Message from NARAL

I know that many people here disaprove of NARAL, thinking they should be endorsing only democrats.  Frankly I find the idea that NARAL should be the handmaiden of the Democratic party offensive and I trust the organization to protect women's rights way before I trust the democratic party.

I am pretty damn sure the democrats would throw "Choice" out the window in a heart beat if they thought that meant more power in the polls.  For that reason groups like NARAL must be non partisan. That's such a no brainer that I won't even discuss it anymore.  But I suppose I can't stop anyone else from doing so.  

BTW... in another strike against the idea that this election was a win for conservative democrats, two thirds of those who won are pro-choice. With rare exception these were pro-choice democrats who unseated anti-choice republicans.

Dear Teresa,

It's a great day! Thank you for helping turn the anti-choice
tide by electing 20 new pro-choice members of the House. Take a
moment to savor this victory. I sure am.

This NEVER could have happened without the determination and
drive of Rapid Responders - like you! - who gave of their hearts,
minds,
and wallets to make this victory a reality. For every online
action you took, every dollar you donated, every dinner table
conversation you started, and for voting pro-choice, we offer a
heartfelt and overjoyed THANK YOU!

NARAL Pro-Choice America has been working tirelessly to get us
where we are today. We spent more than $2.5 million in this
election cycle to conduct polling, run ads, identify and contact
pro-choice voters, and mobilize organizers and volunteers in
competitive races. In addition to the gains in the House,
Americans elected two new pro-choice senators.

:: In Ohio, pro-choice Rep. Sherrod Brown defeated anti-choice
Sen. Mike DeWine, who is one of the Senate's most anti-choice
members.

:: In Missouri, pro-choice Claire McCaskill beat incumbent Sen.
Jim Talent, who supports overturning Roe v. Wade.

:: In AZ-08, pro-choice Gabrielle Giffords defeated virulently
anti-choice Randy Graf.

:: In PA-07, pro-choice retired Admiral Joe Sestak defeated
adamantly anti-choice Rep. Curt Weldon.

:: South Dakotans struck down the draconian abortion ban imposed
by anti-choice politicians.

:: Californians struck down Proposition 85, which would have
changed the state constitution to impose government-mandated
parental notification for young women seeking abortion care,
even if it jeopardized their safety.

:: Oregonians struck down Measure 43, which would have
established mandatory parental notification with no exceptions
for victims of rape or incest.

Today, take a moment to think about what these victories really
mean: We have a chance to make a real change for women in this
country. We plan to use these lawmakers' support to help us
protect freedom, privacy, and a woman's right to choose. Now,
that's worth celebrating. Take a moment and welcome the
pro-choice senators and representatives and urge them to
prioritize our pro-choice agenda. Click here:
http://prochoiceaction.org/...?

We won key battles during this critical election, but we won't
rest even for a moment as our anti-choice opponents regroup and
resume their attacks on our rights. Just today, the Supreme
Court, reconfigured by President Bush, is hearing arguments in a
case that could uphold a law that would dismantle Roe v. Wade.

We will not rest on our laurels. We know you can take these
challenges head on - you've proven it time and time again! This
is your day. So celebrate and stay with us: Together, we're
making an incredible difference for women's freedom, health, and
privacy!

Sincerely,

Nancy Keenan
President

•  NARAL

  protecting women's rights for decades.

  by TeresaInPa on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:56:16 PM PDT

  •  If you think

    NARAL will protect women's rights by being bipartisan and that Dems would sell out on choice, you are an idiot.

    How in the heck did this diary get recommended? Must be a Freep thing.

    by bently on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:04:31 PM PDT

    •  What a relief

      My cursor was in the wrong place and it isn't recommended.

      by bently on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:06:07 PM PDT

    •  you're wrong

      sorry you don't get it.

      by TeresaInPa on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:10:53 PM PDT

      •  You seem

        to be expressing frustration with your difficulties in explaining these simple concepts to people.

        Perhaps your combative and dismissive style of argument is an avenue to examine.

        How did endorsing Lieberman and Chafee work out for NARAL?  2 votes for cloture on Alito.

        Nobody thinks NARAL should be an arm of the democratic party, but where the fight is between a pro-choice democrat and a pro-choice republican, they should choose the democrat.  And when people betray pro-choice positions by say, allowing an anti-choice Judge onto the supreme court, NARAL could refuse to endorse.

        They don't because they choose access and a veneer of "influence" by being friends with pols over actually advancing their issue.

        And if the Democratic party ever did ditch choice, NARAL would ditch them.  Ever see the NRA endorsing democrats?  No.  Are they irrelevant?  ha.

        by Scientician on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:07:27 PM PDT

        •  The frustration comes

          not because she's combative or dismissive, but because her concepts are so one-dimensional that most people simply can't accept them.

