Results tagged “Politico” from Blog for Choice
President Obama spoke today about his administration's new policy ensuring that insurance plans cover birth control without a copay.
The president reaffirmed his commitment to making sure that women of all faiths who work at religiously affiliated hospitals, universities, and service organizations can get contraceptive coverage.
The New York Times, Politico, Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo, and The Huffington Post turned to NARAL Pro-Choice America to find out what this means for the 99 percent of women--including 98 percent of Catholic women--who use birth control at some point in their lives.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said President Obama's policy ensures that women get seamless coverage of contraception through their health plans:
Today's announcement makes it clear that President Obama is firmly committed to protecting women's health. Unfortunately, some opponents of contraception may not be satisfied. These groups and their allies in Congress want to take away contraceptive coverage from nurses, janitors, administrative staff, and college instructors--and that agenda is out of touch with our country's values and priorities. We will continue to fight on every front to support women's access to birth control as politicians in Washington, D.C. try to take it away.
Indeed, there are politicians and activists who don't want women to have access to insurance coverage of birth control, period.
As my colleague Jen mentioned yesterday, one of these extremists said Taco Bell should be allowed to deny its employees access to basic health care.
Right now, anti-contraception politicians in Washington are pushing multiple attacks on women's access to birth-control coverage.
Anti-choice Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) is trying to stuff one of these attacks into a transportation bill.
Yesterday, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research released a new poll conducted on our behalf that shows choice provides an opening for President Obama to create a sharp contrast with anti-choice Republicans.
Now, major news media organizations are picking up the story. Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, appeared on ABC News' "Top Line" to discuss how the president's pro-choice position can help him win back women "defectors":
Over the next year, we'll be working in day-in and day-out to highlight the contrast between pro-choice President Obama and his extreme anti-choice Republican opponents.
Paid for by NARAL Pro-Choice America, www.ProChoiceAmerica.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
OK, this shouldn't come as much of a surprise. But the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America says that none of the declared Republican candidates for president -- nor any of those thought to be waiting in the wings -- would pass muster with voters who support a woman's right to choose....There is a big difference from 2008, however, when it comes to birth control.For the first time, many, if not most of the candidates have come out not just for the defunding of Planned Parenthood (which is at least arguably about abortion). Some have also voted against -- and spoken out against -- any kind of federal funding for contraception.
Of the approximately 15 Republicans who have either announced or hinted a run for president in 2012, the abortion-rights policy group NARAL Pro-Choice has identified the 12 most prominent potential contenders as presenting a threat to women's access to abortion and family-planning services.On Thursday, NARAL policy directors briefed reporters on a new report analyzing the records and statements of current GOP candidates, released just before the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa on Aug. 13. It is the first phase of the organization's election-related analysis, said NARAL Communications Director Ted Miller.
NARAL LOOKS AT GOP FIELD-- Spoiler alert! They don't like any of them. At a briefing with reporters yesterday, abortion-rights group NARAL looked at 12 declared or potential Republican presidential candidates and their history on abortion and reproductive rights issues. All of the contenders have announced themselves to be firmly anti-abortion with a few voting or policy exceptions that NARAL considers to be "pro-choice." For instance, former Govs. Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty both signed into law bills that would allow sexual assault victims access to emergency contraception. But when it comes down to Election Day, "they're all equally unacceptable," said policy director Donna Crane.
Which of the Republican presidential candidates vetoed legislation that would require doctors to provide emergency contraception to rape victims?It was then Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. (The state legislature went on to pass it over his veto.)Which 2012 GOP contender signed a similar measure into law? It was actually two of them--Tim Pawlenty in Minnesota in 2007 and Jon Huntsman in Utah in 2009.These are among the facts in an assessment of the Republican presidential wannabes released by NARAL, the national pro-choice advocacy group. The organization examined the records of 12 candidates--some announced and some still teasing--and though a few have occasionally made moves slightly supportive of women's reproductive rights, all of the candidates received a failing grade. This was no shocker."They're all unacceptable for pro-choice voters," said Ted Miller, NARAL's communications director. He declined to rank them.
House members fighting to preserve a horse's right to birth control would be laughable, if they weren't trying to block women from accessing contraception at the exact same time. What's next? An amendment that would allow veterinarians to refuse to provide birth control to a horse if the vet is personally opposed to contraception?
The new anti-choice House leadership now wants to take away birth control and cancer screenings from millions of American women and men. While these politicians attack abortion coverage from every angle, they now want to deny funding for birth control, even though that's the best way to prevent unintended pregnancy.
These anti-choice politicians are out of touch with Americans' values and priorities. These same lawmakers voted to repeal a health-care law that provides prenatal care and the promise of no-cost birth control to women. Now, they want to make it even harder for women to purchase private health insurance that includes abortion coverage with their own money. Their hypocrisy is astounding. It seems that they're fine with government intrusion, as long as it involves interfering in women's personal, private decisions.
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.
Today, NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC announced its endorsement of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in the special primary election slated for September 2010:
"As a dedicated supporter of women's health and rights, I am honored to receive the early endorsement of NARAL Pro-Choice America for my election to the United States Senate," Sen. Gillibrand said. "I congratulate Nancy Keenan and the entire organization for their tremendous efforts to elect pro-choice leaders and protect pro-choice values. We have done a lot of great work together, but we have a whole lot more work to do to protect reproductive rights in this country and ensure privacy and freedom for women."
Keenan said NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC contributed $5,000 to Sen. Gillibrand's campaign. She also pledged to mobilize the organization's 63,113 member activists in support of Sen. Gillibrand, whom the PAC endorsed in previous campaigns for the U.S. House in New York's 20th District.
"Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is a rising star among pro-choice leaders in the Senate," Keenan said. "We are proud to continue the partnership we started in 2006 when Sen. Gillibrand first won a tough race for the House. She is a resilient campaigner whose fully pro-choice voting record reflects an unwavering commitment to the values of freedom and privacy. We are proud to stand with Sen. Gillibrand and pledge to rally thousands of our member activists behind her in the same way she has stood up for a woman's right to choose."
Jonathan Martin, covering Ben Smith's blog over at Politico, already reported on our endorsement.