Two victories in the Senate
Kirsten Suhr is the Associate Director of Communications for Online Strategies at NARAL Pro-choice America.
On the heels of President Obama's global gag rule repeal last Friday, we got some good news from the Senate. The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) provides health insurance to low-income kids. The reauthorization bill came up in the Senate, and anti-choice Senators thought this would be a great place to advance their agenda. But both amendments flopped.
- The first amendment would have reinstated the global gag rule and enshrined the anti-choice Bush policy into permanent law. Ew. But the Senate backed our new president and voted against the amendment 60-37.
- Sen. Hatch (pro-choice score: 0%) proposed an amendment that would have codified an old Bush regulation, making an embryo or fetus eligible for SCHIP. Yes, you read that right - the embryo or fetus, not the pregnant woman. This was a thinly veiled attempt (or was it even veiled at all?) to chip away at a woman's right to choose by giving a fetus rights separate from the woman. The Senate rejected this one by a vote of 59-39.
So two big cheers for the Senate for rejecting these awful amendments! But this should also serve as a reminder to pro-choice Americans that anti-choice lawmakers aren't just going to go into hiding now that we have a pro-choice president. We need to stay vigilant. As NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan said, "We have witnessed time and again the lengths to which anti-choice politicians will go to pacify a right-wing base that's angry at the loss of the White House and several seats in Congress. We are prepared to fight back against the use of choice as a political football."

Speaking of football, NBC would not allow a Pro-Life commercial to air claiming that they didn't want political ads run during the game. On the other hand, PETA's commercial was not allowed to run due to its sexual content. NBC told PETA that if they choose to take out some of the more explecit parts of the ad then they would run it. The Pro-Life ad (www.catholicvote.org) it seems was excluded not because it was political, but because it was PRO-LIFE! NBC and MSNBC should be ashamed of themselves. They want to silence debate rather then engage in it. I'm suprised that they hosted a competitive game where the rules are the same for everyone!
Any idea of what the Pro Life message would have been in the commercial?
I am new to this debate. Why do abortion opponents call themselves "pro-life" and abortion proponents call abortion opponents "anti-choice?"
Labels seem to be the preference of the labeler (i.e. possible name calling or self flattery).
Would a better name for pro life be pro responsibility?
Names are not the issue, the issue is about choice. Or not having a choice.
Kay
Nova Women's Healthcare
Fairfax, Virginia
Could the name game be avoided if pro choice more extensively stated what choice is being debated?
Why not state “Pro choice for abortion” to better limit the name games?