Fuck NARAL: Not One Penny.

Hat tip to FDL.
Everyone's favorite Neanderthal Cannibals are at it again, pushing this crap.
Wapo  :

the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act would seem to be anathema to abortion rights groups. It requires abortion providers to tell a woman . . . ."there is substantial evidence" that the fetus will feel pain

And NARAL HAS SOLD OUT AGAIN
Wapo again:

"Pro-choice Americans have always believed that women deserve access to all the information relevant to their reproductive health decisions. For some women, that includes information related to fetal anesthesia options," Nancy Keenan, NARAL's president, has said in a statement on the bill.

Not a fucking penny until Keenan is gone, and NARAL changes is by-laws.
BTW, the science proves that it’s a lie, and NARAL has given Dems the cover to do nothing.
(more on flip)

The Science:

Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco reviewed dozens of studies and medical reports and said the data indicate that fetuses likely are incapable of feeling pain until around the seventh month of pregnancy, when they are about 28 weeks old.
Based on the evidence, discussions of fetal pain for abortions performed before the end of the second trimester should not be mandatory, according to the study appearing in Wednesday’s Journal of the American Medical Association.

And the cover (Wapo again):

Democratic leaders cited NARAL's position when they decided against trying to influence the vote. Democratic leadership aides said yesterday that they are leery of Republicans charging that they are already out of touch with mainstream values, even before they assume power.

What is wrong with those morons at NARAL?  Are they afraid that they won't get invited to the right parties, or is Ms. Keenan some sort of mole?

[on edit]

BTW, this bill defines pregnancy from conception, which could have the effect compromising the right to many forms of birth control.

•  Tip Jar

  I think that it's time for local chapters to disafilliate.  Maybe switch to some other group.
  Wapo again:

  While the measure has provoked strong opposition from Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation ....

  by LunkHead on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 09:40:46 AM PDT

  •  I'm with Planned Parenthood

    by matthewc on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 10:50:43 AM PDT

    •  I believe that PP supported Lieberman

      against Lamont - so they're no good, either!

      by ShaShaMae on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:11:32 PM PDT

      •  CT Planned Parenthood endorsed Lamont

        I'm almost certain of that without having confirmed prior to this writing --

        It was the umbrella (national) org of Planned Parenthood that rolled over and (at least tacitly) endorsed Lieberman.

        Not to put too fine a point on it; I just find it interesting that the national couldn't be bothered to consider what its state chapter was telling it about the race.  Sort of like grassroots/netroots brushed off by the Washington DC incogniscenti. . . .

        (off topic: Daniel Craig may well be the BEST anything. . . ever!)

        by Voice on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 01:06:56 PM PDT

        •  I think you're right about local PP - but not

          having full support by that organization certainly was like having "half a loaf".

          by ShaShaMae on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 01:36:38 PM PDT

          •  absolutely

            but more importantly, we do agree on the fact that Daniel Craig is not only the best Bond, but would be the best anything, do we not?  Maybe we could recruit him to run as VP?  (are there native-born guidelines for the VP?  I can't recall.)  Maybe we could just make him Secretary of Defense?  Or. . . Press Secretary?  Yes!  that works!  If bullshit is going to be distributed to us on a daily basis, I'd much rather the ill medicine spilled from his lips --

            by Voice on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 02:30:06 PM PDT

            •  Yes Yes Yes

              I love my husband, but I can lust (Jimmy Carter style) after Daniel!!

              by ShaShaMae on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 02:44:58 PM PDT

    •  Planned parenthood

      PP does alot of good work for reproductive rights.  However, speaking as a medical student for choice and future abortion provider, there are some in the field who consider them to be out of touch.  (More corporate than progressive)  Keep your eyes open to all of the issues before blindly supporting one organization, dailykos included!

      by 3rdeye on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:35:41 PM PDT

      •  I don't blindly support anything

        The closest I come is the IWW, and I don't with them either.

        I think comparatively, PP is best.  I don't regard them as feminist, however, I consider them only in terms of reproductive rights.  I would love to hear suggestions on a better organization, however!

        Good comment, and well taken.

        by matthewc on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 05:02:54 PM PDT

        •  You support

          Irish Whip Wrestling?

          by MarkInSanFran on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 11:02:41 PM PDT

          •  No,

            the one and only IWW.

            Yours looks like fun, though.

            by matthewc on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 05:58:39 PM PDT

  •  Is it worth noting the bill in question is DOA?

    WaPo:

    Even if the bill can muster a two-thirds vote, it cannot pass the Senate before Congress adjourns.

    by RonK Seattle on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 10:51:12 AM PDT

    •  It doesn't matter if you hate NARAL...

      by crazymoloch on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 10:58:18 AM PDT

      •  Why doesn't it matter?

        I'm not getting the point of your comment.

        I volunteered for NARAL prior to the election to help get out the vote to oppose a teen notification measure in Oregon. http://www.noon43.com/ Oregon voters came through and opposed it!

        The diarist's point, I think, is that the leadership of NARAL appears dubious under the leadership of Nancy Keenan who appears to want to be a fencesitter at times when she should be an advocate. I am going to add a couple of examples.

        I was disappointed that NARAL didn't support Webb over Allen or Whitehouse over Chafee. Webb was unequivocally pro-choice, Allen was pro-life. Though Chafee is pro-choice, he voted for cloture on the Alito vote (as did Leiberman), whereas Whitehouse wouldn't have. When I asked why NARAL at their headquarters, why they didn't endorse Webb, I was told they weren't allowed to discuss this, as though they'd learned something deep and dark that they needed to keep to themselves. In fact, their system of endorsement simply lacks transparency. If Whitehouse or Webb hadn't won their elections, Democrats would not have a majority in the Senate so when NARAL congratulated itself on seeing a majority in both the House and the Senate, I felt it was giving itself too much credit.

