NARAL Response to Clinton Attacks on Obama's Pro-Choice Record

FROM NARAL PRO-CHOICE AMERICA

January 24, 2008

A Message to Pro-Choice Voters Regarding the Democratic Presidential
Primary

Nancy Keenan is president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

This week Americans mark the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a milestone that coincides with the 2008 presidential election. As we celebrate this occasion, and this critical time for women's reproductive freedom, NARAL Pro-Choice America is proud that we have such strong pro-choice candidates like

Sens. Hillary Clinton
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/...  

and
Barack Obama
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/...

and former Sen. John Edwards
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/...

running for president.

http://www.bushvchoice.com/... 01/a_message_to_pr.html

As the political leader of the pro-choice movement, NARAL Pro-Choice
America has researched the voting records, public comments, and actions of each of the candidates and shared the information  we've documented with the more than one-million activists, supporters, and members our organization represents.
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/...

Beginning in Iowa, continuing into New Hampshire, and now in South Carolina and the states voting in the February 5 contests, there has been an undercurrent of speculation and innuendo that calls into question Sen. Obama's record on choice.

This has the potential to divide the pro-choice community and create tension where none should exist. Today, for the sake of our issue and our movement, I am asking that these tactics stop.

As someone who spent nearly two decades as an elected official before coming to NARAL Pro-Choice America, I know that, in the heat of the campaign, charges and counter-charges are made in the honest belief that one candidate is somehow better than another. I get that.
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/...

Let me be clear: Here are the facts pro-choice voters need as they head
to the polls, whether this weekend in South Carolina, on "Tsunami
Tuesday" to vote for the Democratic Party's nominee, or on November 4
when we all vote for the next president of the United States:  Sens.
Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are fully pro-choice.  NARAL Pro-Choice
America endorsed all three candidates in their previous campaigns.  All
of the candidates have voted pro-choice; have publicly affirmed that
they are pro-choice; and have taken actions that back up their
pro-choice voting records and statements. All three candidates endorse
the Freedom of Choice Act
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/...

which would codify Roe and protect the right to choose for future generations. Sens. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama have steadfastly supported and defended a woman's right to make the most personal, private decisions regarding her reproductive health without interference from government or politicians.  

NARAL Pro-Choice America has not yet endorsed a candidate for president
because there are such equally strong pro-choice contenders in the
Democratic primary. We understand that other organizations have made
different decisions; we respect that. But our collective long-term goal
as a pro-choice movement must be to advance the cause.

This focus on nonexistent differences between the pro-choice candidates
distracts from the real goal. We must focus our fight on defeating the
anti-choice Republican candidates who have called for the overturn of
Roe.

NARAL Pro-Choice America will continue to support pro-choice candidates
and defend them all against attacks.  We can only hope that in the
future, we, as a unified pro-choice community, will be defending against
anti-choice politicians, not one another.

•  Great to Hear

  I'm glad that the air has been cleared about Obama's record on reproductive choice.  Go, Obama! (And Clinton and Edwards.)

  by bink on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:55:24 AM PDT

  •  Not a hair of difference between them on choice.

    Never has been, either, now that Kucinich is out.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:56:27 AM PDT

    •  Good

      I am very pleased.

      by bink on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:57:36 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, maybe Clinton surrogates can stop lying now

    At least one would hope.

    by Bob Johnson on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:56:48 AM PDT

    •  don't hold your breath. n/t

      by MadAsHellMaddie on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:00:40 AM PDT

    •  I bet that flyer is ready to go at

      direct mail facilities in all 22 Feb 5 states.

      by casperr on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:19:00 AM PDT

      •  Especially California.

        You better believe Clinton surrogates will once again be spreading the "Obama-weak-on-choice" lie in California.

        by Bob Johnson on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:31:20 AM PDT

    •  You shameless hope-monger!

      They won't stop lying 'til the last dog dies.

      by trivium on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:38:18 AM PDT

  •  Will there be a backlash over Hil's lying?

    What if Obama sent out mailers lying about Hillary's record on civil rights?  There would be an explosion of outrage.  

    by play jurist on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:39:22 AM PDT

    •  He won't do that

      Lying is her stock and trade, not his.

      by Helenann on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:43:09 AM PDT

•  NARAL vs. NOW vs. Emily's List

  by JustinL on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:02:22 AM PDT

  •  No, NARAL and Planned Parenthood (solely

    devoted to protecting reproductive rights)

    vs. Emily's List (dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women) and NOW (I believe they are somewhat dedicated to electing women as well)

    by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:04:06 AM PDT

  •  How about

    you just cut the shit?

    How many people need to call the Clintons on this crap before you just let it go?

    It's one thing to talk record and argue policy - it's quite another to be willfully deceitful in an attempt to distort and influence low-info voters.

    You ought to be ashamed.

    Get your head out of your ass.

    by zonk on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:10:10 AM PDT

    •  IMaybe it's just me...

      but does anyone really believe Obama is not pro-choice, I mean I am a Hillary supporter, but please tell me people aren't buying this?

      by JustinL on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:12:23 AM PDT

      •  If only it were so

        But the fact is, the HRC campaign sent out mailers saying EXACTLY that in New Hampshire.

