria Cantwell 