        So I'm inclined to agree with this diary that NARAL is being misled right now, that Keenan might not be the right person and that the bylaws need to be changed. I would like to know more about why disaffiliating from NARAL would be more appropriate than trying to reform NARAL from within.

        by uzeromay on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 11:27:29 AM PDT

        •  The bill deserves to die in the dark

          It is a form of Republican trolling. We should not overreact to it.

          by FishOutofWater on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:32:47 PM PDT

          •  That must be the strategy

            Pelosi will presumably never let another such bill  see the light of day......

            But I can't help remembering how ALL the Senate Democrats rolled over on the Schiavo legislation--it would have taken just one Senator to object to prevent the bill's passage in the dead of night by acclamation.

            by MKS on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:42:25 PM PDT

            •  never...

              is a really long time. And there's no promise that "never" will happen.

              by kredwyn on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 01:37:20 PM PDT

            •  Here's the heartbreaking truth

              the Democractic senators are cowards. They are not evil, as the republicans senators are, but they are cowards.

              by coolhappyMax on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 04:04:28 PM PDT

              •  Just more of that

                wonderful "bipartisanship" at work here.The sentence in the WaPo article that stuck in my craw,was how Pelosi wasn't going to speak out on this.A bad omen of what is to come,I'm afraid.Doesn't NAEAL have a board to get rid of this women,and get someone with a backbone instead ?

                by Rothbardian on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 09:15:53 PM PDT

        •  This is excellent

          I think you've done a good job here of spelling out specific problems with NARAL strategy, leadership and decision-making.

          Thanks, they need to know.

          by StuartZ on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 03:17:09 PM PDT

        •  why it doesn't matter

          In the current climate, you pick your battles carefully.

          Since you were involved in a campaign in your home state, you know how exhausting these battles are. This past year, I was involved in two (a political target and a state-level bill) and am still recovering.

          And sometimes it seems that it's never-ending -- wave after wave of state and federal level bills and the knocking knees of the wishy-washy representatives we elect. In fact, in my state, a politician was targeted who had received a NARAL endorsement in 2002 but reneged in actual voting. Talk about one step forward and two steps back when you have to spend your time taking out a former "ally" ...

          This bill in particular has all of the hallmarks of turning into another circus sideshow: NARAL pursues a political agenda at the expense of keeping women in the dark! Women should have this information! Polling shows women want this information! And so on.

          As I mentioned in an earlier comment, this is not a new NARAL position on this bill. If I were to stop supporting NARAL, it would be because they blew it tactically (i.e., the bill clears house/senate).

          With respect to the Alito nomination, a Washington Post article at the time (sorry, I don't have the link handy) detailed quite clearly that Dem leadership told NARAL to stand down from the get-go. It's the same article that described Ben Nelson kow-towing to Dobson. I don't have a problem with NARAL not going along with the cloture sideshow to rate senatorial records. It was a farce.

          I don't have the confidence that others do that Democratic politicians will look out for the political interests of NARAL/PP without the pressure of sticks like bipartisan endorsements and carrots of incumbent support. While I recognize and agree with the advantages of a Democratic majority, unfortunately, in the long-term, NARAL (and groups like NARAL) cannot put all of their eggs in one basket because they're left out in the cold if things don't work out as planned. They are driven by risk management, even if that means that sometimes they take positions we don't agree with.

          This isn't a proud moment, but it beats the hell out of publicizing the bill, getting involved in a long protracted battle, and potentially seeing the damn thing pass.

          by kindertotenlieder on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 11:12:53 PM PDT

          •  The "picking battles carefully" approach

            Is that the "picking battles carefully" approach or the "playing dead" approach? I'm sorry but I don't think that NARAL should suspend all judgment because the Democratic leadership has chosen to suspend all judgment. So putting two and two together, the reason a supposedly non-partisan NARAL ends up supporting Republican Chafee over Democrat Whitehouse is because the Democratic leadership had told NARAL not to put on their "report card" anything about a vote for a cloture on the Alito nomination? Can you see the irony as well as the hypocrisy of this? And that is also the reason why NARAL gave the "carrot"  to Leiberman over the Democratic nominee? Nancy Pelosi may choose to make abortion issue low profile and softpedal her true convictions in order to make pro-life Democrats feel welcome in the big tent. NARAL meanwhile, should choose to be outspoken and proud, not the insider, partisan, backstabbing, lobbying group you depict it as being. Also: What about the Hyde Amendment? Is that another case when NARAL should play dead?

            by uzeromay on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 02:04:28 AM PDT

            •  let me try

              to address your points. At the end, this comes down to a matter of opinion, of course.

              Hyde Amendment - I find it very, very interesting to be discussing this on a site where so many support the concept of "libertarian Dem." The Hyde Amendment's support from then President Carter was based on: "the government should stay out of a woman's decision, not blocking her but not encouraging her, either."

              Let me quote from "Bearing Right, How the Conservatives Won the Abortion War" by William Saletan about what happened when Clinton took office:

              In Washington DC, illusions of a new era of pro-choice liberalism began to crumble. Satisfied that the legal right to abortion was politically secure, moderate pro-choice voters and financial contributors lost interest in the issue. The percentage of poll respondents who deemed aobrtion on of the country's most urgent issues plunged almost to zero. NARAL's membership and income fell by one-third. Planned Parenthood had to cut its budget by one-fourth.

