August, 07 2018, 12:00am EDT
New "Worst For Women" Campaign Targets 15 Members of CongressNew "Worst For Women" Campaign Targets 15 Members of Congress
A new campaign targeting more than a dozen members of Congress as the "Worst for Women" is launching today, with digital ads and a new
WASHINGTON
A new campaign targeting more than a dozen members of Congress as the "Worst for Women" is launching today, with digital ads and a new micro-site featuring an inaugural legislative scorecard produced by American Bridge and UltraViolet PAC.
The members of Congress named as the "Worst for Women" include: Rep. Don Bacon (NE-2); Rep. Dave Brat (VA-7); Rep. Ted Budd (NC-13); Sen. Ted Cruz (TX); Rep. Ron DeSantis (FL-6); Rep. Glenn Grothman (WI-6); Rep. Karen Handel (GA-6); Sen. Dean Heller (NV); Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-4); Rep. Steve King (IA-4); Rep. Jason Lewis (MN-2); Rep. Kevin McCarthy (CA-23); Rep. Steve Pearce (NM-2); Rep. Pete Sessions (TX-32); and Rep. Scott Taylor (VA-2).
VIEW THE WORST FOR WOMEN MICROSITE HERE: https://worstforwomen.com/
These members tout Trump's dangerous and extreme agenda--voting in line with Trump as much as 99 percent of the time. They've consistently voted to repeal health care, to protect the special interests and profits for the 1%, to defund Planned Parenthood, and against a woman's right to choose. These members are threatening the lives of women across the country--particularly women of color, rural women, and low-income women.
"Women are poised to play a key role in November. We don't intend to let that opportunity slip by," explained Shaunna Thomas, executive director of UltraViolet PAC, a leading national women's organization. "Each and every one of these Congress members is an active threat to women in every respect, whether in their access to health care, fair workplace protections, or protections and recourse for survivors of gendered violence. It's not just about these members' demonstrated misogyny--it's their undermining of low-income women, women of color, and immigrant women in federal policy."
"If you are a member of congress putting women's rights, livelihoods, and actual lives at risk--start making plans for a long vacation after election day, because your political career ends in November," said Bradley Beychok, president and co-founder of American Bridge.
In conjunction with the announcement of the new microsite, new digital ads on Facebook will link individual members of Congress with the very worst votes they have cast against women and are sourced back to the new micro-site and legislative scorecard so voters can learn more about these reckless individuals' support for some of the most extreme anti-woman, racist, anti-immigrant, and homophobic elements of government today. Examples include: Congressman Jason Lewis bemoaned no longer being able to call women "sluts," and referred to women voters as "without a brain," "ignorant," and "not thinking;" Steve King blamed the use of contraception for a "dying civilization" and declared U.S. citizens should be increasing birth rates to keep out immigrants; Karen Handel persuaded a major foundation to stop funding life-saving breast cancer screenings.
In creating the list of the 'Worst for Women' candidates, American Bridge and UltraViolet PAC conducted an analysis of the voting records from the 114th Congress and 115th Congress and narrowed down a list of those who voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, to defund Planned Parenthood, for the GOP tax scam, against a minimum wage hike, and for an unconstitutional abortion ban. The groups also took into consideration other parts of the members' records and histories, including sexist remarks or discriminatory practices.
- Rep. Don Bacon (NE-2)
- Rep. Dave Brat (VA-7)
- Rep. Ted Budd (NC-13)
- Sen. Ted Cruz (TX)
- Rep. Ron DeSantis (FL-6)
- Rep. Glenn Grothman (WI-6)
- Rep. Karen Handel (GA-6)
- Sen. Dean Heller (NV)
- Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-4)
- Rep. Steve King (IA-4)
- Rep. Jason Lewis (MN-2)
- Rep. Kevin McCarthy (CA-23)
- Rep. Steve Pearce (NM-2)
- Rep. Pete Sessions (TX-32)
- Rep. Scott Taylor (VA-2)
Repeal of the Affordable Care Act. These members all voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA has been an overwhelming win for women. It provided health care coverage for many low-income women who previously could not afford it. It ended the industry practice of charging women more than men for insurance policies. It required maternity and newborn care benefits in individual market health plans. It provided free preventive services for women, including contraception and breast pumps for nursing mothers. It protected domestic violence survivors from insurance penalties. It has saved countless women's lives.
GOP Tax Scam. These members all voted for the GOP tax scam that provided billions in tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% of Americans--of which women are only a fraction. The tax reform bill forced working women and families to pay for benefits for big business and wealthy elites while threatening critical programs for women, including Medicaid, Medicare, child care, housing assistance, Pell Grants, funds for combating violence against women, and more.
Planned Parenthood and Title X. These members repeatedly voted to defund Planned Parenthood and to dismantle Title X, the successful nearly 50 year old family planning program serving four million patients. Planned Parenthood provides preventive care, contraception, cancer screenings, and more for millions of men and women each year. Many of these members, like Cruz and King, are openly opposed to women having access to contraception.
Minimum wage and workers' protections. All of these members voted against a raise in the minimum wage--which has been stuck at $7.25 for nearly a decade. Two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women and in some states it's as much as three-quarters. Many of these members are opposed to simple workers' protections like paid sick days, paid family leave, and pay equity laws. Glenn Grothman once led the fight against pay equity in his state, noting, "money is more important for men." Karen Handel openly stated, "I do not support a livable wage."
20 week abortion ban without protections. These members all put politics over women's lives when they voted for an unconstitutional ban on nearly all abortions after 20 weeks. It also put "onerous reporting requirements" on rape and incest victims and employed junk science that misled Americans.
These members are dangerously out of touch and openly hostile to the women constituents and voters they serve. Many of them are in tight races for re-election or the governor's mansion.
For more information, or for interview with an UltraViolet PAC spokesperson, please contact Yasmina Dardari at (407) 922-8149 or by email at yasmina@unbendablemedia.com.
UltraViolet is a powerful and rapidly growing community of people mobilized to fight sexism and create a more inclusive world that accurately represents all women, from politics and government to media and pop culture.
LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular