Donald Trump's appeal as a candidate does not, apparently, transcend gender. According to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll, more than 70 percent of the Nation's women and approximately 39 percent of Republican women have a negative opinion of Mr. Trump. The reason for this gender disconnect is simple: nowhere in Trump's platform or policy papers is there a single serious reference to women's issues and/or women's health issues.
There is more than a week before the next big primary contest within the GOP--this is adequate time for candidate Trump to refine his message so as to better appeal to women voters, irrespective of party affiliation. Women's health issues should enjoy a 'politics-protected' position within the conversation of any election cycle--meaning that such issues should be approached as objective public health concerns rather than subjective abortion-based polemics distorted to cast dispersions on an opponent's morality. In addition, women's health is inextricably linked to children's health, i.e. a woman who lives in poverty has children who also live in poverty; a woman who is food insecure has children who suffer nutritional deficits; a woman who has no income and no health insurance has children with truncated opportunities; a woman who is marginalized by society because of gender or race, has children who are equally invisible and supremely vulnerable.
Should Mr. Trump and his campaign advisors decide to formally and seriously court women during this election cycle, the following issues must be added to the public health agenda of a Trump campaign and ultimately, a Trump administration: paid maternity leave; full passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act; and renewed funding for free clinics with continued support for Planned Parenthood. Before going any further, it is important to note that pursuant to the Hyde Amendment of 1977, Federal funds cannot be used to fund abortions or abortion-related services--consequently, the topic of abortion as it concerns Planned Parenthood is not a part of any relevant and dedicated discussion about women's health on the 2016 campaign trail. The discussion of women's health as public health must finally evolve beyond the tired debate of pro-choice versus no-choice; women deserve a more carefully and compassionately crafted agenda that no longer hides behind this long-favored GOP feint.
Please consider the following: More than 1.4 million women, between the ages of 15 and 50 years of age, who gave birth in the past year, were unmarried; and 9.9 million single mothers are living with children. Why is this important? Juxtapose the aforementioned figures against the Nation's present employment and benefits packages available to working women.
More than 66 percent of unmarried mothers work outside of the family home and only about half of these women are employed full-time, while nearly one-fourth are unemployed. Among unmarried mothers currently looking for work, only 22 percent receive any form of unemployment benefit. If these women do find work, they must contend with an incredible disparity in pay; white women, for example, earn 79 cents for every dollar a man earns in a comparable job, while African American women earn 64 cents on the dollar with Hispanic women and Latinas earning a mere 54 cents on the dollar. (As another interesting aside, single mothers who have occupations such as physician or surgeon earn roughly 62 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterpart.)
This becomes an issue much greater than equal pay for equal work when one realizes that among families headed by single mothers, nearly 40 percent live in poverty; 52 percent live in extreme poverty. Extreme poverty translates into an annual income of $9900/year for a family of three or a weekly budget of $200. Implicit in the term family is children; we, as a country, place apparently no priority on removing income disparity for women, consequently, the health and well-being of our children does not get addressed nor has it been addressed during this election cycle. If single mothers are unable to earn enough money to care for their children as a national trend nay a national standard, how will the United States be able to maintain its international identity? If we do not nurture and nourish the very future of this country, what result do we hope to reap? Such a lack of investment will adversely affect our national security, our scientific and research community, our educational community and ultimately our ability to compete on the world stage. How can the US claim it is competitive when 55 percent of children with single mothers do not receive food stamps, not because their mother earns too much but because they do not have access to the necessary social services that can educate, inform and direct them towards available resources; and nearly 35 percent of single mother households qualify as food insecure. Food insecurity, simply stated, is a household-level economic and/or social condition in which there is limited or uncertain access to adequate food.
The women and children who live in poverty within the US have myriad health needs and little to no resources with which to negotiate access or payment; nearly one-fourth of single mother families have no health insurance coverage. Despite the Affordable Care Act's intent, too many women and children continue to fall into the abyss of no coverage simply because they live in a state which declined to expand its Medicaid programs; this declination then truncates a woman's ability to purchase health care for herself and her family in the ACA marketplace. It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that according to a recent Women's Health Policy Report, the United States has earned a "D+" in reproductive rights and access to quality health care for women. This low mark is due, in large part, to the steady closing of women's community care clinics across the country; since 2011, nearly 31 clinics permanently close their doors every year. In states like Missouri, this has left only a single clinic open to serve the entire state. For pregnant women this creates what can only be called a dangerous situation; low-income women deserve access to prenatal care--it is a fundamental right--which is being steadily denied by those in government who deem it prudent to stop funding and close clinics that previously saw to the care and education of this at-risk population. Although so many politicians and pundits claim to care so much about the health and well-being of the unborn, they deny access to quality healthcare to mothers and pregnant women. Say this aloud--if it weren't so pathetic it would be almost laughable.
Similarly, too many women in the US are forced to take unpaid maternity leave or "pregnancy disability leave" at the conclusion of their pregnancy. If so many women are single and soon-to-be single mothers, shouldn't we have employment legislation that mandates paid maternity leave? How can a woman prepare and care for a neonate when her income has essentially been stopped for 6 to 12 weeks? Again, it is the same politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who call for regulations and revisions regarding access to quality, means-tested or free women's health care while fervently advocating for the unborn; with absolutely no consideration for the woman and child once they leave the hospital. How does one provide for a infant when on unpaid maternity leave, if there is no wealthy family/boyfriend/girlfriend/support system in place?
Investing in our Nation's children is not only the right thing to do, it is our best defense policy, our best national security policy, our best education policy--in short, it is a winning policy. And only by investing in women's and children's health will America be able to restart its heretofore interrupted legacy of winning.
Please reference: infoplease.com, abcnews.com, singlemotherguide.com, ers.usda.gov, womenhealthpolicyreport.org, todayshospitalist.com
No comments:
Post a Comment