Results tagged “President Obama” from Blog for Choice

Bad news from the Obama administration: a Stupak-style ban applies to women in the new, temporary high-risk pools. Here's a statement from NARAL Pro-Choice America president, Nancy Keenan:

Abortion is the most common surgical procedure women receive. At a time when the country is on the cusp of implementing nationwide health-insurance coverage, it is unacceptable to treat abortion care differently in the new high-risk pools. This policy means that women who are part of these pools because they have significant health problems, such as diabetes or cancer, will not be able to access abortion care, even if their health is at further risk. This decision puts in place a three-year restriction that is similar to the proposal from Rep. Bart Stupak that was rejected during the legislative debate on health reform.

Kristin Koch is the Deputy Director of Communications for Online Advocacy Strategies for NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Anti-choice senators are closing ranks against Goodwin Liu, one of President Obama's progressive nominees to the federal courts who supports our constitutional right to privacy.

It probably shouldn't come as any surprise that Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) are leading the charge. They're lobbing nasty attacks to smear Prof. Liu's reputation and distort his record. Sen. Hatch called Liu "the most controversial nominee of President Obama." Sen. Sessions even threatened, "We'll not confirm somebody like that."

So who is Goodwin Liu, and why are Sessions and Hatch so upset?

• Goodwin Liu is a professor at the University of California Berkeley School of Law.
• He has a distinguished record of working to protect civil rights.
• Prof. Liu received a "well-qualified" rating from the American Bar Association.
• Prof. Liu criticized John Roberts' record when President Bush nominated him to the position of chief justice in 2005. He wrote:

"What we already know from Roberts's record is cause for concern. His legal career is studded with activities unfriendly to civil rights, abortion rights, and the environment."

When President Bush nominated Roberts for the Supreme Court, we opposed his nomination because of Roberts' record of hostility to women's rights. Within two years, Roberts led the court in upholding the Bush Federal Abortion Ban - which banned a safe abortion method without any requirement to protect women's health. Sounds to me like Prof. Liu's warning was right on the money.

We need more judges like Prof. Liu on the federal bench if we're going to protect Roe v. Wade and the right to privacy for future generations. We are proud to join with the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum in supporting Prof. Liu.

Help us make it happen: Getting him confirmed is going to take everything we've got. Call on your senators to confirm Prof. Liu.

As I mentioned on Friday, it was only hours after we said good riddance to anti-choice Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) that we learned that Justice John Paul Stevens was set to announce his decision to retire from the Supreme Court. CNN.com reported on our statement, saying:

NARAL Pro-Choice America, the national abortion rights group, praised Justice John Paul Stevens' record Friday and implored President Obama to nominate a replacement who will also uphold abortion rights.

"Given the current composition of the court, we will assess the eventual nominee's complete record on privacy and other relevant issues in the same way we did during Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation process," NARAL President Nancy Keenan said in a statement.

"One thing is certain: opponents of women's freedom and privacy will use this vacancy on the court as an opportunity to further their attacks on nominees who have taken pro-choice positions," Keenan added. "America's pro-choice majority will fight back."

We can't thank Justice Stevens enough for his years of public service and respect for individual freedom. Without Supreme Court justices like Stevens who support the constitutional right to privacy, abortion would not be legal today.

Our anti-choice opponents are already using this vacancy to rally their base. Fox News hate-mongerer Glenn Beck sank to new lows when he told his listeners to expect President Obama to pick a "gay, handicapped, black woman, who's an immigrant." We know from past experience that the unfounded insults and personal attacks are only going to get worse.

We need to fight back against the anti-choice rallying cry, and that begins with President Obama. Join me in calling on President Obama to say no to the right wing. Let's send the president a strong message in support of a pro-choice nominee. Take action now.

Stupak retires and then Justice John Paul Stevens does, too... what a busy, busy Friday.

