May 16, 2008
Webchat Transcript on Obama Endorsement
About two hours ago, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, and Elizabeth Shipp, political director of NARAL Pro-Choice America, participated in a one-hour webchat to discuss the NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama.
We had over nearly 700 people submit questions, and Nancy and Beth did their best to get through as many of them as they could. The transcript is available online for those of you that weren't able to join us.
Posted by Molly at 5:04 PM | Comments (205)
May 15, 2008
regarding the last 24 hours
There are a couple things that I would like to acknowledge from the events of the last 24 hours, so I hope you'll take a second to read this quick post.
I feel it's important to note how glad I am to see that there have been, and continue to be, some really healthy discussions about the NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama. Certainly we anticipated strong reactions when we announced this decision. As you can tell from the comments on our last two blog posts, there are a wide range of differing views. We honor ALL of these feelings and opinions, and thank you for taking the time to tell us what you think - supportive and otherwise.
I want to personally reassure you that we, my staff and I, are reading all of these comments. I hope that you will continue to leave your thoughts, but I urge you to be respectful of each other's opinions.
Thank you for your care, concern, and activism regarding women's reproductive rights.
Posted by Nancy at 2:18 PM | Comments (247)
May 14, 2008
end of the day message
Before I go home for the day, I wanted to take a moment to let everyone know that we appreciate the time you have taken to visit our blog, read our blog post(s), watch our video, and/or leave a comment. As you can tell by the incredible number of comments (as I write it, we're at 1781 comments and growing), there have been some incredibly strong reactions from both Clinton and Obama supporters. I want to let you know that we are reading each and every comment.
In fact, your incredible outpouring of comments has put the blogosphere on notice (here are just two interesting comment threads):
Ann at Feministing: NARAL endorses Obama
Jill at Feministe: Breaking: NARAL Pro-Choice America Endorses Obama
I want to urge you to continue to leave your support, concerns, and/or thoughts in the comments with one friendly reminder - please keep it civil. There is a way to continue this healthy debate while respecting the views of others.
Thank you, and we'll be back in the A.M.
Posted by Molly at 8:01 PM | Comments (206)
NARAL Pro-Choice America Endorses Sen. Barack Obama for President
I am so eager to share with you this exciting news, so I'm going to get right to it.
Today, NARAL Pro-Choice America's political action committee is proud to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president.
Sen. Obama has been a leader on this issue in the United States Senate. Since joining the Senate in 2005, he has worked to unite Americans on both side of this debate behind commonsense, common-ground ways to prevent unintended pregnancy. Sen. Obama supports legislation to provide our teens with comprehensive sex education, prevent pharmacies from denying women access to their legal birth-control prescriptions, and increase access for family-planning services.
Please take a moment to watch our quick video (it's under two minutes, I promise).
As you can tell, we here at NARAL Pro-Choice America are really excited about this endorsement, and equally as excited to work towards putting pro-choice Obama in the White House!
Americans have been fortunate to have two fully pro-choice candidates in this truly historic race for the Democratic nomination. But only one can go forward to the general election.
What are your thoughts? I hope you'll take a moment to share them in the comments below.
UPDATE: Check out my blog post over at The Huffington Post where I talk more about why we endorsed Sen. Obama, and why now.
Posted by Nancy at 10:58 AM | Comments (3735)
May 12, 2008
ABC News: McCain Poised to Flip on GOP Abortion Platform
In case you missed it, on Friday, ABCNews reported that McCain is poised to "flip" on GOP abortion platform:
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., faces enormous pressure from social conservatives to ignore his repeated commitment to change the GOP's platform on abortion.
"If he were to change the party platform," to account for exceptions such as rape, incest or risk to the mother's life, "I think that would be political suicide," said Tony Perkins, the president of the conservative Family Research Council, to ABC News. "I think he would be aborting his own campaign because that is such a critical issue to so many Republican voters and the Republican brand is already in trouble."
Hmmmm. This story hasn't really had the traction you might expect it would. Think Progress covered it, but that's all I've seen. Has anyone else seen other coverage?
Hopefully reporters will stay on this story to get to the truth: McCain is anti-choice, and he has the 25-year voting record to back it up. Pandering can't change the truth.
Posted by Molly at 11:07 AM | Comments (6)
May 9, 2008
democratic candidates' reactions to McCain's judges speech
Better late than never, right? From NBC's Mark Murray, check out the two democratic candidates' reactions to McCain's speech on judges (sorry I was slow to post these):
Obama: "The Straight Talk Express took another sharp right turn today as John McCain promised his conservative base four more years of out-of-touch judges that would threaten a woman's right to choose, gut the campaign finance reform that bears his own name, and trample the rights and interests of the American people," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement. "Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves."
