Stephanie Mencimer

Stephanie Mencimer

Reporter

Stephanie works in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. A Utah native and graduate of a crappy public university not worth mentioning, she has spent the last year hanging out with angry white people who occasionally don tricorne hats and come to lunch meetings heavily armed.

Full Bio | Get my RSS |

Stephanie covers legal affairs and domestic policy in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. She is the author of Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and Its Corporate Allies Are Taking Away Your Right to Sue. A contributing editor of the Washington Monthly, a former investigative reporter at the Washington Post, and a senior writer at the Washington City Paper, she was nominated for a National Magazine Award in 2004 for a Washington Monthly article about myths surrounding the medical malpractice system. In 2000, she won the Harry Chapin Media award for reporting on poverty and hunger, and her 2010 story in Mother Jones of the collapse of the welfare system in Georgia and elsewhere won a Casey Medal for Meritorious Journalism.

Romney and the Women Who Still Don't Love Him

| Wed Oct. 17, 2012 12:24 PM PDT

Earlier this week, the media were atwitter with poll results showing that GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney was surging among women voters. Until the first debate, women, particularly single women, had been strong backers of President Obama, who in April this year was winning women by 19 points over Romney—and single women by 36 points. But on Monday, Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told USA Today that since Romney's strong first debate performance she'd noticed a  "a major surge among women in favorability for Romney" in "every poll."

But after surging in the lady polls after the first debate, Romney whiffed on an important women's rights question in the town hall-style debate on Tuesday night. Asked about gender equality, he tried to address the issue with his record on gender as Massachusetts governor. Instead, he ended up suggesting that he sees women as a compartmentalized problem to be dealt with through office supplies—"binders full of women." 

Don't be surprised if, in the wake of the "binder" mess, women decide they don't like Romney after all. Romney has never won a majority of women voters in any of his previous election runs. During the 2012 Republican primary, he lost women voters in many states to the sanctimonious and rigidly anti-abortion Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, a famous philanderer. He won the Massachusetts gubernatorial race in 2002 thanks only to men, losing women voters by 4 percent. During his first Senate race in 1994, Romney even managed to lose women voters by 24 points to Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) in a year when Kennedy was struggling to overcome an image as a womanizer. 

Romney was no more successful at hiring women to work for him at Bain Capital. Women held fewer than 10 percent of vice president positions during Romney's tenure there, a problem he dismissed in 1994 by saying that private equity was "a profession that has yet to attract many women and minorities."  

Romney's had lots of time to prep for a question on this topic. Kennedy bashed him with the issue to great effect in 1994, pointing out his horrible record at hiring women at Bain in TV ads. But in answering the question, Romney came off not like the nation's stepdad, but like every woman's worst boss. He's the condescending guy who cuts you off in meetings, dismisses your ideas, and who then also believes there's no such thing as gender discrimination. (His talking over moderator Candy Crowley certainly didn't help his attempts to prove his respect for women in the workplace, either.) 

Like the idea of "self-deporting" immigrants, Romney's response to the debate question about gender inequality showed that he still thinks women "self-discriminate" by not flocking to high-finance or political jobs because, you know, they want to be home for dinner. Gender inequality, in Romney's view, is not something that requires substantive national policy solutions, just more enlightened, paternal men at the top to generously fish women out of a binder and graciously give them jobs.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Could Bush v. Gore Save Obama in Ohio?

| Tue Oct. 16, 2012 3:08 AM PDT

Update: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court rejected an attempt by Ohio to shut down early voting the weekend before Election Day for everyone but members of the military and their families, a major victory for the Obama campaign.

The Supreme Court's highly politicized and intensely criticized decision in the landmark case Bush v. Gore was so bad for the court that it reportedly made former Justice David Souter weep and contemplate quitting. In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens lamented bitterly that the majority opinion "can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land." When asked about the decision, Justice Antonin Scalia usually tells audiences, "Get over it!"

In the 12 years since the conservative court majority stopped the Florida recount and handed the presidential election to Republican George W. Bush, it has studiously avoided revisiting that decision. Bush v. Gore has become The Case That Shall Not Be Named. Not once has the court cited the opinion in another decision. By comparison, in the decade after Brown v. Board of Education, the court referenced that decision more than 25 times. But an unexpected litigant may soon force the court to confront the logic of what it did in 2000: the Obama campaign. And how the court decides that case could swing the election. Again.

Obama for America has been in court in Ohio challenging the state's move to close early voting three days before the actual election for everyone but military and overseas voters. The state had implemented early voting in 2005 after criticism of its performance in 2004, when thousands of voters faced huge lines on Election Day and many people were turned away because they didn't vote before the polls closed. In 2008, 100,000 people, many of whom might be considered to lean Democrat (women, minorities, poor people), voted early during the weekend before the election. So last year, Ohio's Republican-dominated state legislature decided to pull the plug on early voting, except for the people who might be more inclined to vote Republican, namely people in the military.

