Rep. Haley Stevens needs to stop wrapping a political betrayal in the language of feminism. On Sunday, the Michigan congresswoman broke with her party and endorsed Republican Mike Rogers in the state’s Senate race, earning a swift expulsion from the state’s Democratic Party.

The endorsement came after Stevens lost the Democratic primary to Abdul El-Sayed in August. Although the two were not close, she supported him through most of the general election cycle before abruptly changing course about a week before the election.

That shift followed comments from Stevens’ fiancé, Jewish civil rights lawyer Jason Turkish, who said El-Sayed’s criticism of Israel posed a threat to Jews. Stevens initially played down Turkish’s comments, but she soon reversed herself and endorsed Rogers.

Responding Monday to speculation that her fiancé had influenced the decision, Stevens wrote on X: “That is sexism dressed up as political analysis. My fiancé has his own views. I have mine. I made this decision, and I am proud of it. Do not question my independence simply because you disagree with my conclusion.”

On that narrow point, Stevens is right. She made the decision, and she should be held responsible for it rather than treated as though she lacks the ability to direct her own political career.

But Stevens then used sexism as a catchall defense against criticism of the choice itself. That same day, she said she had given El-Sayed “an opportunity … to unite around something that everyone could agree on, and then I got disinvited instead … This is what happens to women.”

In reality, campaigns tend to react badly when prominent supporters undermine them shortly before an election. Invoking sexism does not erase legitimate scrutiny, particularly when the decision being defended elevates a politician whose record conflicts with the empowerment Stevens claims to represent.

After El-Sayed won Wednesday, Stevens continued the same argument on X. “The votes have been counted. The results are in. For me, living my beliefs was never measured by who would win at the ballot box. As a woman, I have the right to make a decision and to change my mind.”

Of course she has that right. She also has an obligation to answer for endorsing Rogers, who has voted for abortion bans, against a fully inclusive Violence Against Women Act, against marriage equality and against affordable health care.

Rogers also voted for cuts that removed people, especially low income mothers, from food assistance. Stevens herself had repeatedly criticized him before her sudden endorsement, making her new presentation of Rogers as the answer to hateful rhetoric especially difficult to swallow.

There is no coherence in describing this as the decision of an empowered woman while supporting a candidate whose record works against that empowerment. Stevens is using her identity not merely to explain her choice, but to deflect criticism of its consequences.

The contradiction grew sharper during a joint press conference with Rogers outside the historically Black Perfecting Church in Detroit on Sunday. Stevens said she had to consider who was “standing for country.”

“I’m choosing country over hate,” Stevens added. “This is not anti-Muslim at all.” Yet the split between Stevens and El-Sayed had widened over an advertisement she viewed as fearmongering about Israel.

The advertisement blamed rising grocery costs on the war in Gaza, but it was not created by El-Sayed’s campaign. El-Sayed distanced himself from it, though Stevens objected that he had not disavowed it according to her specifications.

Turning to Rogers as the remedy for supposed hate is particularly hollow given the hateful rhetoric that his Republican Party directed at Arab and Muslim Americans during the campaign and for years before this election cycle. A Black church provided the backdrop as Stevens denied perpetuating racism while advancing an endorsement that invited precisely that criticism.

In a week marked by historic wins for women and people of color, Stevens presented herself as a protector of both while working against them. She invoked Islamophobia, leaned on the setting of a Black church and repeatedly deployed feminism as both a ladder for advancement and a shield against accountability.

Stevens has every right to make her own decisions and change her mind. What she does not get is immunity from criticism simply because she invokes womanhood after crossing the line.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LeftScoop.news. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.