Clinton: "We won't take lectures on the right way to approach the Constitution from Sen. McCain, who voted for extreme conservative judges like Justice Thomas. In an effort to pander to conservative voters, Sen. McCain has signaled his intention to appoint right-wing judges who are committed to rolling back women's rights and civil rights, elevating the interests of big business over the rights of workers and consumers, affirming executive branch power grabs, and undermining our common core freedoms. Sen. Clinton has a different vision. She will appoint judges who respect the separation of powers, are steadfast in protecting civil rights and liberties, including the right of privacy, and who cherish equal justice under law."
Sigh. It's so nice to have two fully pro-choice candidates running for the nomination!
Posted by Molly at 1:56 PM | Comments (3)
May 8, 2008
Oh Snap! "Hey, ladies, McCain is pro-life"
Watch the video below of NARAL Pro-Choice America president, Nancy Keenan, as she talks with Jonathan Alter on Verdict with Dan Abrams:
My favorite part is when Abrams feels like he has to decipher McCain's "secret code" on judges saying, "Translation?! Judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade." Right-on.
Nancy is correct - women (including the critical voting bloc of pro-choice republican and independent women) will vote for the democratic candidate when they learn how anti-choice Sen. McCain really is... so let's get out there and spread the word.
Visit MeetTheRealMcCain.com.
Posted by Molly at 10:18 AM | Comments (5)
May 2, 2008
Down-ballot races, McCain on judges, and rape survivors paying for the cost of rape kits?
It's Friday! And, at least in DC, the weather is beautiful, so I'm in a good mood today. And, I'll admit it, a little of it might also have something to do with this kind 'kudos' post I read this AM. It feels good to know that all of the hard work the NARAL Pro-Choice America staff put into our blog and social networking sites is noticed and appreciated by others. Thanks Viva La Feminista!
Anyway... enough of that, and on to some Friday must-read articles:
-
The White House Isn't the Only House at Stake on May 6: Check out this blog post from NARAL Pro-Choice America political director, Elizabeth Shipp. In this piece, Beth examines the importance of the May 6 primary (in Indiana and North Carolina), and why voters need to remember the down-ballot races.
-
McCain swings outreach to right: Oh dear. This USA Today article discusses McCain's upcoming pitch to conservatives, including a Tuesday speech on judges. McCain and judges... I can't wait to hear him speak on that one, given that he has voted in favor of four anti-choice U.S. Supreme Court nominees during his 25 years in Congress. Yikes.
-
N.C. hospitals bill rape victims: This one really frustrates me. I mean, should rape survivors have to pay for the cost of rape kits? Some North Carolina hospitals are charging rape survivors for the cost of collecting evidence during an emergency room examination. Click here to sign a NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina petition demanding that survivors not be forced to pay for these costs.
So, Happy Friday all, and be sure to check back on Monday for the new edition of "The Liberty Lowdown!"
Posted by Molly at 11:37 AM | Comments (0)
April 17, 2008
Problem: Yahoo/AP poll shows McCain doing well with pro-choice swing voters
This really isn't the kind of news I like to wake up to in the morning:
MCCAIN ON ABORTION
Despite his repeated votes as senator to limit abortion rights, seven in 10 of those now backing McCain who in November did not support a Republican presidential candidate favor retaining Roe vs. Wade, the case by which the Supreme Court legalized abortion.
I know - that's confusing. I had to read it a couple of times too. Basically it means that seven out of 10 people who say they support McCain, also support Roe v. Wade... does this mean they don't realize McCain is anti-choice??
Alarming as this news is, pro-choice Americans must use this as a wake-up call to visit Meet The Real McCain and spread the word: McCain is anti-choice.
Posted by Molly at 9:43 AM | Comments (3)
April 16, 2008
John McCain and the Abortion-Litmus Test?
By Elizabeth Shipp, political director for NARAL Pro-Choice America.
As the Politico's Jonathan Martin notes, during last night's Hardball with Chris Matthews, McCain said "it would be difficult" to have a pro-choice running mate. In Pennsylvania, Matthews pushed him on why Tom Ridge wouldn't be an acceptable candidate. Watch it here (segment begins at 1:27 minutes in):
Let me reiterate: McCain said, "I don't know if it would stop him, but it would be difficult."
Uh, ok. But wait, it gets worse. When Matthews asked him, "Why that one issue? Why is it that one litmus test issue?" McCain replied:
I'm not saying that would be necessarily, but I am saying it's basically the respect and cherishing of the right of the unborn is one of the fundamental principles of my party. And it's a--and it's a deeply held belief of mine... And I want to say that the rights of the unborn is one of my most important values...
