As this election season unfolds, I find myself reflecting deeply on my children—particularly my daughters. One of them will soon be eligible to vote in the upcoming presidential election, and I can’t help but wonder how our choice for president will shape their future, not just today but as they transition into adulthood.
This election extends beyond the immediate concerns of today or even the next four years. With Congress failing to fulfill its duty to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice, the next president will likely have the significant responsibility of nominating someone to fill the seat left vacant by Justice Antonin Scalia. Given that several current justices are nearing or surpassing their 80s—well beyond the average retirement age—it’s quite possible that the next president will be nominating multiple justices.
These appointments will have lasting implications for my daughters, and I want a Supreme Court that won’t restrict their choices in pivotal moments. Personally, I have my convictions about abortion; however, I don’t support making it illegal. I’ve encountered stories of mothers constrained by restrictive abortion laws, forced to endure unnecessary pain. The statistics indicate that banning abortion doesn’t reduce its incidence; it merely makes it more perilous. If we genuinely want to decrease abortion rates, we should focus on making contraception universally accessible and affordable for everyone, a goal unlikely to be championed by a conservative Supreme Court.
While I hold conservative views on abortion, it’s clear that a more liberal-leaning Supreme Court could lead to lower abortion rates and more support for women overall. A Trump presidency would likely mean a court that prioritizes ideology over practical solutions, setting us back when we should be advancing.
When I consider the candidates’ family leave policies, my thoughts again turn to my daughters. Trump’s proposal of only six weeks of paid leave for mothers feels outdated and inadequate. It overlooks the needs of fathers and adoptive parents, as well as the importance of having support during the postpartum period. This narrow approach risks making women less competitive in the workplace. If a company has to choose between hiring a man or a woman, who is more appealing? A woman who will be taking time off for every child or a man who may not take significant leave?
In the 21st century, when women are making strides in the workplace and men are becoming more involved in parenting, limiting paid leave to mothers is a step backward. I want my daughters to benefit from progressive policies like Hillary’s plan of 12 weeks of paid leave for both mothers and fathers. It’s time we emerge from the bottom tier of developed nations regarding family leave and genuinely uphold our stated family values.
Finally, who do I want my daughters to see in the highest office? Do I want them to look up to a woman with 40 years of public service experience, who has navigated challenges with grace and has a clear plan for the nation? Or a billionaire businessman with no governing experience, who often resorts to insults and is known for spreading misinformation?
Before you dismiss my perspective with claims of corruption against Hillary, I encourage you to explore the facts. For a deeper understanding, consider reading more about the candidates on sites like Medical News Today’s fertility section, which provides excellent resources on related topics.
For my daughters, the choice is evident. If we aspire to progress gender equality and women’s rights, we simply cannot afford a President Trump.
In summary, as we approach the polls, it’s crucial to consider how our decisions will affect future generations, particularly our daughters. The policies we support today will shape the world they inherit.