              Abortion rights activists planned a three-stage campaign to replace the prevailing libertarian system with a more expansive pro-choice regime. First, they would repeal the Hyde Amendment. Next, the would pass FOCA. Finally, they would secure coverage of abortions under Clinton's national health care proposal.

              The first stage of the campaign opened on March 30, when the White House confirmed Clinton would omit the Hyde Amendment from his budget proposal.

              So, what happened? The pro-lifers put it into high gear and accused Clinton of imposing big government on taxpayers. The Christian Coalition took out a full-page ad in the WP featuring a 1987 letter from Al Gore in which he strongly opposed federal financing of abortions. Key elements of the ad: "A new CBS/New York Times poll shows that 72% of the American people oppose taxpayer funded abortion and we agree with Al Gore who once said that taxpayers should not be forced to pay for the taking of a human life."

              What NARAL did next was to lobby against Hyde based on lack of exemptions for rape and incest. Hyde took a vote count, realized he would lose, and moved to an exemption for rape and incest. It then won 255-178.

              Freshman who had run on pro-choice platforms and who in some cases had taken campaign money from pro-choice groups voted for the amendment.

              "I don't think government ought to be involved in the area of reproduction, and that includes financing," explained Karen Thurman, a Florida Democrat whom pro-choice activists had supported in 1992. As for the activists' disappointment with her position, Thurman replied, "I have a responsibility to my constituents."

              Now, your interpretation of NARAL is "playing dead" on the Hyde Amendment. Tell me, in the current climate, do you believe that Webb and Tester support a stronger social conscience such that they will vote in favor of taxpayer-funded federal funding for abortions? Or, will they take a 'libertarian Dem' position of keep gubmint out of private affairs? I know what I think.

              Personally, I think it's great that everybody's going to get the opportunity to play the role of a mini-interest group soon enough, once the new class starts casting votes.

              I predict a rash of diaries a year or two from now -- "I contributed $200 to candidate X, and I can't even leave a message because I'm out-of-state!" on any given issue important to the diarist.

              ---

              No, supporting Chafee/Lieberman has nothing to do with their interaction w/ Dem leadership on Alito but is a consequence of a support the incumbent policy. In the case of Lieberman it was something of a 'no-brainer' if you believed he would win the general, and let's be honest in hindsight: there was never any indication that he would not.

              Endorsed incumbents screw over NARAL (and us) all the time (see above). So groups like NARAL have to choose circumstances to identify the most egregious offenses. "Being a Republican" does not qualify, particularly if you're working towards long-term bipartisan support.

              Lieberman has been a solid ally for a long time (on choice, specifically). He has an excellent record. There was some controversy over a one-line quote in the Hartford Courant. I have never found another source for that quote outside of a reporter's quote in that particular column.

              I'm aware that NARAL specifically discussed the quote w/ Lieberman in private before endorsing him. We are not privy to the details, so I can only speculate. The discussion may have involved Governor Rell's support for the Catholic hospitals. It may have involved the knowledge that Senator Clinton and Murray's efforts to make EC available OTC were on the verge of success. The one thing I'm sure of is that it was discussed in the hardscrabble pragmatic terms that the battle-weary understand only too well. This is purely my speculation - I am not employed by NARAL and am not on the board.

              I'm all for being outspoken and proud, but to be effective, you need to have a large base of support. Consider all of these proposals to no longer support NARAL, Sierra, LCV etc. The end result is the appearance of lack of support on these particular issues. How convenient for the politicians! No, thanks. Again, I agree with you that at times my blood will boil on a particular action (or inaction) but I've come to the conclusion that in the long-term, the better strategy is to channel my time/resource through dedicated channels. The only other alternative is to form a new organization, but in doing so, one has to review all of the history on how we got here in the first place.

              by kindertotenlieder on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 06:06:42 AM PDT

              •  Just to clarify...

                Are you saying NARAL only supports incumbents?

                by uzeromay on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 10:14:16 AM PDT

                •  my general observation

                  • NARAL supports challengers to anti-choice incumbents (obvious examples: Brown (endorsed) vs DeWine or McCaskill (endorsed) vs Talent.
                  • NARAL will continue to support previously endorsed incumbents over challengers (irrespective of their position) under most circumstances -- a "loyalty reward" of sorts. Also, incumbents tend to get re-elected, and NARAL (like all the orgs) likes to go w/ the perceived winner as long as he/she is a reasonable fit for the organization.

                  For example, in 2000, NARAL endorsed Gore (quasi-incumbent) over Bradley after New Hampshire, despite Bradley's more liberal position. Of course, they endorsed Lieberman over Lamont although Lamont held a more liberal position.

                  Off the top of my head I can only think of one recent example of NARAL stripping an incumbent of their endorsement and going w/ the challenger, and that happened in my state (MD) for a senatorial contest. Briefly, an endorsed moderate republican state senator voted against a state bill to dispense EC OTC (this was before FDA approval of OTC sales). The bill lost by one vote. NARAL-MD endorsed the Democrat (who ultimately won).

                  by kindertotenlieder on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 12:03:22 PM PDT

                  •  NARAL

                    "NARAL supports challengers to anti-choice incumbents (obvious examples: Brown (endorsed) vs DeWine or McCaskill (endorsed) vs Talent."