          Teresa seems to view choice as the only women's issue on the table.

          by PoorLonelyChild on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:19:41 PM PDT

          •  Don't necessarily agree with TinPA,

            but if women don't get to chose for their own bodies, what choice do any of us have? Voting pro-choice is a pretty good way to elect politicos that respect all of our rights.

            by keefer55 on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:22:16 PM PDT

      •  sometimes you would be right...

        but this wasn't one of those times.  R leaders were setting the agenda all over the place against the right of reproductive choice, at the federal, state, and local level.  If there were R leaders who were willing to do MEANINGFUL things to prevent those things from being brought to a vote, I could definitely see and even agree with your point.  But at this time and place, that just isn't the case.  They didn't have the courage to stop them, even though they were part of the party in the majority.

        by billlaurelMD on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:03:04 PM PDT

    •  Well ...

      ... TeresaInPa is one of my favorite bloggers, so no, this is not a "freep" diary, yeesh.

      Teresa, you make a good point that pro-choice voters should not be something taken for granted by the Democratic party.  I think, though, that this is true for just about any issue a progressive voter can think of, from the environment to civil rights to gay rights, etc.

      But I don't think NARAL should stay as it is, either.  Times have changed, and as Markos and Jerome pointed out so well in Crashing the Gate, single issue organizations, such as Sierra Club and NARAL, have to find new ways to bring legislation into being.  It's a fine line to walk, but I believe this Republican rubberstamp Congress has put the lie to the notion that any single interest group can be strictly "impartial" to party when making decisions on whom to support in elections.

      by Nightprowlkitty on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:20:56 PM PDT

      •  I disagree

        and though I agree with those guys on many things, this is not one of them.  I am sorry that so many people bought their idea as valid.  The biggest threat to choice is the idea that women's rights should be subordinate to the democratic party, which we should just trust to do the right thing.  I think that's insanity.
        It was our job to get rid of the rubber stamp majority and we did it.  NARAL has a different purpose and they are not going to change because a couple of smart kids who don't really give a shit about women's rights think they should.  
        If they change it will be to make their threshold for endorsement more difficult to reach.  In that case there are some democrats who are going to get no endorsement either.  

        by TeresaInPa on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:52:06 PM PDT

        •  I'm astonished ...

          ... that you interpreted their views that way.

          I don't think they said anything remotely resembling a call for any single issue group to subordinate themselves to the Democratic Party.  They did call for new strategies, they certainly supported single issue groups NOT being part of the party but working on the outside to effect change.  I just think you are just flat out wrong on that.

          Your characterization of "a couple of smart kids who don't really give a shit about women's rights" is just plain unhelpful, and it is really foolish to make a claim about which you have virtually no evidence.

          As far as how NARAL will change, I guess we'll see.  I don't think their strategies have borne much fruit these past several years, as the legislative history both federally and statewide has shown, and that's just a fact.

          by Nightprowlkitty on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:00:16 PM PDT

        •  While I'm Skeptical of Talk About 'New' Strategie

          the fact remains that the just-fallen Republicans are not a political party in any rational sense of the word.

          Before today we were down to one human being on earth preserving any choice at all for women for the rest of our lives--the next SC Justice to die or leave.

          There's still a very serious chance of losing it with the next nomination. Some issue could neuter the Senate, or Republicans could take the the WH and Senate in 2008 which would be an ironclad certainty of the Court going antichoice forever.

          We remain VERY, VERY close to losing this, losing a suite of other women's rights and some other bedrock liberal policies to unconstitutionality.

          I won't suggest a general formula for voting party line--but when your entire block of issues comes down to one human being on earth being able to determine them for a generation, that's obviously well past the threshold.

          by Gooserock on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:21:14 PM PDT

          •  I believe ...

            ... as far as NARAL is concerned, your comment is very much about new strategies.  Just sayin'.

            by Nightprowlkitty on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:45:04 PM PDT

        •  Answer the Joe question or go home

          Seriously. Explain why NARAL supported Joe Lieberman or just get lost. If you have to apologize, then apologize.

          But you've just written like 50 posts here without ONCE address Lieberman. And he's the #1 biggest reason why we all are pissed at NARAL.

          So address it now, and here. Are you going to answer?