Since when is a man who has conservative credentials to spare (former governor of Pennsylvania, former congressman, Vietnam veteran, former secretary of the department of Homeland Security, and the list goes on) a "difficult" running-mate choice simply because of a presumed pro-choice position? (Oh, and just for the record: I worked against Tom Ridge in the 1994 race for governor. And, I worked for a real pro-choice candidate, Mark Singel. So, I know a little bit about Tom Ridge and whether or not he's really pro-choice. Let's just say that occasionally voting pro-choice didn't give Ridge any "street cred" on our issue. I don't expect to see him at a march or waving a pro-choice banner any day soon. Just like Condi Rice, he's "mildly" pro-choice at best.)
This all reminds me an article I read in the January 21, 2008 edition of The Weekly Standard. (I always feel like I have to know what the opposition is saying, which is the only reason I'd ever pick up a rag like The Standard!) Author Stephen F. Hayes wrote about traveling with McCain after his win in the New Hampshire primary, and described the following exchange:
...He was asked about the possibility of New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg entering the race as an independent, and McCain had nice words to say about his potential rival. Someone asked if Bloomberg would make a good vice president, and McCain thought aloud about the potential positives and negatives of such an arrangement. "I don't know how you could nominate a pro-choice VP without a real backlash from the party," he said, specifically raising concerns that a pro-choice vice presidential nominee would run counter to a "fundamental" principle of the Republican party.
Clearly, John McCain is uncomfortable with the notion of a pro-choice Republican as a running mate. No matter the other redeeming qualities a potential running mate would have - if you're a pro-choice Republican, don't bother applying. What really made me do the cartoon double take during Hardball was McCain trying, once again, to have it both ways:
The only thing I can say is that in America we can disagree sometimes on specific issues even if they're of the most important issues. And I want to say that the rights of the unborn is one of my most important values, but we can have disagreement. There is room for debate in our nation and our party. We should have a healthy and respectful discussion and debate on these issues.
Gee, thanks so much John McCain. We can have a debate within the Republican party. We can have a national debate. But if elected president, you won't have a vice president who will debate or disagree with you? You only want an inner circle of advisors who think, act, talk and walk just like you, no matter what the majority of Americans think? Wow, that sounds familiar - where have I heard that one before? Oh, yeah... George W. Bush. How's that been working out for the country?
Here's a free bit of advice for McCain that I hope he'll accept in the civil and respectful manner I'm giving it: Perhaps Dick Cheney can be your wingman, Senator McCain. Now, don't dismiss it right away; hear me out. Cheney could be the "Goose" to your "Maverick" a la Top Gun. Why, you might ask? Because just as Top Gun is a work of fiction, so is your claim to be a "moderate maverick." I hate to break it to you Senator, but you are NOT a maverick, you're certainly not a moderate, and you're becoming more like Bush every day in every way.
As McCain continues to travel the country, it becomes even more important that we continue to challenge the media - blogs and traditional outlets alike - to investigate and expose McCain's real beliefs on choice-related issues. We cannot, and will not, let stand the misperception that anti-choice presidential candidate Sen. John McCain represents the moderate wing of his party. Share this blogpost with friends and family today, so they can Meet The Real McCain.
Posted by blogforchoice at 4:28 PM | Comments (2)
April 9, 2008
DNC research memo on McCain: Women surprised McCain is anti-choice
At the end of March, the Democratic National Committee put out a memo on focus group research they conducted on John McCain. Well wouldn't you know it - the DNC focus groups confirmed what we've known for some time: women panelists reacted "surprisingly strongly" to the fact that McCain is anti-choice! It's great to know that other non-choice affiliated groups are focusing on what we think is McCain's biggest weakness among women voters. Here's the excerpt from the memo:
Women panelists in the focus groups reacted surprisingly strongly to the fact that Senator McCain opposes requirements for health plans to provide contraceptive coverage and favors abstinence-only sex education. Even among women who described themselves as pro-life, those aspects of Senator McCain's record cast him as someone who is "unrealistic," "out of touch," and "stuck in the past." Many of the women in the groups were resentful when they learned that Senator McCain favors overturning Roe vs. Wade, and were disappointed because they expected him to be more moderate on this issue.
With such a solid anti-choice voting history on choice-related issues, it's even more startling to read that even women who described themselves as pro-life were shocked by his "unrealistic" and "out of touch" support for unrealistic and unproven "abstinence-only" sex education.
This is just one of the reasons why NARAL Pro-Choice America is targeting pro-choice Independent and Republican women in the 2008 elections: We know that once they get the information they need, they will vote against McCain and for a pro-choice candidate.
