Sen. Clinton to Head State Dept: Advocate for Women Worldwide?


The
FDA was dragging its feet on approving emergency contraception – medication
that ceases to be effective if its use is delayed – for over-the-counter
pharmacy access.  She held up a Senate confirmation until the FDA
approved.  The Department of Health and Human Services threatens to
promulgate regulations that would broaden provider conscience protections,
enabling providers to refuse to prescribe or even refuse to refer patients for
care they find "morally objectionable" – including contraception.  She
introduced legislation that would prevent finalization or implementation of the
regulation.  She has co-sponsored legislation to repeal the global gag
rule, to end funding for abstinence-only education and fund comprehensive
sexuality education, to expand contraceptive access, and to codify Roe v.
Wade
in federal law.  At the Fourth UN World Conference on Women in Beijing
she said proudly, "Women’s rights are human rights," attending the
major international conference over the objections of Congress. 

Now
women’s rights champion Senator Hillary Clinton, who The New York Times is
reporting
will accept President-Elect Barack Obama’s offer to take on the top
diplomatic post in his administration, will have the opportunity to act as an
ambassador for women’s rights.  For women and girls
worldwide, it’s a coup, say advocates of international women’s health.

How
can the Secretary of State put pressure on governments – including
our own – to recognize that women’s health is a prerequisite for economic
development?

Adrienne
Germain, president of the International Women’s Health Coalition, says that
President-Elect Obama doesn’t need help realizing that sexual and reproductive health
must be addressed as a cornerstone of social and economic development.  

"In this administration, we don’t have to put
much pressure," she says.

But as Secretary of State, women’s rights champion
Sen. Clinton can keep him focused, say advocates. While Obama has committed to
foreign assistance reform and the Millennium Development Goals, a Secretary of State who keeps those issues
on the front-burner means they’re less likely to get lost even as economic issues and Iraq demand President-Elect Obama’s attention.  In fact, realigning US policy to address
realities facing women and girls in large part does not require additional
spending – rather, non-ideological allocations of funds.

"Without spending a
penny more, the new administration can do an enormous amount just by standing
strong for the human rights of women and for the kinds of actions that are not
simply needed but that countries time and time again – since Universal Declaration
on Human Rights – have agreed to," says Germain.

A major priority for women’s health leaders is to align U.S. foreign assistance with the principles
espoused by in the 1994 International Conference of Population and Development
in Cairo and
the UN Millennium Development Goals, articulated by world leaders in
2000.  In 1965, the foreign assistance bill was revised to include support
for family planning programs, but it does so in a context of population
control, not of human rights. 

"The rights approach has not been
reflected in policy," says Jamila Taylor, from the Center for Health and
Gender Equity.  "Do it from a human rights perspective, not even just
a reproductive rights perspective. Human rights runs the gamut of issues – access to education,
income generation – all the things that make women vulnerable or empowered around
the world."

In Beijing, Sen. Clinton included in her speech a statement that’s still radical today: "What we
are learning around the world is that if women are healthy and educated, their
families will flourish. If women are free from violence, their families will
flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as full and equal partners in
society, their families will flourish. And when
families flourish, communities and nations do as well."

As currently written, the US Foreign Assistance Bill has budget
categories that make it difficult to deliver comprehensive sexual and
reproductive health care, including separate budget lines for population,
maternal and child health, HIV/AIDS, and other reproductive health needs.  Health systems need to be strengthened overall
to deliver care to those most in need, says Germain.

The
Secretary of State can also set administration policy when it comes to
HIV/AIDS.  As Secretary of State, Sen. Clinton could encourage the
President to address administratively PEPFAR’s weaknesses in curbing infections
among women and girls.  "The President
has the final say, but the Secretary can push him along," says Taylor. 
And the Office of the Coordinator on AIDS is situated in the State
Department, meaning the Secretary of State could push the office to make gender
concerns a priority in PEPFAR funding.

Germain, one of the lead negotiators on the Cairo Programme
of Action, worked closely with Sen. Clinton when she was First Lady.  In key global conferences held in those years,
the US
government led the world in making vital changes in support of women’s health
and equality.  "We had not had that kind
of opportunity before in my 40 years of professional work," says Germain, "and
it was made much more of an opportunity because of Hillary’s willingness and
ability to weigh in and make a difference in the administration."  Though the US
was a leader on the Cairo Programme, it has always ignored the Millennium
Development Goals, which are based in large part on Cairo.

With Clinton at the helm of the State Department, the US has an opportunity to retake its role as international leader on human rights and women’s rights.

What
will happen to the Senate when it loses its women’s rights champion?  It’s
an opportunity for advocates to reach out to a new generation of lawmakers,
says Taylor.
"We have to get in there and get to know new members," she
says.  Advocates have to gauge "what their temperament is in
terms of being outspoken on these issues."

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with Emily Douglas please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • invalid-0

    I am only a dot in this world of ours, but I am so
    happy that Hillary will shine among the stars for the
    world to see…No one can fill her shoes as far as I am
    concerned…She may not be president, but she will do
    the world some good and help bring peace to our nation with
    dignity and fortitude….She has been a fighter for the
    little guy, and Washington does not want someone that
    will work for us peons. A well deserved job for a woman
    that fights for us all!

  • invalid-0

    Hillary, Hillary, dearest Hillary, please DON’T abandon your power as Senator for the lesser power of Secretary of State. A Senator serves at the pleasure of her constituents. A cabinet officer serves at the pleasure of the President. Do you really want to be “at the pleasure” of the President who had so little respect for your ability and your 18 millon supporters that he passed you over for Vice President ? Now Biden would have been a sensible choice for Secretary of State, just as you were the obvious choice, the voters’ choice, for Veep. But that’s all troubled water under the bridge.
    Yes, you could perhaps be a leading voice for Women’s Rights around the world. A voice without a vote, but at least a voice. A voice to the extent that your President does not tell you to keep some topics unspoken. Will you for example have the power to insist that all foreign aid programs include both contraception and abortion ?
    As Senator you can continue to initiate and support vital legislation on women’s issues (as well as on generically human issues). You can continue to push the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act. You can continue to push revokation of Bush’s HHS “conscience” exemption. You can continue to push for honnest and accurate contraceptive education in schools.
    As Senator you can become the leading Senator in the Democratic Party. You can step into the role that will all too soon be vacated by Senator Kennedy.

    Hillary, there is really only ONE role more powerful and transformative than that of an indominably fighting Senator. That role is Supreme Court Justice, a role arguably more influential in the long run than that of President. Now it’s true that most Supreme Court appointees have been either Constitutional law advocates (like Ruth Bader Ginsburg) or else Appellate or District Court judges. But there have been some whose background was commercial law.
    You are my second choice for the next Supreme Court opening. My first choice would be Sarah Weddington.

    Please don’t surrender your power as Senator for anything less than a Supreme Court appointment.