          It you don't give an answer, I think we all know what the answer is. You don't care.

          by sbwoodside on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:50:24 PM PDT

          •  She won't

            Because she has no explanation why her sainted group endorsed Lieberman who has no conviction on the issue of choice over Lamont who does.  And then lied about it.

            by sanchez96 on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 08:50:55 AM PDT

  •  NARAL - increasingly irrelevant

    if you guys have been leading the charge to protect women's rights for decades you should be ashamed of your abject failure to do so

    not just that but the debate is such that the idea of completely outlawing abortion is not just no longer beyond the pale it is increasingly being seen as a reasonable position

    Republican endorsements to make you look bipartisan and smart and cool gave us Republican judges

    The women's rights movements needs new standard bearers... as do many groups whose rights are protected by groups whose strength hails from the mid-20th century

    by ResponsibleAccountable on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:11:50 PM PDT

  •  Fuck NARAL

    Seriously.  

    No organization, anywhere, can expect my support, or anyone's support, when they endorse Republicans over Democrats.

    Never.  

    The same goes for the Sierra Club.

    These maligant single issue groups and their blind followers are so politically naive that they are dangerous to their own very cause.  

    They are finished as relevant organizations. Luckily, however, their respective causes will endure and progress, but no thanks to them.  

    by Delaware Dem on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:13:55 PM PDT

•  sorry

  i will never forgive them for lieberman.

  by Turkana on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:56:29 PM PDT

  •  At least...

    Lieberman shouldn't flip on this issue.

    by annrose on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:58:53 PM PDT

    •  already did

      when he opposed filibustering alito.

      by Turkana on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:01:53 PM PDT

      •  Where's Joe in this email?

        by Sam Loomis on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:03:32 PM PDT

        •  How's that short bus ride?

          Where's the crucial line, "In Connecticut, we kept Joe Lieberman from losing to pro-choice Ned Lamont. Thank god Joe's been there for us to make meaningless anti-judge votes after voting for cloture (remember, Joe Lieberman was for Samuel Alito before he was against him). Thank god Joe's been there to suggest that a pharmacist or hospital should have the right to not have to pass out emergency contraception to a rape victim because of the pharmacist's/hospital's religious beliefs, so that rape victims can be told, 'Hey, it's just a "short bus ride" away to get your prescription filled.' Thank god Joe Lieberman's really been there for us. Because if we made it too easy to get emergency contraception, then women might not try hard enough not to get raped." (/heavy, heavy sarcasm)

          (disclaimer: I expect that last line may strike some people as offensive, but I'm putting it in the mouths of people who claim a pharmacist/hospital's right to not dispense emergency contraception based on what I think are asinine moral grounds - "Rapist's Rights" is how any competent political adviser would tar this position - and Joe Lieberman enables that kind of sexist indifference to rape victims and should NOT get a pass for it. The reason I think it's fair to put it in the mouths of these people - pharmacists/hospitals/enablers - is that it's the same logic, both on the surface and subtly, that looks at the HPV vaccine and says, "Well, if we give that to eleven-year-old girls, they'll be more likely to have premarital sex, now that they know they won't get cervical cancer from it." Dumbfucks. I defy anyone who'd defend this reasoning to find anyone on the fucking planet who decided to have more or less sex based on the protection they did or did not have from cervical cancer. Nobody thinks like that.)

          I'll admit some Democrats are insufficiently supportive of abortion rights, and I'll admit that the pro-choice movement can't let itself be taken for granted (I have a separate rant about the way Amy Sullivan and Jim Wallis seem determined to push accommodation with pro-lifers who are already bargaining in bad faith, because that's the niche they've carved out as religious lefties who'll sell out on choice, but that's a different story). The thing is, it's almost as dumb, in today's political climate, for a pro-choice group to favor any Republican over almost any Democrat, as it'd be for the NAACP to say, "Well, we gotta keep the Democrats honest, so despite Katrina, voter suppression, and shit like 'Steele-Ehrlich Democrats' we're going to endorse some Republicans to hedge our bets."

          by Christopher on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:52:01 PM PDT

          •  Christoper, You've got my vote

            for best comment this diary.

            Dumbfucks. I defy anyone who'd defend this reasoning to find anyone on the fucking planet who decided to have more or less sex based on the protection they did or did not have from cervical cancer. Nobody thinks like that.)

            Too true. Who in their right mind thinks preaching abstinence will keep kids from sex when their hormones start spinning their heads?

            by keefer55 on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:29:11 PM PDT

            •  Thanks :-)

              It's not even that they're so fond of abstinence education that galls me. (I added "education" to that line, because they're obviously not fond of abstinence itself; they're just like the rest of us, except they think they should feel worse about sex)

              It's not even that they're so ignorant that they don't realize that HPV is transmitted from guys to women and that guys don't have to have sexual contact with anyone to have it and transmit it to unsuspecting women. A pair of virgins could save themselves until marriage, and then the guy could give it to the woman on their wedding night, and whose fault would that be?