The Obama campaign challenged the move, and in August, a federal judge agreed that Ohio had violated the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause by allowing some people to vote early but not others. In early October, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision and ordered Ohio to keep the polls open for the weekend for everyone if they do it for the military and overseas voters. The state has filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court to overturn the order. The Obama campaign, naturally, is opposed, and has filed a brief arguing that Bush v. Gore demands that the court protect the integrity of the voting process. (In that case, the court stopped the Florida vote recount because it argued that the state's procedures failed to treat all ballots equally and thus had violated the 14th Amendment.)

As a result, the court now will have to prove whether it was serious or simply partisan when it sided with Republicans by declaring that "[t]he right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise." The Ohio case could provide the court with an opportunity to "heal the wound of confidence" that Stevens so eloquently identified in his 2000 dissent. This time, though, if the court sticks with this earlier precedent, it might be helping hand the election to the Democrats, making the case a serious test of the conservatives' true commitment to the idea of equal protection at the ballot box.

Anti-Gay Group Finds "Homosexual Agenda" in School Lunch Room

| Mon Oct. 15, 2012 12:18 PM PDT

Anti-gay activists tend to find evidence of the "homosexual agenda" lurking around every corner: in Teletubbies, Campbell's Soup, even American Girl dolls. Most recently, though, they've focused their attention on programs designed to combat bullying in schools, which they see as a dangerous movement to bring impressionable youth into the gay lifestyle. As Bryan Fischer, the director of issues analysis at the American Family Association (AFA), one of the leading opponents of anti-bullying programs, has explained, "[H]omosexuals cannot reproduce, so they have to recruit; it's the only way to swell their numbers."

AFA and other anti-gay groups like the Traditional Values Coalition has been fairly apoplectic about anti-bullying programs and legislation around the country that has been enacted in the wake of suicides of gay teenagers who had been bullied at school. They've directed their wrath at people like Kevin Jennings, formerly the Obama administration's safe schools "czar," who made anti-bullying programs a big part of the administration's education agenda. (Conservative outrage against Jennings was so bad that he was the target of numerous death threats.) The most recent campaign, though, is targeted at an anti-bullying effort called "Mix It Up At Lunch Day," created by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Mix It Up Day, this year on October 30, consists almost entirely of forcing kids to sit with someone new at lunch. That's it. The idea behind it is that forcing kids to interact with kids they don't normally hang with helps break up cliques that form in schools and which foster bullying. But behind this rather innocuous project, the AFA sees the "homosexual agenda." According to their website:

"Mix It Up" day is an entry-level "diversity" program designed specifically by SPCL [sic] to establish the acceptance of homosexuality into public schools, including elementary and junior high schools.

AFA is encouraging its members to keep their kids home from school on the 30th if their schools participate, and also to pressure schools to abandon the project. The SPLC finds AFA's outrage—and characterization of the program—a bit preposterous. Maureen Costello, the director of the center's Teaching Tolerance program, told the New York Times, "We've become used to the idea of lunatic fringe attacks, but this one was complete misrepresentation."

But the AFA isn't likely to be dissuaded. After all, these are people who found the gay agenda hiding in a Starbucks coffee cup. Indeed, Fischer told the Times, "[The day is] just another thinly veiled attempt to promote the homosexual agenda. No one is in favor of anyone getting bullied for any reason, but these anti-bullying policies become a mechanism for punishing Christian students who believe that homosexual behavior is not something that should be normalized."

Tue Jun. 18, 2013 3:30 AM PDT
Mon Jun. 10, 2013 3:30 PM PDT
Tue Apr. 30, 2013 9:29 AM PDT
Fri Mar. 15, 2013 2:41 PM PDT
Wed Feb. 20, 2013 4:01 AM PST
Wed Jan. 30, 2013 8:26 AM PST
Tue Jan. 15, 2013 7:09 AM PST
Tue Dec. 11, 2012 10:26 AM PST
Tue Dec. 4, 2012 9:20 AM PST
Wed Nov. 7, 2012 4:13 PM PST
Wed Nov. 7, 2012 9:18 AM PST
Mon Oct. 29, 2012 10:03 AM PDT
Wed Oct. 17, 2012 12:24 PM PDT
Tue Oct. 16, 2012 3:08 AM PDT
Fri Sep. 14, 2012 3:13 PM PDT
Fri Sep. 14, 2012 8:33 AM PDT
Fri Sep. 14, 2012 3:11 AM PDT
Wed Sep. 12, 2012 10:24 AM PDT