Listen as one woman tells her story (or watch it below) about why McCain's opposition to a woman's right to choose influenced her vote, and be sure to checkout www.MeetTheRealMcCain.com for more information.
Posted by Molly at 10:46 AM | Comments (0)
March 10, 2008
Spreading the Word: McCain Should Worry Women
Robyn E. Blumner, columnist for the St. Petersburg Times, had a great piece on Sunday entitled, "Why McCain should worry women." She hits the proverbial nail on the head time and time again as she starts her article with this overview of McCain's record:
What scares me most about McCain... is his fiercely conservative record on women's reproductive freedom. Here, there is no moderate McCain or reach-across-the-aisle McCain. On issues related to abortion and even birth control and sex education, McCain is as ideological as any Operation Rescue activist crawling around in front of an abortion clinic.
I couldn't have written it better myself. Please take a moment to read the full article and if you want to learn more about McCain's anti-choice record, be sure to read NARAL Pro-Choice America's 14-page McCain fact sheet.
Posted by Molly at 9:49 AM | Comments (2)
March 5, 2008
If Bush is for him, I’m against him
Nancy Keenan is president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Well, it’s official. Sen. John McCain is now the Republican nominee for president. [I’m going to pause for a moment here to let that sink in.]
Anti-choice Sen. John McCain, he of the 25-year anti-choice voting record, is now the Republican nominee for president.
After securing more than the 1,191 delegates (CNN reports he has 1289) required to win the Republican nomination, anti-choice McCain appeared with anti-choice President Bush in the Rose Garden of the White House to secure the president’s endorsement.
I don’t know about you, but seeing McCain on the White House lawn was as close to the Oval Office as I EVER want to see him… so we have work to do!
Please take a moment to visit the McCain section of our website where you can read our 14-page profile, his scores from 1987 – 2006 , and read his public statements on choice. And be sure to spread the word that McCain is anything but the “moderate maverick” he claims to be.
Posted by Blog for Choice at 4:23 PM | Comments (0)
February 7, 2008
Must Watch (listen): Choice and John McCain
Why is NARAL Pro-Choice America targeting pro-choice Independent and Republican women in the 2008 elections?
Listen to this audio clip, via YouTube, from the February 6 edition of The Diane Rehm Show, a nationally broadcast program on NPR. One woman tells her story about why McCain's opposition to a woman's right to choose influenced her vote. The other commentators include Ron Elving, the Washington editor for NPR, and Jeanne Cummings from the Politico.
To listen to the entire radio program, please click here.
Posted by Molly at 12:13 PM | Comments (0)
February 6, 2008
The Myth of the “Moderate Maverick”
Nancy Keenan is president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Is it just me, or was Super Tuesday super exhausting? I know all of us political junkies were up late into the night obsessing over which candidate won which state.
I lost count of how many times the talking heads and pundits called Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) a moderate. And how do most voters interpret that description? If Sen. McCain is a moderate, then he’s probably okay on a woman’s right to choose, right?
Well, that would be the myth of the "moderate maverick"… No, he's definitely NOT a moderate and definitely NOT pro-choice!
While many far-right radio personalities, like Rush Limbaugh, attack Sen. McCain as a “moderate maverick,” and it seems that pundits are repeating the talking points, NARAL Pro-Choice America has made it crystal clear that they will not let Sen. McCain benefit from the misperception that moderate means pro-choice.
When it comes to choice, Sen. McCain is neither a moderate, nor a maverick, he’s just plain wrong. As we move toward the general election, NARAL Pro-Choice America will make sure that voters, especially pro-choice Independent and Republican women, know the truth about Sen. McCain.
Let’s look at the facts:
- Sen. McCain has a 25-year record of voting against women’s freedom and privacy.
- He has even gone so far as to call for the overturn of Roe v. Wade.
- On the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Sen. McCain stated, “If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next president of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right-to-life movement.”
Click here to read more.
Check out NARAL Pro-Choice America’s 14-page summary of Sen. McCain’s votes against birth control, measures that would protect women and doctors from violence at reproductive-health clinics, and funding for teen- pregnancy-prevention programs, and much, much more.
Please take a look at the McCain section on NARAL Pro-Choice America's website.
Let’s end the “myth of the moderate maverick.”
Posted by Blog for Choice at 1:08 PM | Comments (0)
Post-Super Tuesday Open Thread
Was anyone else up till the wee hours watching the returns? Thoughts?
Posted by Jessica at 9:29 AM | Comments (1)
January 30, 2008
Thank you, Sen. John Edwards
As I’m sure you know by now, today Sen. John Edwards bowed out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said:
On behalf of NARAL Pro-Choice America and our one million member activists across the country, I commend Sen. Edwards for his eloquent and consistent support for women’s freedom and privacy. We are grateful that he and his wife, Elizabeth, are such courageous and inspiring friends of the pro-choice community.