              These jackasses talk about how imperfect condoms are - based on flawed mathematical arguments that would get them flunked out of fifth grade - even though it's not like marriage innoculates you from STDs that aren't exclusively sexually transmitted.

              It's that they think women should be punished for having sex by having the threat of cancer hang over their heads, or maybe a bit lower.

              That's not just misogynistic (though that's the practical and literal effect of it). That's morally fucking monstrous, and it's an underreported argument and attitude that they get a nearly free ride for. Those sanctimonious shitheads are objectively pro-cancer, and objectively in favor of threatening women with death to keep them from having sex too often.

              Pro-life my ass. They're anti-sex because they don't know how to reconcile their urges and their ideologies, and they're pro-early-and-painful death because they're afraid to challenge their own old ideas about sex and gender and science and morality - and they're horrified that if they accept any of ours, it'll mark them as complicit in our moral degeneration. You know, because we don't go around telling people that if they fuck, they might get cancer.

              Values voters? More like sick fuck voters.

              by Christopher on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:04:47 PM PDT

      •  NARAL fails to see the big picture

        they've bought the 'partisanship' bullshit

        Hook
        Line,
        And Sinker.

        by ucla grad102 on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:31:31 PM PDT

        •  they see the big picture alright

          but mostly they're looking for the little green portraits of ben franklin.

          they're just another lobbying group now.  this letter is just to blow smoke up  people's skirts and make you feel good before they hit you up for contributions again.

          that's why they endorsed lieberman and went "bipartisan" - to cultivate the insider relationships and play the K-street shuffle.

          by zeke L on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:04:22 PM PDT

      •  Oops...

        good point.

        by annrose on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:36:13 PM PDT

  •  +1

    I like how the above "thank you" letter doesn't list Loserman as a winner too.  Very Very interesting....

    by JazzedInSF on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:07:46 PM PDT

  •  I'm sure they are crying

    in their tea cups over your animosity.

    by TeresaInPa on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:11:33 PM PDT

    •  No, for my $

      I sent back the last envelope they snail-mailed me with "RETURN-REFUSED" in sharpie across the front.

      They'll never see another dime from me.  And they'll have to pay the return postage.

      by FlyingToaster on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:32:16 PM PDT

•  A perfect world...

  ..is when we need no abortions.

  by johnnyNYC on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:57:17 PM PDT

  •  That would be when we all stop having sex

    That doesn't sound like a perfect world to me.

    by hrh on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:11:58 PM PDT

    •  Or..

      we could get that artificial womb invented. Women could then choose to reproduce without having to be pregnant if they wanted.

      by Ja of Anoroc on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:59:33 PM PDT

  •  No, a perfect world...

    ..would be what we have with abortions - safe, legal and rare.

    by HollywoodOz on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:26:25 PM PDT

    •  Nope

      Safe, legal and accessible.

      by Ja of Anoroc on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:57:48 PM PDT

  •  No, a perfect world...

    Would have birth control that was insanely easy and cheap (or free) to use and never ever failed.  So then people could have sex all they wanted, yet never need to have abortions.

    Of course, we lack that as this isn't a perfect world, which is why abortion rights are needed.

    And NARAL should never have backed Loserman, given that Loserman is not going to try to keep anti-choice justices off the Supreme Court.

    by CenterLeft on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:52:13 PM PDT

    •  Um.

      Sometimes abortions are needed for wanted pregnancies too.

      by Ja of Anoroc on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:01:02 PM PDT

•  NARAL's endorsements

  helped give us Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.  And you still trust NARAL to protect women's rights more than the democratic party?

  by PoorLonelyChild on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:03:57 PM PDT

  •  the democratic party

    gave us Casey who would have voted for Alito.  Get it yet?
    NARAL's nominations didn't give us Alito, anti-choice democrats did.  Voting not to filibuster had little to do with it.  Alito was a done deal because so many democrats were going to vote for him no matter what.

    by TeresaInPa on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:13:59 PM PDT

    •  I worked with NARAL for years in MA

      I canvassed with them when back they were called Mass Choice; I phone banked with them, manned their booths at events, helped with their mailings, overate at their Chocolate Madness events, and helped coordinate some activities with local clinic escorts in Brookline.  Working with NARAL was secondary for me mostly because my real activity was on the street as a clinic escort for a decade.

