Not among the ones in the Senate, it seems. 4 of the 5 female Republican senators (Snowe, Collins, Murkowski, Hutchinson) have criticized or voted against their own party on these issues.
4 of the 5 female Republican Senators is too small of a pool, though, especially for the constituency of their political party. And Senators don't represent their political party - rather, they represent their state. So they voted based on what they believed was in the best interest of their state, not the best interest of their party.
I'm not saying that female politicians will never play ball when it's in their political interests to do so...but I do think that having 50 female senators would probably steer the priorities of the Senate in a different direction than 18 female senators can, and reshape the way legislation is actually negotiated and written.
No doubt it would. But I don't think that's a proper way of doing a representative government.
After all, mandating that a certain number of Representatives be homosexual will certainly steer the priorities of the House in a different direction than however many of them are currently serving, and reshape the way legislation is actually negotiated and written.
The same could be said by mandating certain ratios based on race. Or based on wealth. Or based on education level. Or based on occupational training.
So the question then becomes where does it end? What demographics should we make mandated seats for? How many seats should we keep safe for them? What happens if nobody who fits that demographic decides to be a candidate for that office?
And why go through all that bother when, instead, we can just allow people to vote whoever throws their hat in the ring, but also allow people to influence government directly via a process of referendum?