                    Then why didn't NARAL support Webb? As I mentioned, they wouldn't tell me. I asked prior to the election.

                    by uzeromay on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 03:20:41 PM PDT

                    •  simple question for you

                      did he seek their endorsement? Did he apply? Since he was running against Allen in VA I somehow doubt that he really wanted to be tagged as a NARAL supporter.

                      BTW, the fetal pain bill just failed in the House.

                      by kindertotenlieder on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 03:50:37 PM PDT

              •  Do you work for NARAL?

                Or have you worked for NARAL?

                by uzeromay on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 10:17:42 AM PDT

                •  no and never

                  my opinions only.

                  by kindertotenlieder on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 12:15:38 PM PDT

                  •  What is it I'm not getting.

                    You seem to be contradicting yourself and also missing my point, but maybe I'm just not getting the jist of what you're saying.

                    From your first reply: "With respect to the Alito nomination, a Washington Post article at the time (sorry, I don't have the link handy) detailed quite clearly that Dem leadership told NARAL to stand down from the get-go."

                    I thought this meant that NARAL was paying attention to the Dem leadership. Am I wrong about that? If I'm right, how can you not acknowledge the obvious connection?

                    From your second reply: "No, supporting Chafee/Lieberman has nothing to do with their interaction w/ Dem leadership on Alito but is a consequence of a support the incumbent policy....I don't have a problem with NARAL not going along with the cloture sideshow to rate senatorial records."

                    ---- I think Senators who voted for cloture should be held to account. Alito should have been filibustered. That's my point. Honestly, I don't see your point about the farcical nature of it. Are you saying that it wasn't a battle worth picking?

                    Now, with the following you seem to be saying that NARAL has the wisdom and experience to pick winners.

                    "...but to be effective, you need to have a large base of support."

                    Okay, but NARAL really missed the boat on both Whitehouse and Webb and their attitude may have helped Leiberman defeat

                    I began this thread by asking whether it might be better to reform NARAL from the inside. Your description makes it seem like an intractable organization incapable of listening to reasonable criticism, very much part of the problem. Why doesn't it make sense to reconsider the process of endorsement, expanding it and making it more transparent, and perhaps more democratic? Incumbents don't need more reinforcement from insiders.

                    Thank you for your informative account of NARAL's relationship to the Hyde Amendment. I will take a closer look at that and perhaps respond. I appreciate you having invested this time to help me understand NARAL better.

                    by uzeromay on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 03:29:39 PM PDT

                    •  response

                      I thought this meant that NARAL was paying attention to the Dem leadership. Am I wrong about that? If I'm right, how can you not acknowledge the obvious connection?

                      NARAL, PFAW and a number of civil rights groups met with Reid before the hearings even started. Everybody knew that given the numbers, only a filibuster could stop the Alito nomination. Given the 'Gang of 14' negotiated agreement, Dems were already locked into filibustering only under 'extraordinary circumstances'. Reid told them from the beginning that the votes weren't there for a filibuster with the elections coming up, lest the Dems be accused of 'obstructionism'. The only chance for a legitimate filibuster was an earth-shattering public-shocking blunder by Alito -- and that did not happen.

                      The senators get to vote -- NARAL doesn't. All NARAL can do is lobby, which means (mostly) interacting with Democrats.

                      Then Kerry called for a filibuster from Switzerland. Honestly, that was just to appease people like us -- the votes weren't there. Nineteen Democrats voted for cloture. Which brings us to ...

                      I think Senators who voted for cloture should be held to account. Alito should have been filibustered. That's my point. Honestly, I don't see your point about the farcical nature of it. Are you saying that it wasn't a battle worth picking?

                      Look at some of the other senators who voted for cloture (aside from Lieberman and Chafee):

                      Akaka *
                      Baucus
                      Bingaman
                      Cantwell *
                      Kohl *
                      Collins
                      Snowe *

                      they generally have good/reasonable records on issues important to NARAL. The ones with marked with (*) were up for election in November. If NARAL were to modify their scorecard to penalize Chafee/Lieberman, they'd have to do the same to the others. For the 109th congress, NARAL only had 32 pro-choice senate supporters, so you're talking about knocking out a huge chunk of the coalition. So in that sense, not a battle worth picking. If they had a larger coalition, they'd be able to bring the hammer down on the less-than-perfect.

                      NARAL really missed the boat on both Whitehouse and Webb and their attitude may have helped Leiberman defeat

                      Lieberman -- NARAL switching to Lamont would not have shifted the CT electorate by 10pts, IMO. Lieberman's lead was very stable for GE polling.

                      Webb -- I asked you this in another post: did he apply for a NARAL endorsement? Honestly, that would surprise me, given the circumstances. In any case, AFAIK, a candidate has to fill out the questionnaire, interview, etc.

                      Whitehouse -- I did not follow this race. In any case, I agree that this is the most difficult one to justify. However, incumbent protection is one of the carrots NARAL has to influence a politician, and they have to apply it pretty uniformly (as does Sierra, etc). Again, if they docked Chafee on Alito, they'd have to do the same to Cantwell, etc.

                      I do remember when Matt Brown was in the race, while NARAL endorsed Chafee early on, Kate Michelman was helping Brown's candidacy by fundraising. One of the things to look into here is what was actually happening on the ground -- NARAL = its big donors, so if the big NARAL donors were largely writing checks to Whitehouse, the Chafee endorsement was pro forma, anyway. Consider what happened in PA: NARAL didn't endorse anti-choice Casey, but behind the scenes, the big Philadelphia pro-choice donors were writing him checksto beat Santorum.