      But their strategy is wrong, wrong, wrong.  Wrong on Lieberman (which helped republican house candidates in CT), wrong on Chafee, and basically wrong because they refuse to recognize when the whole can be much much greater than the sum of the parts.  A smattering of pro-choice republicans in a republican majority caucus is of virtually no value.  A smattering of anti-choice democrats in a democratic majority caucus, on the other hand, is a strong hand.

      by fightcentristbias on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:31:58 PM PDT

    •  There is a huge difference

      between actively trying to save Chaffee's ass, who's Party platform is "pro-life", when they had the option to support someone like Whitehouse, than for the Dem's to support Casey, who is "pro-life" but did not run on a pro-life platform, over Santorum.  The folks at NARAL have been screwing themselves for decades.  This was perhaps the single most important election cycle for womens reproductive rights since Roe V. Wade.  Chances are extremely high that Bush will be in the position replace one of the remaining four non-right winger Supreme Court Justices in the next two years.  How they could have miss read the importance of the Democrats retaking the Senate is beyond me.  They need to do some serious soul searching.

      by masslib on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:44:13 PM PDT

    •  Teresa did Bob Casey say he would have?

      voted to confirm Samuel Alito?

      I am just wondering if he publicly said this, or if this is assumed. There were many reasons to vote against Samuel Alito besides abortion - there are labor laws, enviornmental laws, and many other laws. Who knows - someone like Alito might even want to return to the days conservatives felt  Social Security was unconstitutional but haven't publicly said so knowing the consequences.

      by joedemocrat on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:58:57 PM PDT

      •  he said it

        link

        by kindertotenlieder on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:21:00 PM PDT

    •  Get it yet?

      The democratic party gave us Casey who would have voted for Alito.  Get it yet?

      Why do you speculate Casey would have voted for Alito? I'm willing to assume that Casey is smart enough not to be an ignorant single issue voter. I know choice is an important issue to you, and it's important to me too. But it's not the only issue that is important.

      How did Chafee vote, by the way? Against cloture?

      NARAL's nominations didn't give us Alito, anti-choice democrats did.  Voting not to filibuster had little to do with it.  Alito was a done deal because so many democrats were going to vote for him no matter what.

      That's inaccurate. Most democrats voted against him but enough were going to vote for cloture so that there was no point even attempting a filibuster. This is in part an artifact over NARAL's nonsensical decisions to endorse candidates based on the single issue of stated preference for choice, without regard to the political pressures their party bosses will place upon them.

      by PoorLonelyChild on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:59:27 PM PDT

    •  Not just "anti-choice" Democrats...

      Also supposedly pro-choice, NARAL-endorsed Loserman who voted for cloture.

      by CassP on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:28:17 PM PDT

    •  A vote for cloture was a vote for Alito

      Get it yet?

      Has Lieberman's footprint faded from your collective asses yet?

      by tommymet on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:53:04 PM PDT

•  Support of Lieberman

  ...in the teeth of his 'just a short ride' remark really corks me.  I tried to imagine a rape victim presenting at an emergency room, telling her story, requesting birth control and being told to go away.  Then she gets in her car and goes to another emergency room and has to tell the same thing all over again.

  And that's, of course, if she has a car and doesn't live in, like, North Dakota or something,

  by bodiddley on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:05:33 PM PDT

•  No offense...

  ...but I think we should drop the pro-choice and pro-life rhetoric.  We should all be pro-life... but we just differ on when life starts.

  Just my idea.

  Anyway I'm just as glad as you to see my state turn down that stupid abortion law.

  by Tetris on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:06:43 PM PDT

  •  A Rose is a rose...

    Removing the tags of "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice/anti-abortion" isn't going to make the debate go away.  It's still going to end up as Us vs. Them for everybody.

    by JazzedInSF on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:10:01 PM PDT

  •  I disagree

    that we should muddy the argument.  Either you are pro-choice or you are anti-choice. I don't use the term pro-life at all.

    by TeresaInPa on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:15:41 PM PDT

    •  Their use of phrase "pro-life" is

      very misleading, and completely hypocritical! I'd choke before using it, myself!!
      Aloha. . .

      by dolphin777 on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:27:13 PM PDT

      •  Just call them "Anti-Choice"

        by Predator Saint on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:50:19 PM PDT

    •  South Dakota-

      In South Dakota, a majority consider themselves "pro life."  Yet they rejected the stingy abortion ban.  This means that to be "pro life" you do not need to subscribe to the most fundamental definition of "pro life"... you can believe in abortion pills within the first few weeks of conception and needing exceptions for health, rape and incest.

      I'm "pro life" after the baby has developed a central nervous system.  That is my arbitrary opinion.  