To read more from our press release, click here.
Posted by Molly at 2:58 PM | Comments (0)
January 24, 2008
A Message to Pro-Choice Voters Regarding the Democratic Presidential Primary
Nancy Keenan is president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
This week Americans mark the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a milestone that coincides with the 2008 presidential election.
As we celebrate this occasion, and this critical time for women’s reproductive freedom, NARAL Pro-Choice America is proud that we have such strong pro-choice candidates like Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and former Sen. John Edwards, running for president.
As the political leader of the pro-choice movement, NARAL Pro-Choice America has researched the voting records, public comments, and actions of each of the candidates and shared the information we've documented with the more than one-million activists, supporters, and members our organization represents.
Beginning in Iowa, continuing into New Hampshire, and now in South Carolina and the states voting in the February 5 contests, there has been an undercurrent of speculation and innuendo that calls into question Sen. Obama’s record on choice. This has the potential to divide the pro-choice community and create tension where none should exist. Today, for the sake of our issue and our movement, I am asking that these tactics stop.
As someone who spent nearly two decades as an elected official before coming to NARAL Pro-Choice America, I know that, in the heat of the campaign, charges and counter-charges are made in the honest belief that one candidate is somehow better than another. I get that.
Let me be clear: Here are the facts pro-choice voters need as they head to the polls, whether this weekend in South Carolina, on “Tsunami Tuesday” to vote for the Democratic Party's nominee, or on November 4 when we all vote for the next president of the United States: Sens. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are fully pro-choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America endorsed all three candidates in their previous campaigns. All of the candidates have voted pro-choice; have publicly affirmed that they are pro-choice; and have taken actions that back up their pro-choice voting records and statements. All three candidates endorse the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify Roe and protect the right to choose for future generations. Sens. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama have steadfastly supported and defended a woman's right to make the most personal, private decisions regarding her reproductive health without interference from government or politicians.
NARAL Pro-Choice America has not yet endorsed a candidate for president because there are such equally strong pro-choice contenders in the Democratic primary. We understand that other organizations have made different decisions; we respect that. But our collective long-term goal as a pro-choice movement must be to advance the cause.
This focus on nonexistent differences between the pro-choice candidates distracts from the real goal. We must focus our fight on defeating the anti-choice Republican candidates who have called for the overturn of Roe.
NARAL Pro-Choice America will continue to support pro-choice candidates and defend them all against attacks. We can only hope that in the future, we, as a unified pro-choice community, will be defending against anti-choice politicians, not one another.
Posted by Blog for Choice at 5:33 PM | Comments (3)
January 7, 2008
McCain: Not a Choice for Pro-Choice Independent Voters
Nancy Keenan is president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
By most accounts, independents will constitute 45 percent of voters in the New Hampshire presidential primary - and that’s why this important audience should know that Sen. John McCain is not (nor has he ever been) pro-choice.
You think that’s common knowledge? Think again. A poll taken by Fox News showed 52 percent of voters were unaware of McCain’s position on choice. And we know from our research that McCain’s self-described “moderate-maverick” rhetoric gives people the impression that he doesn’t share the far-right Republican Party’s harsh anti-abortion stance. Wrong.
NARAL Pro-Choice America’s Congressional Scorecard on Choice documents how McCain has voted for attacks on legal abortion, birth control, and a wide range of reproductive-health issues. Check it out here.
McCain also joins Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson among the candidates who have called for the overturn of Roe v. Wade.
New Hampshire voters are overwhelmingly pro-choice and oppose political interference in women’s personal, private medical decisions. In 2006, Granite State voters reelected pro-choice Gov. John Lynch and elected two new pro-choice members of Congress, Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter. Voters also returned the state legislature to pro-choice hands, thus opening the door for the successful repeal of a dangerous and divisive anti-choice law in the 2007 session.
You can see why anti-choice candidates like McCain want to downplay their opposition to a woman’s right to choose in New Hampshire - but, if you know any pro-choice independent voters who are still on the fence, make sure they have the facts about McCain’s hostile record against women’s freedom and privacy.
Posted by Blog for Choice at 2:06 PM | Comments (3)
November 29, 2007
A note on the Republican debate last night
Right before the debate started last night, I said to my boyfriend: "You know, I really hope someone asks these guys how much jail time they think women who've had abortions should get."
This is the one question that anti-choicers seem to avoid, knowing that the idea of throwing women in jail won't play well with the public. So the new--and misleading--answer we seem to be hearing a lot is that women shouldn't get any jail time, only doctors should, because women don't know what they're doing. So...either we're evil or we're moral children who don't understand that when we get an abortion we're getting an abortion? Please.