Here is the statement from Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, on the retirement of Justice Stevens:

"NARAL Pro-Choice America salutes Justice John Paul Stevens' commitment to public service. Stevens is among the strongest supporters of the right to choose currently serving on the Supreme Court, and his retirement serves as yet another stark reminder of the important role the Court plays in our everyday lives.

"Stevens consistently voted to uphold American liberties, as set forth in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. His record reflects a respect for individual freedom and opposition to political interference in our most personal, private decisions. Stevens' retirement now gives President Obama the opportunity to nominate a fair-minded individual who, like him and the majority of Americans, supports the constitutional right to privacy as reflected in Roe.

"The nine-member Court includes two Justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who have voted to overturn Roe, and two more members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, whom President Bush appointed because he wanted Justices who reflected the Scalia-Thomas mold.

"Given the current composition of the Court, we will assess the eventual nominee's complete record on privacy and other relevant issues in the same way we did during Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation process. Unlike Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Alito, Justice Sotomayor articulated several times throughout her hearing that the constitutional right to privacy includes the right to choose, and thus we supported her nomination for a seat on the nation's highest court.

"One thing is certain: opponents of women's freedom and privacy will use this vacancy on the Court as an opportunity to further their attacks on nominees who have taken pro-choice positions. America's pro-choice majority will fight back.

"This vacancy could make choice an even more prominent issue in the 2010 mid-term congressional elections. Americans will be watching to make sure senators understand the need for a Justice who respects a woman's ability to make the personal, private decisions that are best for her and her family."

Want to learn more about Justice Stevens' decision on choice-related cases? Download this pdf. And, as always, you can read more about the Supreme Court's decisions on key cases related to reproductive rights, you can download this incredibly helpful information.

Some irony for your Thursday afternoon...I meant to mention it days ago when it happened, but there's been so much crazy, it was hard to keep up! Apologies.

Anyway, the Politico reported on a pre-9/12 rally on The Hill saying:

Attendees, many of whom railed against Obama's health care reform push, carried signs reading, "Who owns your body? You or your government?"

I'm sorry - what now?

It's a hypocrisy many pro-choice activists are familiar with: Anti-choice extremists say they don't want the government making decisions about what they choose to do with their personal health, and yet they have spent the majority of this summer demanding a new nationwide abortion ban in the private health-insurance market. If these anti-choice extremists, who include some members of Congress, get their way, women could lose coverage for abortion care, even if their private health-insurance plan already covers it! How in the world does that give people control over their body?

It's as frustrating as it is wrong.

Call Congress today to make sure they know that you strongly urge your representative to oppose any attempts to take away abortion coverage from women who already have it.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, released the following statement today on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court:

"President Obama has selected a nominee with a distinguished record of professional accomplishments as a judge, prosecutor, and community leader. This impressive personal biography signals that she possesses an understanding of how the law affects everyday people's lives. We are encouraged by the strong support she receives from her peers and other legal scholars and the fact that the Senate has twice confirmed her for federal judgeships. We look forward to learning more about Judge Sotomayor's views on the right to privacy and the landmark Roe v. Wade decision as the Senate's hearing process moves forward."

The full text of the release is here.

Upon learning of the possible retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, released the following statement:

"Speculation regarding Justice David Souter's possible retirement is yet another stark reminder of the important role the Supreme Court plays in our everyday lives.

"In the event of a vacancy, President Obama will have the opportunity to nominate a fair-minded individual who, like him and the majority of Americans, supports the constitutional right to privacy as reflected in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. The president has consistently voiced his support for these fundamental American principles, which created a clear contrast between him and his opponent in last year's presidential race.

"As legal observers discussed at length during that campaign, today's Court is in a tenuous position. With the addition of President Bush's appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, the Court has moved in a direction hostile to a woman's right to choose. Justice Anthony Kennedy, regarded as the key swing vote on cases related to reproductive rights, has sided with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in the last two major choice-related cases.

"These changes in the Court's composition further underscore why, in the event of Justice Souter's retirement, it will be critical for President Obama to nominate--and for the U.S. Senate to confirm--a successor who will uphold American liberties, like those set forth in Roe, that respect individual freedom and prevent politicians from interfering in our most personal, private decisions.

