Elections

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!"

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. 

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.