My wish was answered--someone posed the question to the candidates--but predictably not one of them really answered the question. Let's hear it: would the candidates throw women in jail for having an abortion? And as Amanda says: "I think no human being can be so stupid as to think that you can ban an act without enforcing the ban if you want it to work." So let's hear the truth this time.
Posted by Jessica at 9:09 AM | Comments (0)
November 28, 2007
And you thought George W. Bush was bad…
by Elizabeth Shipp, political director, NARAL Pro-Choice America
As the Republicans prepare for tonight’s YouTube debate on CNN, it seems that they have women’s reproductive rights (or lack thereof) on the brain. It’s a veritable “I trust women LESS than you do” free-for-all in the daily news clips, and it’s pretty scary. With the exception of one candidate, all of the Republican candidates have called specifically for Roe v. Wade to be overturned.
In one corner, you have the National Right to Life Committee endorsing Fred Thompson. In another corner you have the co- founder of the Moral Majority throwing his support behind “multiple-choice” Mitt Romney. And then there’s Mike Huckabee, who is trying to out “anti-choice” them all. Yesterday’s LA Times had a great story if you’d like to read more.
Could it get any worse than what’s already being said about women and their apparent inability to make choices for themselves? Well, the answer might surprise you.
These guys sure have been busy talking out of both sides of their respective mouths.
As bad as these candidates are on a woman’s right to choose, the silence has been deafening when it comes to one issue: BIRTH CONTROL. Where do these presidential candidates stand on this issue?
NARAL Pro-Choice America asked its member-activists to submit their own questions for tonight’s debate. Here are some examples of the questions these candidates should answer:
1. Do you think it’s okay for an insurance company to pay for Viagra but refuse to cover prescription contraception?
2. Do you think it’s okay for a pharmacy to refuse to fill a woman’s prescription for birth control based on an employee’s personal view against contraception?
3. Do you believe hospital emergency rooms should be allowed to withhold information from a rape survivor about emergency contraception--which can prevent a pregnancy if taken soon after the assault?
4. If you support the so-called Human Life Amendment, does that mean that you also support banning most common forms of birth control, like the pill?
With everything going on in our world these days, it may seem like these questions aren't the most important ones to ask of these candidates. But trust me – if you care about your health and your ability to make your own choices without political interference, the answers to these questions are critically important.
We can't afford for these anti-choice candidates to continue to refuse to address important issues that impact our daily lives. (We saw what happened to us in '00 and '04 when we let that happen!) If you want to learn more about the presidential candidates' positions on choice, go to: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/.
Posted by Blog for Choice at 1:04 PM | Comments (0)
November 16, 2007
A Message from Nancy Keenan - A Night of Stark Contrast
It was a night of stark contrast for Americans who care about privacy.
Let’s start with President Bush, who spoke in Washington D.C. at a convention of the Federalist Society, a far-right group started by lawyers who want Roe v. Wade overturned.
This group cheered Bush, who has appointed more than 250 federal judges to lifetime positions on our courts—including Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom are anti-choice heroes of the Federalist Society. Even though Bush will leave office in January 2009, all of these judges have lifetime appointments.
Do you still think that a president doesn’t have any effect on our privacy?
Let’s remember how the Bush administration interfered in the Terri Schiavo family matter.
Let’s remember how a Supreme Court that he reconfigured upheld the Federal Abortion Ban with no exception to protect a woman’s health.
And, let’s remember that the majority of presidential candidates in President Bush’s party have promised to continue this type of political interference in our most personal, private medical decisions.
Nearly 2,000 miles away from Bush’s black-tie dinner in Washington, Americans heard presidential candidates who offered a very different vision for this country, one in which the right to privacy that Roe represents is supported and respected.
When asked directly about Roe v. Wade, each of the seven Democratic candidates told the audience in Nevada that they would make the right to privacy a principal element in their selection of a Supreme Court Justice. They know that our next president has to reverse the damage done by Bush to the privacy and freedom we cherish.
Last night, members of the media mentioned the phrase ‘litmus test,’ as if Roe is only about one issue. The media often make this mistake. Support for the right to privacy, guaranteed by Roe, is a values test. The test is one voters will take in the coming months: which candidate values freedom and privacy? The answer will define our country for generations to come. Should individuals decide in consultation with their doctor, family, and faith, or should politicians like George W. Bush decide for us?
Last night’s events on opposite sides of the country offered voters a clear difference: do we want a president who will protect our values, or another Bush clone who thinks our freedom and privacy are expendable?
Posted by Blog for Choice at 5:47 PM | Comments (1)
November 13, 2007
Prominent anti-choice group endorses Thompson
Interesting...the National Right to Life Committee has come out to endorse Fred D. Thompson’s presidential run.
