The Independent Women’s Forum and The Independent Women’s Voice:
Not Independent, Not Neutral on Healthcare

The Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) says it’s a “non-partisan research and education
institution.” The Independent Women’s Voice (IWV) claims to represent the views of
independent women voters and to “ensure that mainstream women’s voices are heard.”
But these organizations are most definitely not independent, mainstream, or neutral.
IWF and IWV are deeply imbedded in the right-wing political infrastructure, have long
connections to the Koch Brothers, and promote right-wing, often anti-women, policies, and
politicians.
“Independent” branding is calculated and misleading
Passing themselves as “independent” and “neutral” has allowed IWF and IWV to garner media
opportunities to promote right-wing causes and candidates without scrutiny of their true agenda
or allegiances.
“Being branded as neutral, but actually having people who know know that you’re actually
conservative puts us in a unique position,” Heather Richardson Higgins, IWV President and IWF
Board Chair has admitted.
The IWF and IWV have taken advantage of their “neutral brand” and free pass from the media
to speak out against equal pay, paid family leave, the “Violence Against Women Act,” Title IX,
the Republican “War on Women,” rape on campus, regulated childcare, and provide false
equivalence on other women’s economic and social issues. They are also frequently asked to
weigh-in on a wide variety of public issues from guns to gay marriage, from education to the
environment.
Here is a snapshot of positions taken and quotes from IWF and IWV’s issue “experts” on
healthcare:

•

Blocking expanded government programs on healthcare is arguably IWF and IWV’s top
priority issue. The organizations have devoted substantial money and other resources
(advocacy-driven resources and political dollars) to fighting Affordable Care Act (ACA).

•

Starting in 2010, working with American Majority, IWV launched the “The Repeal
Pledge,” a “process driven” anti-ACA pledge that, in the words of Heather Higgins,
seeks to “defund” and “deauthorize” ACA at all levels of government. Higgins proclaimed
on Fox News’ Hannity program that IWV’s pledge is unlike other pledges in that it is not
just a symbolic vote, but a stance on “what are you going to do to slow the beast if you
are serious about repeal.”
IWV has continued pushing the pledge for six years, and regularly features it in
advocacy campaigns. The pledge takes different forms, encouraging, for example, state
legislators to “oppose and vote against all bills that would allow or advance the law’s
implementation” and to “oppose measures accepting federal funds.”

 Federally, the pledge has been signed by two 2016 presidential candidates (Carly
Fiorina and Ted Cruz), 17 Senators (including Senator Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell), and 82 House Representatives. (IWF’s “Women of Valor” gala in
November will honor Fiorina).
•

IWV has launched at least 6 campaigns, featuring stand-alone websites, against
healthcare reform. These websites feature quiz-based campaigns (e.g. “No Washington
Exemption”) and infographic-based storytelling (e.g. “The Real Life of Julia”).

•

IWF has released at least 10 policy papers on ACA since 2009, raising bogus concerns
about the policy and its implementation.

•

IWF released a policy paper on the alleged unconstitutionality of ACA leading up to the
Sebelius case. In that article, IWF quoted extensively from “research” conducted by the
Goldwater Institute, a State Policy Network-affiliate with deep ties to the ALEC network.
(CMD has profiled the Goldwater Institute in the past.)

•

According to Heather Higgins, IWV created HealthReformQuestions.com and “applied
that messaging to battleground states” in 2012.

•

IWV has commissioned a host of polls in swing districts and across the nation on the
issue of ACA and healthcare in general. The organization claims to have commissioned
“the only comprehensive survey on Americans’ thoughts about” the King v. Burwell case
leading up to the crucial Supreme Court case.