Dear Nancy, with what's going on with the Alito confirmation and other judicial nominees I just have a number of questions.

Does Naral endorse politcal candidates?

If so, for the US Senate, how does Naral use votes on judicial nominees in determining whether or not to endorse a candidate?

For example, if a current US senator claims to be pro-choice, but repeatedly votes to place anti-choice judges on the bench, how do you factor in those votes to your endorsements (if you endorse)?

Also, on the filibuster of judge Altio. I noticed that a number of supposedly "pro-choice" Senators will vote for cloture and end the filibuster. How will those votes factor in?

I'm just curious. As I recall, I always note when pro-choice oranizations give the thumbs up to a particular candidate, particularly to GOP candidates (I'm a republican).

However, I'm getting somewhat angry these days that so-called pro-choice GOP senators vote yes on anti-choice judges. I'd like to find out and know when I vote not only how these men and women voted on actual legislation, but how they voted on anti-choice judges and whether or not to filibuster any judges who were anti-choice.

For example, if Senators Chaffee, Spector and Snow have consistantly voted to place anti-choice judges on the bench, I think that this information is just as valuable as knowing how they voted on partial birth abortion legislation.

Thank you.

Does Naral endorse candidates? And, if so, how do US Senators votes for confirmation for anti-choice judges factor into the decision whether or not to endorse?

I certaintly canot speak for NARAL, But here I am doing so. NARAL does endorce candidates, and does a great job at providing background information on them. This is their job as a special interest organisation { I still find it ironic that NARAL, which represents over half the population would be labled as such} Women are a special interest group?
Politics is a game of give and take. I believe politicians play that game daily. Give me what I want on this, and I will support you on your agenda. If a self proffesed pro-choice politician finds him/her self in a no win situation they are quick to compromise their stated positions. I certainly do not include all politicos. My Senator, Dick Durbin, has been consistent in his opposition to the Dumbya agenda. I include Sen. Kennedy, and Barbara Boxer, as exceptions, as well.
I have a major problem with the whole process to begin with. According to our Constitution, all the three branches of government are supposed to be seperate of each other's influence. That is the back bone of checks and balances, as was intended by the authors of our form of government. Jefferson instituded the practice of having the president appoint a Supreme Court justice to avoid the anarchy of political infighting within Congress. I believe the experiment has failed.
We are constantly faced with presidential choices, today, liberal, or conservative that reflect the Executive branch of government, and the agenda that branch desires to advance. Whether the appointees get confirmed is a reflection of the current circus in town at that moment.
I have NO respect for judicial positions that get handed down by the Supreme Court, because I have no respect for political appointees and idealogical flacks. What is it about 7-9 persons wearing black robes, that make their decisions so ALL knowing that will make millions of persons have to suffer, in the matter of Roe V.Wade for example?
ctmoderate, I went on a rant. There is a annual revue{Someone help please on the name of the report, that gives a grade on each Senator's voting record} Perhaps that will help. I still feel it wrong that we still have to see the Supreme court as a farce when it comes to appointing qualified persons who would objectively interpret the law of the land and adhere to precedents certain laws have established.,i.e. Roe V Wade. An amendment that has withstood close to 4 decades of challenge

Let me start out by saying I'm as "pro choice" as they come, and firmly believe if it were men that got pregnant, we would not be having any sort of debate. Abortion would always be legal. That being said, I think we need to take a step back here and consider the man sitting in the oval office. Under NO circumstances was George Bush going to give us a pro choice nominee. In fact, we were going to get an anti choice candidate. Period! Meirs nomination was pulled when even a single question arose as to her position on choice. If Alito failed confirmation, then the next candidate would DEFINITELY have the same position on a woman's right to choose. I believe real progress will only be made when we have lost, or are in peril of losing the right to choose. Begnign pro-choice people believe the court will never overturned our hard fought and won efforts.

It is only when Roe v. Wade is in jeopardy of being reversed will people who have let the issue of choice take a back seat to other issues stand up and take notice. For if they don't the issue is lost as is the entire Democratic Party. Now I know there exist pro choice republicans and anti choice democrats, but by-in-large, the pro choice party is the Democratic Party, while the opposite is true of the Republicans. The Alito fight was lost the moment Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement. Our major push has to be at getting pro choice candidates elected. That's the only way to protect the right of choice. To do otherwise is closing the barn door after the horses have already escaped.