The [organization] was also courted by a number of Mr. Thompson’s rivals but decided to endorse him because of his record on abortion issues as a former senator from Tennessee, according to Republicans familiar with the group’s thinking.With its endorsement, which will be announced today, the group spurned Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, who had sought its support by promoting their anti-abortion stances.
This is def an interesting turn of events, considering Thompson has said he doesn't support a constitutional ban on abortion, but instead thinks states should decide. What to you, dear readers, think?
Posted by Jessica at 9:16 AM | Comments (0)
November 8, 2007
Update from NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia
I have some great pro-choice news to report out of Virginia this week, and I can’t wait to tell you all about it!
In the wake of Tuesday’s state legislative elections, NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia celebrated the victories of pro-choice candidates across the state—wins that resulted in pro-choice leadership in the state Senate (for the first time in years!) and key pro-choice gains in the House of Delegates.
The pro-choice gains included John Miller in the 1st Senate District, George Barker in the 39th Senate District, Ralph Northam in the 6th Senate District, Joe Bouchard in the 83rd House District, Paul Nichols in the 51st House District, and Margi Vanderhye in the 34th House District. Overall, 49 candidates endorsed by NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia won their races, or 84 percent of the endorsed candidates!
Here’s the breakdown of what NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia and our members and activists were able to accomplish:
• Provided message training and tools to House of Delegates candidates in five districts;
• Made 1440 phone calls to pro-choice voters;
• Sent 3500 Get Out the Vote postcards to pro-choice voters;
• Sent 3560 letters featuring our endorsement of 58 candidates to NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia members statewide; and
• Sent 1652 emails to NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia Choice Action Network members reminding them to vote November 6th.
So thank you for all your help. YOU did it.
Further - to make these victories even sweeter—we proved that standing up for freedom and privacy is a winning campaign strategy in Virginia! Reproductive rights played an important role in many of the winning campaigns, as pro-choice candidates highlighted their opponent’s extreme opposition to abortion and even some forms of contraception.
Virginians have rejected the out of touch policies of anti-choice lawmakers in Richmond and clearly want a change in the tone and focus of the debate over a woman’s right to choose. For years, the General Assembly attacked safe, legal abortion – and Virginians simply had enough!
This shift will not only help us protect access to abortion services in Virginia, but it will allow us to end divisive attacks and pursue commonsense legislation, such as increasing access to birth control and emergency contraception, that will prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce the need for abortion in a genuine, constructive way.
Now is the time to get down to the business of improving access to reproductive health services for the women of Virginia—and we’re looking forward to doing just that when the legislative session resumes in January.
The guest blogger is Jessica Bearden, deputy director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia.
Posted by Blog for Choice at 2:08 PM | Comments (0)
November 5, 2007
Quick Hit: Thompson on abortion
While on Meet the Press, Fred Thompson said he wouldn't seek a constitutional ban against abortion. Not that this makes him a great candidate for choice or anything, but I thought it was worth noting.
Posted by Jessica at 9:04 AM | Comments (0)
October 17, 2007
Congratulations Niki Tsongas!
I love when there is some good news to report!
Yesterday, NARAL Pro-Choice America endorsed candidate Niki Tsongas won her special election for MA-05! She won with 51 percent of the vote and became the state’s first woman in Congress in 25 years.
Let's take this positive momentum and build upon it as we protect the pro-choice gains we made in 2006, and elect even more pro-choice candidates in 2008! For more information on NARAL Pro-Choice America's electoral work, please visit the "Elections" section of our website.
Posted by Molly at 1:05 PM | Comments (0)
August 3, 2007
Almost Too Close To Call…It All Hinges On ‘08
By Nancy Keenan, president, NARAL Pro-Choice America
Can one vote make the difference between a pro-choice victory and an anti-choice success?
You bet it can—and that’s what happened late last night on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
Pro-choice senators led the fight to defeat an anti-choice amendment to the children’s health bill by a vote of 50 – 49. That’s one, single vote. (For more information on the amendment, click here.)
The failed amendment, offered by anti-choice Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO), would have codified a controversial Bush administration regulation, put in place in 2002.. This Bush regulation allows states to make an embryo or a fetus – but not a pregnant woman – eligible for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
That’s right—anti-choice senators wanted to deny health coverage to pregnant women.
This amendment showed just what anti-choice politicians will do to undermine a woman’s right to choose, even if it means derailing a bill that would provide health care for children and working families.
This close vote is a reminder for us. We made big gains in last year’s elections and restored pro-choice leadership to the Senate. But legislative attacks like the Allard amendment underscore our need to continue to elect more pro-choice senators.
