As we approach this election season, I find myself reflecting deeply on my children, particularly my daughters. One of them will be eligible to vote in the next presidential election, and I can’t help but ponder how our choices today will shape their future—both in the immediate and long term.
This election is not solely about the present or the next four years. With Congress failing to fulfill its responsibility to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice, the next president will likely nominate someone to fill the vacancy left by Antonin Scalia. Given that many current justices are nearing or surpassing their 80s, it’s probable that this president will also appoint additional justices. These appointments will have lasting implications for my daughters, and I want to ensure that the Supreme Court they inherit expands their opportunities rather than constrains them.
While I personally hold conservative views regarding abortion, I recognize that outlawing it does not effectively reduce its occurrence; instead, it only makes the process more perilous. I’ve witnessed firsthand the struggles of mothers constrained by restrictive abortion laws, often leading to unnecessary suffering. Comprehensive access to contraception is essential if we genuinely wish to decrease abortion rates, a goal unlikely to be supported by a right-leaning Supreme Court.
It’s essential to strive for a more liberal judiciary which, paradoxically, could lead to lower abortion rates and improved conditions for women. A presidency under someone like Donald Trump would likely result in a Supreme Court that prioritizes ideology over common sense, potentially reversing progress we have made.
When considering family leave policies, I also think about my daughters. Trump’s proposal for six weeks of paid leave exclusively for mothers seems outdated and neglectful, as it disregards the needs of fathers, adoptive parents, and even the mothers who would benefit from shared parental responsibilities. In a competitive 21st-century workplace, such a policy could inadvertently make women less appealing hires, as employers might hesitate to invest in someone who will be absent for weeks at a time.
Hillary Clinton’s comprehensive plan for 12 weeks of paid leave for both mothers and fathers sets a progressive standard that my daughters would greatly benefit from when they start families. We must move beyond our current standing as the least supportive nation for family leave among developed countries and genuinely embrace our stated family values.
Finally, I reflect on the image of leadership my daughters will witness. Do I want them to see a woman who possesses the extensive governmental experience required for the presidency, who has demonstrated resilience despite public scrutiny, and who articulates a detailed vision for our future? Or do I want them to observe a billionaire businessman with no governance experience, who is often disrespectful and has been labeled Politifact’s “Lie of the Year”?
Before you jump in with criticisms about my stance on either candidate, I urge you to explore well-researched analyses that may provide a clearer understanding of the issues at hand.
Ultimately, the choice is evident to me. If we aim to advance gender equality and expand our daughters’ options, we cannot afford to support a President Trump.
For additional insights on home insemination, you can visit this informative article. If you’re interested in the details surrounding the process of artificial insemination, I recommend checking out this guide. Additionally, for a deeper understanding of reproductive options, this resource offers valuable information.
In summary, as we consider our electoral choices, let’s think about the future we want to create for our daughters. Their opportunities and rights depend on the decisions we make today.