                      I began this thread by asking whether it might be better to reform NARAL from the inside. Your description makes it seem like an intractable organization incapable of listening to reasonable criticism, very much part of the problem.

                      Not just intractable but rude (national org), which you probably know from talking to them. My experience with the state-level orgs has been generally good.

                      People stick w/ NARAL because they have "the brand".   Taking it over/effecting change would essentially require a revolt by large donors. About making it more transparent & democratic -- I'm not sure it's possible w/ so much back-room deal-making in politics.

                      My personal opinion is that I'd like to see them spend more time on grassroots education in the court of public opinion. The polling showing high levels of approval for things like parental notification or fetal pain are more a reflection of ignorance on the issues than anything else.

                      by kindertotenlieder on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 05:57:04 PM PDT

                      •  Webb

                        Oh, I didn't see you ask this. Yes, Webb did ask for a NARAL endorsement. You shouldn't be surprised. Webb was throughout his race, outspoken on socially liberal issues. Yes, he was interviewed by them, and they rejected his candidacy for undisclosed reasons (again, there is a need for transparency).

                        by uzeromay on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 01:26:52 AM PDT

                        •  very interesting

                          did he apply during the primary vs Harris Miller?

                          If so, wasn't there a group called Women for Miller, which included Kate Michelman (former NARAL head)? Like I mentioned above, sometimes the fundraisers have a mind of their own, irrespective of NARAL the org. I could see them remaining neutral since Schumer/Reid were lining up behind Webb vs interest group donors supporting Harris.

                          by kindertotenlieder on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 05:01:57 AM PDT

                          •  Good questions and info...

                            ...and I don't know the answers, worth looking into though.

                            by uzeromay on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 04:35:42 PM PDT

                        •  Fetal Pain Bill Results

                          Final vote

                          by kindertotenlieder on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 05:20:52 AM PDT

      •  Your tag line

        Reminds me of one of my favorite "Deep Thoughts" (made up by me and my friends):  Dance like no one is watching, love like it's never gonna hurt, and fuck like a porn star all jacked up on cocaine and getting paid to do it."  

        Just thought I'd share....

        by AmyVVV on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:13:08 PM PDT

        •  Those are all good Amy, that last one is great!

          Or should I say "Jack Handy."  

          by Timothy J on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:40:04 PM PDT

    •  Yes, it does. That makes it worse.

      Logically, they could have skipped saying something this idiotic at all, with no real effect on the current deliberations.  The statement is even more poorly planned by that analysis, offering up bad policy without a clear need to make any policy statement, good or bad, at this time.

      by histopresto on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 11:05:52 AM PDT

    •  Nope

      It sets a precedent....Roll over once,......

      by MKS on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 11:08:10 AM PDT

    •  Ron, if I trusted that sort of statement

      before the midnight insertion of the internet gambling ban into the Safe Ports Act, I certainly don't trust it now.  I agree with some of your other posts down the line, but the notion that this is a costless vote is nonsensical.  At a minimum, it ties members into a position if and when this comes up in the future.  And, in any event, the notion of dictating what a doctor must tell a patient -- especially when what is dictated is not the result of a medical consensus but is clearly directed to increase stress on the patient's part -- is anathema.  And I say not not from a NARAL perspective, but an ACLU one.

      by Major Danby on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:45:39 PM PDT

      •  So it's settled: F### Pelosi, not 1 cent for her!

        ?

        by RonK Seattle on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 01:05:44 PM PDT

        •  No, because her role as a party leader

          balancing the interests and positions of many disparate members of her caucus is different from that of an interest group that has the very raison d'etre of advocating for a particular controversial cause.  And, if you don't mind my saying so, you could have 80% of your brain removed and you'd still be smart enough to see the difference between Pelosi and NARAL in this respect, so I assume that you've just got your teeth sunk into a position so far that you think you can't let go.  But you might want to try.

          by Major Danby on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 01:17:08 PM PDT

          •  Let's peel up the corners of that one

            Suppose there was any chance in hell this goofball bill was going to pass. Would we give Pelosi a free pass for making it a "vote of conscience"?

            We'd call for her head on a pike! We wouldn't paper it over with talk of "balancing of interests" either, would we?

            But we're not up in arms against Nancy, because the matter at hand is stale and inconsequential ... not on account of her broader purview.

            So by what standard does this end-of-term procedural nit (plus Keenan's 18 month old "other fish to fry" e-mail) justify going ballistic on NARAL?

            by RonK Seattle on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 01:43:06 PM PDT

            •  If Keenan had taken that position prospectively

              before being chosen for her position, I would probably have opposed her on that ground.  Is that a fair enough answer?

              I'm not looking up who voted for this, but I hope that the people who voted for it "in good conscience" have a good cover story in mind when we oppose it "because it's a really bad idea" if and when it comes up next year, or in 2009 if we lose the House.

              If your criticism is of the "not another sou for NARAL!" comments, I agree with you there.  There are not too many alternatives to NARAL in this game, so we should work for reform, not to destroy.

              I was going to write "Now admit Keenan's position is idiotic, and we're on the same page."  But I'll be more conciliatory: if Keenan's comments were not directed at a proposal to force women to receive this information at all stages of pregnancy, per this bill, then they are not idiotic.  Still wrong, because NARAL should be saying it's entirely the doctor's call as to what medical advice to give, but not idiotic.

              by Major Danby on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 01:58:11 PM PDT

              •  That's no answer

                That's not responsive at all, is it? Did you hit the wrong link?