"Without a doubt, opponents of women's freedom and privacy will use a vacancy on the Court as an opportunity to further their attacks on nominees who have taken pro-choice positions. America's pro-choice majority will fight back."

You can find more information about Justice Souter's decisions on choice-related cases and information about the Supreme Court's decisions on key cases related to reproductive rights on our website (note: both links are PDFs).

As we countdown to the first 100 days of the Obama administration, NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan weighs in with her "Pro-Choice Primer." Here's a snippet:

Wednesday, April 29 marks the 100th day of President Barack Obama's administration.

As the political leader of the pro-choice movement, NARAL Pro-Choice America will mark this milestone as yet another reminder of how electing leaders who support the fundamental American values of freedom and privacy does make a difference in the lives of women and their families.

President Obama is leading our country during an especially challenging time and many of our family and friends will discuss what's happened during his first 100 days on a number of fronts. When the topic turns to women's reproductive freedom and choice, we want you to be prepared to share the following signs of change...

To read a full-list of President Obama's full-list of pro-choice actions in the first 100 days, read the full post... and don't be shy! Leave us some comment-love so we know what you're thinking.

In case you missed it, there was a terrific editorial in Saturday's New York Times about the progress in family-planning funding that is reflected in the recent spending bill:

Tucked into the big spending bill just signed by President Obama is a welcome provision designed to make affordable birth control available to millions of women across the country...

This victory for common sense follows a string of positive steps already taken by President Obama to dismantle his predecessor's assault on women's reproductive health and freedom. For example, since taking office the president has lifted the odious gag rule that former President George W. Bush imposed on international family-planning groups and moved to rescind an 11th-hour Bush regulation aimed at hindering women's access to abortion, contraceptives and the information necessary to make decisions about their own health.

And that, my friends, is what we call "hitting the nail on its head."

Happy Monday, all.

It's official: Thanks to you, we have a pro-choice federal budget! President Obama signed the 2009 federal budget into law today, and your support for commonsense changes made the following items possible:

• Family-planning programs are getting a boost. This includes the domestic family-planning program that provides health care, including birth control, to women and families, and international family-planning programs that provide poor women overseas with contraception and other services.
• Funding for Bush's failed "abstinence-only" programs is trimmed, which is a step in the right direction. Next, we need to change the "abstinence-only" policy altogether.
• The birth-control price crisis is fixed! Students and low-income women suffered a dramatic increase in their birth-control prescription costs due to a mistake in a 2005 bill. Now they will have access to affordable birth control, which is crucial in these hard economic times.

Passing the budget wasn't easy. Even with more pro-choice votes, we were challenged with not one but four anti-choice amendments filed in the Senate. We beat back one and fortunately the other three never came up for a vote, but these attacks show that our opponents aren't giving up or listening to reason.

So please take a moment to update your Facebook status, tweet, blog, leave a comment below and/or work your social-media magic to celebrate this hard-fought win. You deserve it.

And then, let's get back to work!

What do these two headlines have in common?

Obama Aims to Shield Science From Politics

Obama moves to strengthen role of science in policy

The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and other news outlets have been covering this "wild-and-crazy" phenomenon of the Obama administration keeping ideology out of science and public health. I know it doesn't sound "wild-and-crazy" at face value, but given the last eight years, it's a relatively new occurrence for a president. NARAL Pro-Choice America has an outstanding document that, um, documents President Bush's pattern of putting his anti-choice political ideology into science:

Since his first months in office, President Bush and his administration have politicized public health and subverted science in favor of an ideological agenda on a range of health issues. President Bush has used all the powers of his presidency to obstruct scientific research, censor factual medical information, and stack scientific advisory committees with right‐wing ideologues.

