As time dwindles in the race between Terri Lynn Land (R) and Gary Peters (D) for the open Michigan Senate seat, voters grapple with two candidates who have seemingly flipped the stereotype of “women’s rights” and right-to-life issues.
The race is backward: A woman who opposes abortion and a white man who supports it. Backward from the stereotype, at least.
Peters would win the seat by six points if the election were held today. But that number has dropped since July, when he led the race by nine points, according to a recent poll done by EPIC-MRA and WXYZ 7 Detroit.
Though Land leads the male vote by a small margin, Peters maintains a large margin among female voters, with 49 percent favoring Peters, 34 percent for Land, and 18 percent undecided. Men are voting Republican and women are voting Democrat in this election. Land needs to convince those undecided Michigan women in order to have any chance at the senate seat. And since Land has improved her stance with male voters, the election will come down to the female vote.
Land and Peters could not be further apart on the spectrum. Will female voters cast the ballot for the former Michigan Secretary of State who opposes abortion, or an “old white male” (the stereotype which Democrats love to use against the Right) who supports partial-birth, sex-selective, and taxpayer-funded abortions?
A recent ad from Senate Majority PAC attacks Land’s views: “Backwards: That’s the direction Terri Lynn Land would take Michigan women.”
The ad falsely claims that Land would outlaw common forms of contraception. Land’s campaign has stated that she supports access to birth control, though she has not said outright what her views on the “morning-after” pill are. Land does, however, support bans on all abortion, with the exception of saving the life of the mother.
Peters’s website states that Michigan women cannot trust Land because she “supports a constitutional amendment to recognize personhood or that full human rights begin at conception,” a position that is supposedly “out of touch.”
Land has responded by stating that, “as a woman, I might know a little more about women than Gary Peters.”
Peters, on the other hand, supports expanding Obamacare, NARAL, and “pregnancy prevention.” In July, the Washington Post reported that close to half of voters in Michigan greatly dislike Obamacare. This bodes ill for a candidate who supports its implementation.
There are two key points: First, the assertion that Land’s pro-life stance makes her untrustworthy for Michigan women is a sweeping judgement, and an unwise one at that. I am a Michigan woman, and in my eyes, Land’s stance makes her more trustworthy.
Second, rather than all the political mudslinging, both candidates need to get down to the real questions of the election and come out with their own views on issues, and why they hold those views.
Why indeed would a woman wage a “war on women”? From a purely economic standpoint, how do “pregnancy prevention” and contraception methods do anything to foster and grow the economy? Do voters want to live in a culture where life is protected or “prevented”? Is life precious, or isn’t it? And is freedom to choose, freedom to do whatever you want, real freedom?
A prospective Senator Peters’s votes would support high government involvement, laws harmful to women, and a culture of death.
Land in the Michigan Senate, however, would be a stepping stone to an America that supports the culture of life and upholds true women’s rights. It would be not only the land of the free, but also the land of the living.