                The hypothetical was IF the bill could have passed, would we attack Pelosi for allowing it?

                I suggest that we (you) would - to which suggestion you do not respond. I further suggest it may be unfair to pillory NARAL for their non-response to a non-event for which we would pillory Pelosi on condition it were NOT a non-event. Again you do not respond.

                I further suggest this is a pretextual attack on NARAL by persons whose hostility to NARAL does not depend in any way on the instant case.

                But you're probably right, this horse has been beaten sufficient to the purpose thereof, and seeing that the diary author had responded positively to most of my  cavils, I'll let it ride.

                by RonK Seattle on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 02:19:47 PM PDT

                •  It was an answer to your final question

                  So get off your high horse about my failing to snap to.  The answer to your first question is "yes," as you state.  That shows how we would react differently to the role of a party leader in different situations.  But again -- and I can't believe that you need this spelled out -- a party leader is different from a pressure group.

                  Another bill that has been kicking around is the one that would take away awards for prevailing plainitffs in Establishment Clause cases.  If the head of the ACLU had said something about that issue along the lines of what Keenan did re this abortion issue -- maybe "we certainly undertand the interest of communities in demonstrating their devotion to God by public display" -- I would be frothing at the mouth.  Now your counterargument to that will probably be that what Keenan said is not that bad.  OK, we can discuss that -- but that's not the argument you made.

                  by Major Danby on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 05:46:48 PM PDT

      •  The caucus is wide awake! We already ...

        ... shot down Mark Souder's attempt to immunize nonprofit athletic organizations from suits arising from failure to adopt rules of play.

        HR 1176 garnered 219 votes, but (like the "child pain" measure) needs 290 Yea's to pass under suspension.

        by RonK Seattle on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 01:20:14 PM PDT

      •  It's anathema from a medical standpoint, too

        In an discussion of this bill among many of the highly skilled and experienced physicians I know who provide abortion care, not one had any idea of how to anesthetize a fetus without increasing the procedure's risk for the patient.

        They would all like to know how "Congress finds" that they should acccomplish this wholly unnecessary feat.

        So aside from being a faux-scientific confabulation, this bill presents a real danger to women's health.

        by moiv on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 10:30:05 PM PDT

  •  Is it worth noting Keenan's stmt is from Jan 2005?

    http://www.nrlc.org/...

    ... in political context as follows (Keenan, 2005-02-16 NYT):

    ... bigger issues to fight to draw attention to the broader issue of reproductive health ... standing strong in the next Supreme Court battle ...

    by RonK Seattle on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 11:27:17 AM PDT

    •  Which would be okay if...

      ...if NARAL was actually fighting those battles rather than taking neutral stands, as with the neutrality in the Webb - Allen contest. If you're going to take a position at all in an area where you're not going to be expending any (more) energy, at least take the right position. And support for Democrats (Chafee, Leiberman) who voted for cloture in the Alito confirmation. Ironically, as a result of NARAL's advocacy for Leiberman, we might find NARAL has sabotaged its own self-proclaimed efforts. Senator Leahy can only do so much as the new Chair of the Judiciary Committee (no thanks to NARAL's efforts which wouldn't have allowed the Democrats to recapture the majority in the Senate).

      by uzeromay on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 11:34:27 AM PDT

      •  Is it fair to shout that they've sold out 'AGAIN'?

        ... when NARAL has done nothing new to "sell out" on the issue in question?

        by RonK Seattle on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 11:48:36 AM PDT

    •  Worth noting

      but only partly deflects the criticism here.

      by Major Danby on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:46:24 PM PDT

  •  Must we throw Pelosi under the bus, too ... ?

    ... for capitulating on this slippery-slope litmus test?

    WaPo, again:

    ... Party leaders in the House have declared tomorrow's decision "a vote of conscience" and will not try to sway the outcome. House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) does not plan to speak on the bill, a rarity for her. ...

    by RonK Seattle on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 11:33:50 AM PDT

    •  Yes, if...

      ...if there was any need to rally the troops and if she isn't planning to vote against it herself.

      by uzeromay on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 11:36:54 AM PDT

      •  I see. The bill's DOA status exempts Pelosi ...

        ... but NARAL is still held to account for not rallying the troops on a matter wehre there's no need to rally the troops.

        by RonK Seattle on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 11:43:17 AM PDT

        •  Well, yeah, that's ok with me.

          Pelosi is not a one-issue woman, nor should she be as Speaker-elect.  

          NARAL, on the other hand, has no other issue.  This battle, or a battle just like it, will be on the horizon soon enough.  Why not start mobilizing for it now?  Make people aware of these attempts to give women incorrect and unscientific information.  

          Hell, shouldn't there be an uproar over the government trying to insert itself into conversations between doctors and patients?  There is no medical evidence for this bill; it shouldn't be hard to plant the seeds for what we will need down the line.  

          BTW, I called the representative in NJ who introduced this bill and asked the staffer who answered the phone when the rep received his medical licence. When she said he didn't have one I asked what study he used as a reference and she had no answer and said she would call me back.  She didn't.  I live in state so I though that might get me a shot at a call back.

          by muffilator on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:38:15 PM PDT

        •  Pelosi has to balance and decide which

          battles to fight with limited resources. If the bill is DOA, then that is obviously not a fight she needs to dedicate resources toward.

          NARAL, on the other hand, exists SOLELY (or should) for this entire area of Abortion Rights, Pro Choice, ACCURATE information about pregnancy, child-bearing, and abortion.