      Anyway, I think if you fight "life" against "choice" life will win every time.  I'm not sure this is an advantageous use of rhetoric for the "pro choice" side.  How many of you think protecting liberty is greater than protecting life?  Personally I think protecting life is the greatest expression of protecting liberty; life is not different from liberty, it is the most important liberty we possess.

      Using words like "anti choice" only feed into a cycle of empty rhetorical stone slinging.  It seems destructive to me and rather pointless.

      by Tetris on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:25:37 AM PDT

  •  asdf

    nobody is anti-life, but plenty are anti-choice

    by fightcentristbias on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:33:54 PM PDT

    •  I see a bumber sticker! n/t

      by ord avg guy on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:41:02 PM PDT

  •  no, just stop using 'pro-life'

    Instead, use "anti-choice."

    by PhantomFly on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:42:32 PM PDT

•  NARAL

  is starting to remind me of the Log Cabin club...they do what they do even though it seems to work against their own interests...

  REPUBLICAN SENATORS CONFIRM REPUBLICAN JUDGES.

  And, yes, for the record there are a handful of dem senators who vote to confirm just about anything that falls out of the window too -- but, and I can't stress this enough -- there are too many people who flunked civics class around here..even if 49 republican senators and 12 democratic senators support a wingnut judge (meaning, no filibuster), there are still two ways to kill the nomination: It can die in committee if it doesn't get a majority vote (a tie won't bring it to the floor) or -- and this is fucking important -- A SINGLE SENATOR CAN BLOCK THE NOMINATION by placing a hold on it, and the hold will NOT be broken as long as the senator placing it is IN THE MAJORITY. The republicans used this technique mercilessly in the 90's to fuck with Clinton, and there wasn't shit he could do about it...ask William Weld.

  Anyone who understands the above and still supports a republican senator -- even a moderate one is a few spark plugs short of working engine.

  by PBJ Diddy on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:08:11 PM PDT

  •  I am sorry you don't get the need

    for non partisan advocacy groups.

    by TeresaInPa on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:16:22 PM PDT

    •  I'm sorry you don't see how...

      ..not filibustering Alito would lead to atatcks on choice.

      I'm sorry you don't see how women being told it's a 'short drive to the next hospital' is something less than 'choice'.

      NARAL chose to jump in with Sleizerman, even though he shat on women up and down the campaign trail.

      Claiming NARAL gets out of jail free just because they're 'non-partisan' does nothing more than remind most of us of Lieberman complaining about people who didn't like him being 'too partisan'.

      by HollywoodOz on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:29:32 PM PDT

    •  what makes you non partisan?

      by pledging to vote against Democrats?

      I'm afraid that is not the definition of 'partisanship'. If you want to protect women's right, then you elect the Party that represents those issues. You dont attempt tp play politics by endorsing republicans like joe lieberman.

      by ucla grad102 on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:33:45 PM PDT

    •  I get the need

      I just don't think NARAL gets the picture.  (I was an active member for years.)

      by fightcentristbias on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:41:36 PM PDT

    •  Non-Partisan?

      You mean bi-partisan.  2 different concepts...

      by sanchez96 on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:18:01 PM PDT

•  How Would You Feel.....

  How would you feel if:

  Chaffee won (with NARAL's support)in Rhode Island

  The Republicans still controlled the Senate

  and

  As a result Bush got to appoint another Scalito to the Supreme Court next year who supplied the 5th vote to overturn Roe?

  That would all be the very plausible, even highly likely, result if NARAL got its way in Rhode Island.  

  Like a lot of others here, I'm not talking about throwing women's rights under the bus for some other goal.  I'm suggesting that some of NARAL's tactics have been contrary to their own best interests, even potentially disasterous to NARAL's cause in the case of the Rhode Island Senate seat.

  by Tod on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:09:15 PM PDT

  •  nonsense

    NARAL would have no power at all if they refused to reward pro-choice republicans with endorsements.  
    Get enough anti-choice democrats in positions of power and we won't need republicans to get rid of women's rights.  There have been plenty of democrats willing to help with that job already.

    by TeresaInPa on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:19:12 PM PDT

    •  Let's Talk About This One Case.

      Would you agree that Bush is less able to appoint an extremist anti abortion justice to the Supreme Court because the Republicans lost the majority in the Senate?  (That's kind of like asking you to agree that the sky is blue).

      by Tod on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:26:19 PM PDT

    •  Tell that to the NRA

      They are decisively, fanatically Pro-Republican.

      Their money and influence is not drying up any time soon.

      by Predator Saint on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:44:26 PM PDT

      •  NRA will sometimes endorse

        Democrats if

        A. The Dem is an incumbent and
        B. His pro-gun rating is at least equal to his Republican opponent.

        However, they often fudge the numbers, so that a Republican gets an A+ and the Democrat incumbent gets an A. They know which side their bread is buttered on.

        by Desroko on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:47:10 PM PDT

        •  You are correct.