Until we have the numbers, we will continue to see dangerous and divisive assaults on our right to choose. We have to spread the word…Elections Matter.
For more information on how to get involved in electing pro-choice candidates, click here.
Posted by Vanessa at 4:40 PM | Comments (0)
July 19, 2007
Democratic frontrunners talk about choice.
On Tuesday, Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton and John Edward's wife Elizabeth made speeches at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event about their position on choice, as well as pledges of how they will change the future of reproductive rights in the nation (if elected president in '08, that is).
You can check out videos of their speeches here.
Posted by Vanessa at 2:26 PM | Comments (0)
June 3, 2007
Greetings from New Hampshire!
In anticipation of the Democratic debate in Manchester – I flew to New Hampshire today to join fellow NARAL Pro-Choice America colleagues and NARAL Pro-Choice New Hampshire volunteers. I knew it was going to be an exciting trip when I boarded my plane from Sistersong in Chicago to Manchester when… Whoop, there she is! Michelle Obama. In line, right behind me, with her mother and two daughters. Excitement was definitely in the air and I couldn’t wait to get started.
So, NARAL Pro-Choice America wanted to be in New Hampshire for the debates to show our support for the pro-choice presidential candidates. If you’re reading this post, it’s likely that choice is an important issue for you in the 2008 election. I know it is for me. And because of that, it’s important to show these pro-choice candidates that we support them, that we appreciate it when they stand up for choice, and that we’ve got their backs.
And it’s not just the candidates we want to thank, it’s the delegates too… which is why we visited the New Hampshire Democratic Party State Convention – to thank those delegates that share our pro-choice values and fight for a president that will move beyond the divisive politics and focus instead on commonsense solutions to prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce the need for abortion. I know, I know – you’ve heard the language before, but it’s true. And the people who stand up for these rights must know we’re behind them!
I wanted to briefly highlight a couple of things that people are saying in New Hampshire, because I have to say – it was pretty incredible.
One older woman, upon seeing our signs that read “My choice is pro-choice” said, “I’m too old for this stuff, but I’m doing this for my daughters, and their daughters.”
One man, a New Hampshire delegate, came up to us and reiterated how much our being there meant to him. He talked about how it’s not always easy to stand up for what you believe in, and our presence there gave him strength. Kinda cool, right?
The rest of day was filled with tabling at a presidential candidate event, honks and waves in “downtown” Manchester, and visiting the various campaign offices. I’m exhausted now, but stay tuned for tomorrow’s adventures at the Democratic debate! And, if you can’t wait until then, and want to brush up on where the candidates stand on a woman’s right to choose, be sure to check out the elections section of our website!
Posted by Blog for Choice at 12:07 PM | Comments (0)
May 22, 2007
2008 Presidential Candidate Choice Statements
I'm sure y'all want to know where all of the candidates stand on choice, so NARAL Pro-Choice America has done the work for you. They asked candidates from both parties to express – in 200 words or less – their beliefs about a woman's right to choose.
Check out the candidate's statements here, along with their voting record, and a selection of public statements on the issue of choice.
Posted by Jessica at 11:10 AM | Comments (0)
May 14, 2007
Protect & Elect: Presidential Statements on Choice
Judging by the first two debates and Sunday talk shows alone, choice is emerging as an especially big issue in the 2008 presidential elections.
Today, I’m pleased to announce that NARAL Pro-Choice America is the first pro-choice organization to provide statements from presidential candidates on where they stand on women’s freedom and privacy. Click here to view them.
Here’s a sampling of the questions you’ll find some answers to:
- Who were the major Democratic candidates who submitted statements outlining their position on choice?
- How do the major candidates from both parties with congressional voting records stack up?
- Where does Mayor Rudy Giuliani really stand on a women’s right to choose? Just yesterday, on "FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace," Mayor Rudy Giuliani tried, once again, to lay out where he stands on choice. And Sen. Brownback (R-KS) said, "I've voted pro-life. I've worked on these issues. I've carried these bills in Congress. I worked hard to get Sam Alito and – on the Supreme Court, along with John Roberts. I would appoint somebody on the Supreme Court that would be a strict constructionist."
Americans are tired of the Bush-like divisive attacks on a woman’s right to choose. They want leaders to focus on ways to improve women’s health-care options and prevent unintended pregnancy. Please take a moment to click here and see what the presidential candidates have to say about a woman’s right to choose, in their own words.
Feel free to meet our challenge and send this link to five friends. And, to make sure that you get up-to-date information from NARAL Pro-Choice America, please take a moment to sign-up for our Choice Action Network.
Posted by Blog for Choice at 5:53 PM | Comments (0)