          NARAL should, by it's very reason for existence comment ACCURATELY upon any and all legislation, DOA or not, in order to educate their members, politicians and the public as to the lies being told by the Anti-Choice Crowd.

          NARAL is not only ducking their responsibility, they are selling out their supporters.  YES, NARAL should be held to account.

          And I say that as a one-time supporter and donator to their cause.

          by YucatanMan on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 01:35:18 PM PDT

        •  Actually, Pelosi should be held accountable too.

          Pelosi shouldn't be afraid to step forward and take a leadership position on these matters involving abortion. My point was that Pelosi is not actually neutral if she votes against it herself. However, it does seem to me that Pelosi has decided that it is better to keep abortion issues as low profile as possible, and even to bend over backwards to welcome pro-lifers, not just into the party, but into leadership positions. Hence, she supported pro-life Tim Roemer over Howard Dean as her choice for DNC Chair. Your post reminded me of this.

          by uzeromay on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 04:46:52 PM PDT

    •  good for them

      Democrats would be wise to become neutral on abortion.  There are millions of former Democrats who would think about coming back (primarily Catholics), if they would just respect "consciences."  By the way, I did not say that I am in favor of repealing Roe vs. Wade.  I did not say that I am not.  I just believe our party should not define itself on the basis of abortion rights.

      by Michigan Paul on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 11:45:38 AM PDT

      •  Isn't that what "pro-choice" means?

        How much more neutral can you be on abortion than "have one if you want it, don't have one if you don't want it"? I feel that Dems have been defining themselves by a lot of other issues rather than just abortion rights.

        by jetskreemr on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 11:53:26 AM PDT

        •  Here is my talking point

          Dont troll rate me, because it sort of sums up my view on the whole thing:

          "ITS NOT A CHOICE, ITS A CHILD."

          Flame away.

          by Michigan Paul on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 11:57:40 AM PDT

          •  It's not a child it's a fetus nt

            by plf515 on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:02:10 PM PDT

            •  a child, a fetus

              Isn't that just semantics?  So you call it a fetus instead of a child, how does that make your position more morally acceptable?  A fetus still has a beating heart, human DNA, lungs, eyes, feet, etc., right?  The fetus, or child, or whatever, is a human being.  And in my ethical system, you don't destroy human life and call it a "choice".  A tragic choice perhaps.  

              by Michigan Paul on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 01:54:45 PM PDT

              •  Not just semantics

                It makes my position morally acceptable because it establishes a clear difference between a child and a fetus.  A child is a fetus that has been born.  Up until then, it is not a child.

                When do sperm and egg become human in your your view?

                You list some criteria:
                A beating heart - sometime early in pregnancy, but certainly not at conception

                Human DNA - before conception

                Lungs - early in pregnancy

                Eyes - middle pregnancy

                Baby can live with 'normal' attention? - very late pregnancy

                etc.

                So, is it human when it has a heart but no feet? Or when?

                When the sperm hits the egg, is it human?
                When there is a detectable heartbeat?
                When the fetus 'looks' human? (and to whom)?

                Birth is clear, it's not arbitrary.  None of the other criteria are both of those.

                Me? I was born 2 months early.  I had no sucking reflex, no fingernails, no toenails, and a lot of other trouble.  But I was a child, cause I had come out.  Clear, definitive.

                Limbs and extremities (you mention feet) are a bad test - babies are born without limbs on a regular basis.  They are human.  

                by plf515 on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 02:17:33 PM PDT

                •  that is ridiculous

                  You of all people should be the first to be sticking up for the unborn.  You said you came out 2 months early. Does it not bother you that the "pro-choice" people would have allowed your mother to abort you at that time?  If your mother had felt the same way you did, you would not have "come out."  Human life exists before the baby "comes out."  My belief is that of course human life begins at conception.  Due to the phenomenon of the ability of the fertilized egg to "split" and become twins after conception, I don't know if I would give the newly conceived the status of full-blown individual human life.  It is a tricky situation.  But very very early the developing fetus gets a beating heart, about 21 days I believe.

                  I would err on the side of life.  I would not give the mother veto power over the life of another human life, her child.  No human being should have veto power over whether someone else lives or dies.

                  by Michigan Paul on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 02:32:08 PM PDT

                  •  It does not bother me a bit

                    I am very pro choice.

                    If anything is ridiculous (and I'd appreciate it if you would not insult me) it is the idea that life begins at conception.  Did you know that a very large number of women abort spontaneously early in pregnancy, some without knowing it?  Did you know that many maternal behaviors affect the odds of this? Logically, by your view, women who smoke or drink in the first trimester and who spontaneously abort are guilty of, well, maybe not murder, but manslaughter.

                    While the fetus is in the mother it is the mother's business.  Once the fetus is out of the mother, it is everyone's business.

                    by plf515 on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 02:48:58 PM PDT

                  •  Indeed, actually

                    given the life and the difficulties I've had, which are quite possibly due to my early birth, I might have preferred it had I been aborted.

                    Not that my life hasn't had its joys (lots of them!) and I certainly have no intention of killing myself (although I did, for a long time), but, if anything, my life makes me MORE pro-choice (and pro-choice does not need quotes).  

                    by plf515 on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 02:51:02 PM PDT

                    •  Life

                      yes, life is sometimes a $%^&#.  We all have felt that way. Some of us feel that way, due to depression or poverty or other things out of our control, a lot of times and for a long time.  I am so happy you have felt the joys of life.  Right now, my situation is not that great.  Others might look on my sitation and think they would be miserable if they were in my place.  But I have hope, hope that things can and will get better someday in this life and that if it doesn't in this life, if I live a good life that things will be better for me in the next life.