          I now remember looking their 2006 candidate listing for this year, and they endorsed Bill Richardson for Governor.

          Also, they gave Jon Tester an "A" rating, but conveniently gave Conrad Burns an "A+".

          by Predator Saint on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 02:30:34 PM PDT

  •  so what are YOU doing

    to support reproductive rights?

    And I don't mean "voting for anyone with a D after their name".  I mean, what are you doing which has a specific focus of supporting reproductive rights.  

    The thing about NARAL is that this is their specific focus.  They do a lot of good in this regard.  They've made a few mistakes, like any political group has.  But they're out there doing the work to support this issue and keep it up on people's radar.  This is what special-interest groups do.  I see a lot of people sitting back and carping at NARAL for being so stupid, yet a lot of those very same people won't lift a finger or raise their voices in support of reproductive rights.  Are you one of those people?

    by hrh on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:24:57 PM PDT

    •  No Connection.

      I don't have to campaign for my daughter's reproductive rights as my most important issue in order to have an opinion that one specific endorsement was tactically stupid because, in this specific case, had NARAL's candidate prevailed in Rhode Island then Roe could likely be overturned in the next two years.

      by Tod on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:29:37 PM PDT

      •  You didn't answer my question

        I'm not surprised.

        by hrh on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:39:32 PM PDT

        •  Yes he did.

          Presumably what he's doing is voting, donating and volunteering for Democrats.

          NARAL, on the other hand, supported Republicans and Lieberman.

          What are THEY doing to support your rights?

          by HollywoodOz on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:43:08 PM PDT

          •  You didn't read my post

            I'm not surprised by that either.

            by hrh on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:51:28 PM PDT

            •  I read your post aplenty.

              But you seem to ignore the fact that it's been adequately answered.

              by HollywoodOz on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:37:35 PM PDT

              •  It HASN'T been adequately answered

                You're quite wrong.  

                by hrh on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 05:01:13 AM PDT

                •  Just because you don't see the tree...

                  ..doesn't mean it isn't there.

                  by HollywoodOz on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 09:40:47 AM PDT

                  •  My question was clear

                    I said that supporting D candidates wasn't enough.  Yet you choose not to pay attention to that bit.  Either you don't understand what I'm writing or you're being obstinate.  Doesn't matter which, really.

                    by hrh on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 01:14:23 PM PDT

          •  Agreed.

            Shifting the argument.  Not helpful.

            by Nightprowlkitty on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:53:02 PM PDT

        •  I Rejected the Premise

          The point of your question was that only NARAL members are entitled to an opinion.  That's wrong.

          That, by the way, is a Bush White House debate tactic.  If you didn't support the Iraq invasion to begin with then you have no right to say it's being prosecuted badly, according to them.

          by Tod on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:11:17 PM PDT

          •  That was not the point of my question

            My point was that there are a lot of people who waste time and energy criticizing pro-choice activists and strategies, especially NARAL, but then they do absolutely jackshit to support reproductive rights.  My conclusion is that they really don't give a rat's ass about preserving reproductive rights.  Or, they may even be concealing hostile attitudes toward them.  

            This is precisely why we need special-interest groups.

            by hrh on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 05:07:20 AM PDT

            •  exactly

              we think bush is crazy if he believe we should just trust him to do the right thing.  But people here are perfectly content to just trust the democratic party to do the right thing.  No thanks, this is why we have the vote, to hold it over their heads.

              by TeresaInPa on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:35:42 AM PDT

              •  Not true.

                You can see for yourself there are posters here who have done quite a bit to support NARAL and PP and who have real issues with their strategies.  Using your reasoning, we should also not be content to merely trust NARAL and should demand some accountability from that group before giving them our money (i.e., "vote") when we feel their strategies are not working.  Can't have it both ways.

                by Nightprowlkitty on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 10:39:46 AM PDT

            •  I get the impression

              that if we don't agree with you, we don't support reproductive rights.

              by Marlyn on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 11:28:27 AM PDT

  •  votes on organizing and Speaker

    I think all single-issue groups should include votes for Speaker and on organizing committees as the top votes in their scorecards. In fact, it should be worth as much as or more than all the other votes combined. To do otherwise is just hopelessly naive.

    Who leads committees and who controls the agenda is everything in Congress. Who gives a rats-a** if a guy votes for some obscure bill that never has a chance of passing if he voted to put Denny Hastert as Speaker? Denny Hastert would never let any real progress on women's issues get to the floor if it has any chance of passing, so every other vote by a Representative is almost meaningless.