Medical evidence, not politics, should form the underpinnings of scientific and public-health-related policies. Scientific credentials, not ideology, should govern appointments to scientific advisory committees. The Bush administration's history of censorship, misleading statements, unabashed scientific revisionism, and targeted intrusions into scientific decision‐making processes casts doubt on the credibility of American science and compromises our ability to understand, prevent, and treat diseases. The growing influence of ideology on science is cause for grave concern. Simply put: the Bush administration is playing politics with people's health.

Well, thank goodness those years are over, right?

The Obama administration has indicated their desire to put the science back in... science. Melody C. Barnes, director of Obama's Domestic Policy Council, told the Washington Post:

The president believes that it's particularly important to sign this memorandum so that we can put science and technology back at the heart of pursuing a broad range of national goals.

I hope that this as a sign that other medically-accurate programs such as comprehensive sex education will finally replace the dangerous and disproven "abstinence-only" programs that President Bush and his anti-choice allies were so fond of funding? I'm being quite optimistic right now, but check out what happened last night regarding "abstinence-only" programs. 

Last week was a busy week for choice-related actions for President Obama and Congress.

As Kirsten blogged last week, the 2009 omnibus budget bill passed the U.S. House and included a number of pro-choice provisions. While the semantics of the bill are varied, it's most easily summed up as this: Funding for good, pro-choice programs is going up, while funding for bad, anti-choice programs is going down. SCORE!

The Senate is scheduled to vote on this bill at some point this week, so if you haven't taken a moment to contact your senators, please do so immediately and be sure to tell your friends/family/like-minded coworkers to do the same.

Also last week? Oh, you know, no big deal except that the Obama administration moved forward in repealing the anti-choice Federal Refusal Rule that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) put in place during the last days of the Bush administration. This is some really good news. Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, had this to say about the move to repeal:

President Obama's action today to move forward in repealing this rule reinforces why elections matter and how new leadership can end divisive policies that harm women. President Obama has signaled his intent to honor the public's call for a focus on commonsense, common-ground solutions that make a difference in the lives of women and their families. We will continue to work with President Obama to change the tone of the debate over reproductive rights by protecting women's access to contraception, which actually helps prevent unintended pregnancies.

Please consider taking a moment to thank President Obama for taking this important first step towards rescinding this dangerous rule. Anti-choicers are going to fight this action until the bitter end, so President Obama really needs to hear from pro-choice Americans like you.

CNN and MSNBC are reporting... the global gag rule has been repealed!

Click here to thank President Obama.

More from ABCNews:

President Obama signed an executive order today reversing the ban that prohibits funding to international family planning groups that provide abortions, as first reported by ABC News.

Under the hotly debated "Mexico City Policy," the U.S. government cannot provide funding for family planning services to clinics or groups that offer abortion-related services overseas, even if funding for those activities comes from non-government sources. It essentially bars recipients of U.S. foreign aid from promoting abortion as a method of family planning.

If organizations received government funding, they would "agree as a condition of their receipt of federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations."

The policy, dubbed the "Global Gag Rule" by pro-abortion supporters, was introduced by the administration of Ronald Reagan in 1984 in Mexico City, and was instituted that year. It was then overturned by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and restored by George W. Bush at the beginning of his office in 2001.

"It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad," George W. Bush wrote in a memo to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2001.

Past presidents have instituted or revoked the ban on Jan. 22, the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. President Obama held off on that move, thinking it too combative.

Obama released a paper statement Thursday marking the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and recommitting to his stance on a woman's right to choose. "We are reminded that this decision not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman's right to choose," the statement said.

The move is likely to draw heavy criticism from Republicans and anti-abortion groups, just as Obama's executive order to close the detainee center at Guantanamo Bay did Thursday.

You can read NARAL Pro-Choice America's press release here: 

"President Obama's action today reinforces why elections matter and how new leadership can end divisive policies that harm women," Keenan said. "Reversing this Bush-era policy means that the world's poorest women may now have access to vital health services, from prenatal care to contraception. The president's action today reflects the public's call for a focus on commonsense, common-ground solutions that make a difference in the lives of women and their families."

Be sure to check back for more.