                      If I did not have my faith, I could see myself easily losing heart.  

                      P.S.  As far as the abortion issue goes, it is very very difficult.  I rarely venture into it because emotions run so high and people's minds are basically made up.  (At least in here among educated and well-read individuals).

                      I don't know about you, but these days I get joy over very simple things-my kitty jumping up on my bed in the morning to greet me, my elderly Mother calling in to see how I am,  I might as well be still 10 years old, the falling snow, looking at the boisterousness of the young people around this college town and the memories of those years when I was young.  I hope no one in here gives up on life.

                      by Michigan Paul on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 03:03:03 PM PDT

                      •  Well, even though

                        I completely disagree with you about abortion and choice, I hope your life improves.

                        by plf515 on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 03:08:38 PM PDT

                        •  thanks

                          I do too :)  If there is karma around here, hopefully it will blow my way.

                          by Michigan Paul on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 03:13:32 PM PDT

                  •  well then

                    since the mother certainly has right over her own body... does she have a right for the baby to be removed at any point she likes?  Letting it to live or die based on the abilities of medical science to make it survive?

                    by pyrrho on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 03:17:57 PM PDT

                  •  Michigan Paul

                    Have you ever been pregnant?

                    One of my favorite columns by Ayelet Waldman in Salon.com--not my favorite writer, she's a bit smug--had to do with her decision to abort a male fetus in a planned pregancy, which tests showed would be severely handicapped. You know why I loved this piece, what made me rub my hands together? Waldman came out and used the word KILL. Not only that, she used the word BABY, and referred to her fetus throughout in the male pronoun. She made a statement in the column very close to, "I decided to KILL my BABY, still in the womb. I have no regrets."

                    Yee-haw. I just loved it. A baby, or a "product of conception," depending on the woman and on the circumstances, it's nobody else's choice but the woman's, whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

                    Not a woman yourself, Paul? If you force a woman to have a baby, is she going to be a good mother?

                    by karmsy on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 05:43:07 PM PDT

              •  You can have your own moral system

                all you want.  But this is one issue, and only one: the government has no business trying to make private medical decision for anybody.  If a woman's body has something - anything - she does not want in there, it's not the government's place to stick its big nose in her doctor's office and say, "No, you can't get rid of it."  The "child" only has a separate identity and rights when it comes out of the womb and survives as a separate being.  Before then, it's the woman's body and her medical decision.  And the government needs to butt out of trampling on privacy rights.

                by deaniac83 on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 04:21:50 PM PDT

          •  When you can get pregnant, Michigan Paul,

            you can pontificate about the problems of carrying a fetus.  Until then, STFU.

            by anagram on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:04:59 PM PDT

          •  How is this not a Rethug talking point?

            by PhantomFly on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:11:17 PM PDT

          •  Here's another talking point-

            "IT'S NOT A CHOICE, ITS A BLASTOCYST
               AND ITS WORTH MORE THAN YOU ARE"

            Flame that.

            by rflowers on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:41:30 PM PDT

          •  Have a look at

            The Ethical Brain by Michael Gazzanniga.  He's a very prominent neuroscientist, and he describes what goes on in the development of a fetal brain, when it finally has one.  Maybe it is a potential child, but I certainly wouldn't consider something incapable of a mental life an actual human child.  And the fetus is incapable for some time.

            He was on the president's commission for ethics, and he is very smart.  Another thing he points out is the very large proportion of fetuses that just get flushed away without anyone's being aware of it.  A measure of their importance?

            by JPete on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:54:05 PM PDT

          •  It's not a choice, it's my great aunt

            She died as a result of an illegal abortion. So did a friend of a friend. Legal abortion SAVES WOMEN'S LIVES.

            by la motocycliste on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 01:04:41 PM PDT

            •  And My Wife Might Have Died.

              Late term, required a DNX.
              Could have gone for full blown surgery, heavy anesthesia (which reacts poorly to), and an extended recovery time if she survives that.
              But the Right wing just wanted her to die.
              Trisomy 18, profound deformities on the ultra sound, and a missing umbilical blood vessel.
              I take it personally.
              People who want criminalize abortion want to kill my wife.

              by LunkHead on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 01:32:19 PM PDT

              •  not me

                I don't want to kill your wife, I want to save the child.  Your wife's situation is beyond my judgment, because I am not a medical doctor.  The situation seems like either an abortion was performed or your wife would have died.  Is what you are saying is she had a partial-birth abortion?  Did the doctors not know the situation before that?

                Anyway, as a man I know this does not affect me in teh same way as it does a woman.  Nevertheless, I have my opinion that abortion is a tragedy always.  I'm not God so I'm not going to sit in judgment on every situation.  But the situation involving your wife is very very rare.  The vast majority of abortions in this country are done on perfectly healthy babies by perfectly healthy mothers.

                I guess this is just my lingering Catholicism affecting me.  But I have broken with my church on other issues, namely gay rights.  To me, the church's opposition to gay rights is opposite the message she claims to preach-that God loves us all.  It is anti-life for the gay people.   Now, the church's opposition to abortion seems to me to be a defense of life.

                Believe me, I would not pretend for a moment what I would do if I was faced with the situation you have.  I am not that much of a zealot.

                by Michigan Paul on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 02:02:37 PM PDT

                •  Yes,