    Look, it's fine that there are issue advocacy groups out there, but their tactics are hopelessly outdated, grown from the days of bipartisan action and uninterrupted Democratic control.

    by BriVT on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:08:58 PM PDT

    •  I'm Not Going That Far.

      That argument could mean that NARAL should never endorse a Republican, because they all vote party line on Speaker and committee assignments.  I don't think it's necessary to go that far, and I understand the argument that there are good reasons for NARAL to endorse at least SOME Republicans.

      I'm just saying that, once in a while, there come up specific cases where the party affiliation dramatically outweighs a candidate's personal opinion.  It would be better to recognize those exceptions once in a while.  I'm not saying NEVER endorse a Republican.  I'm just saying in the one isolated case of one Rhode Island Senator where control of the Senate, and the ability to block extreme justices, was hanging in the balance NARAL should have recognized that this very special case called for a different approach.

      by Tod on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:18:48 PM PDT

•  I'm starting my campaign against

  my governor Matt Blunt today. If you wonder why, click on the link in my sig.  As far as he's concerned, choice is not something any woman should have.

  by maryb2004 on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:09:20 PM PDT

•  Teresa, I almost always agree with

  nearly every comment you make.  That's why I'm so surprised at this statement:

  I am pretty damn sure the democrats would throw "Choice" out the window in a heart beat if they thought that meant more power in the polls.

  I know of many Democrats who knew they could toss dignity to the wind, endorse abortion bans and be elected.  Instead, they stood by abortion rights for personal, for character or for moral (church/state, privacy, individual rights, etc) reasons. And they were defeated.

  That is why your statement is so shocking to me. There are many, many Democrats who go down to defeat in red states every election - in red districts where abortion ban is a big issue. But, they stick with women's rights, because they feel it is the right thing to do.

  I'm just blown away by your statement. It is upsetting.

  by YucatanMan on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:10:14 PM PDT

  •  I didn't mean all

    I meant as a majority of democrats in power.  Just look at this thread.  So many people who think NARAL should be in the business of electing democrats rather than protecting women.

    by TeresaInPa on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:21:56 PM PDT

    •  Oh please.

      It's not NARAL that's been protecting the right to choose. It's Democrats that have been doing that.

      While the Democrats were running on pro-choiice platforms, even when it is unpopular, NARAL slung their hooks in with Chafee and Lieberman, both of whom vote with the party that is determined to end choice forever.

      That they could stand with Joe "short drive to the next hospital" Lieberman is unforgivable.

      by HollywoodOz on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:33:25 PM PDT

    •  Yes, but ...

      ... I don't think you have proven that "a majority of democrats in power" would throw pro-choice out the window -- that's a pretty rash comment to make, imo.

      And no, I don't think NARAL should be in the business of electing democrats -- but that also doesn't mean their tactics have to be written in stone, either.  Fact is, and I'm not just speaking of NARAL, the pro-choice movement has had enormous setbacks in the past decade or so.  I'm no genius, so I'm not going to start finger-pointing, nor am I interested in anyone else's notions on why.  Fact is, times change and strategies must change, too.

      Single interest groups are going to have to find more effective ways to get their agendas pushed into law and strengthen existing laws.  I think we all learned a bitter lesson with this Republican Congress on how fragile these laws can be when attacked so strongly by a unified party.

      So I don't think it's an either/or situation here.  And I don't think bashing Democrats is really the answer, either, just because some Dems are bashing NARAL's strategies -- fact is, I don't see anyone here at all bashing NARAL's aims.

      by Nightprowlkitty on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:34:48 PM PDT

    •  It is the "control" issue:

      if Republicans control Congress (even by having a few or a lot of "moderate" pro-choice members) they control the calendar and the bills brought up for a vote.  

      There simply is no way you can support a Republican for Congress and reconcile that with being Pro-Choice.

      Because Republican Control of Congress means people like Tom DeLay and Bill (Video Diagnosis Doc) Frist RUN THE SHOW and Set The Agenda.  And The Agenda involves Destroying Abortion Rights.

      Even supporting the election of a left or moderate Republican adds to the numbers of Republicans and that contributes to Republican Control.  And that leads to attacks on ALL our rights, as we have just experienced in the most explicit way in the last six years:  privacy, search and seizure, habeus corpus, gay rights, women's rights, abortion rights.

      Supporting a Republican is supporting those who would destroy all those rights -- and who HAVE attacked ALL those rights for Six Painful Years (at least).  

      It didn't used to be so, but if the last decade has taught us anything, it is that there is no such thing as a "good"