        They even got several leading NH Dems to sign a letter attacking Obama as less than solid on choice -- those NH Dems have since sent a letter -- published at WaPo -- criticizing Clinton....saying they were "mislead" into signing the letter.  These weren't even low-info voters -- these were NH Democratic officials!

        I have no clue whether - or how many - people are "buying it"... the problem is that Clinton is trying to sell it and she shouldn't be.

        I never thought the huge female vote swing in NH was due to the Monday episode, Chris Matthews, or any of that other crap... I said Tuesday night -- linking to the TPM piece on the original mailers -- that I thought that was the big reason for the sudden female vote swing.

        If you really believe no one should be "buying it" -- then stop trying to help Clinton "sell it".

        by zonk on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:18:52 AM PDT

        •  Yep. Here it is

          

          by casperr on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:20:46 AM PDT

          •  The pic looks touched up

            I have a friend who was a cosmetic surgeon and artist on the side as a hobby. Now he works for a big agency and just touches up advertising photos to make famous faces look younger...he has done some interesting pics...I wonder...

            But more to the point, sure, this may be getting low in the ethical dept. I think the key point here is "Stand Up" which Hillary has done for decades very publicly and is the #1 reason she is the symbolic satanic worst femi-enemy of the evangelicals.

            Once again, many of Obama's "present" votes need complex explanation and the explanation is parochial enough to fly by people's attention, some of the 129 have not been explained.

            Not a lie IMO, perhaps low ethically for Hillary depending on their info YET passable.

            Obama owns defining himself and explaining those "present" votes as his opponents are attempting to define him to their advantage.  

            by kck on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:51:46 AM PDT

            •  They have been explained

              The pro-choice community asked all Democrats in the IL Senate to vote present on the bills as part of their political strategy.  Senator Obama did as they asked as did 19 other Democratic Senators,

              Planned Parenthood in IL has confirmed that he was acting in the interests, and at the request, of the prochoice community in making the present votes.

              Both Planned Parenthood and NARAL have concluded that his record is 100% prochoice.

              by Helenann on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:55:08 AM PDT

              •  Yes, and I read the same and agree

                Of the 129 "present" votes, the abortion-related ones were explained to my satisfaction. But, few people will put that kind of energy into it. I trust him on this. For people who don't, it looks odd and if they look they'll find controversial coverage in the Chicago press.  

                by kck on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:10:24 PM PDT

      •  This issue has come up becaise of the bullshit

        that the Hillary campaign spread in New Hampshire.

        That was a key aspect of the Clintons last minute come-back and it saved their campaign but the New Hampshire victory was the result of LIES being told about Barack Obama.

        by Bill White on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:24:57 AM PDT

      •  In NH

        the day before the election.  Clinton supporters sent mailers to all Democratic households questioning Obama's commitment to reproductive rights.  The mailer implied that Obama could not be trusted to support a woman's right to choose.

        Planned Parenthood responded immediately and robocalled these same households to inform voters about Obama's pro-choice record.  But it was too late.

        The damage had been done.  Thousands of women had a question mark in their head about Obama's pro-choice record.  It was a rallying call for women to come out to vote and vote for Hillary if they wanted to protect their reproductive rights.

        These lies have continued to circulate.  That is why NARAL came out today with their statement.

        The innuendo has got to stop.

        As a part of the Leadership Team for Women for Obama, it is imperative that ALL women know that both Hillary and Obama have outstanding prochoice records and will defend out hard won right to choose.

        by Helenann on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:26:33 AM PDT

        •  I can't read the tect but she seems to be trying

          to make a distinction more like "Hey, who's your Mamma?" here than a lie saying he won't support choice. She's being suggestive about his commitment to stand up to evangelicals and the GOP when votes are at stake. I think he passes that test. I know 100% she does. So, she's attempting to leverage that strength she has. What's so sinister here?

          He owns defining himself in the face of his opponents' attempts to do it negatively. It's a hard job that gets almost impossible once the GOP opponents let loose.  

          by kck on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:58:37 AM PDT

          •  What is so sinister

            is implying that Obama does NOT have a strong pro choice record and implying that women cannot count on him to defend their right to choose.

            That is a lie.  

            He does have a strong record and will protect our right to choose.

            When you lead to people to believe something that is not true, I am pretty sure that is called lying.

            by Helenann on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:45:14 AM PDT

      •  Clinton surrogates were spreading the lie.

        Geez.

        by Bob Johnson on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:32:08 AM PDT

      •  Then why are you selling it?

        Disgusting.

        by Yoshimi on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:44:41 AM PDT

      •  A Former coworker called me

        last night seeking info on Obama's pro choice record.
        she was a Kucinich supporter but was concerned that Obama was not pro choice, so how could Kucinich endorse him .So the MEME is out there even among some not so "low information" voters...She will be canvassing with me on Sat. for Obama.

        by ballerina X on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:56:48 AM PDT

        •  Spread the word

          to all women you know.

          Obama's record on reproductive rights is stellar and has received 100% ratings from Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

          It is the supporters of Hillary Clinton who are spreading these viscous lies.

          The truth has got to get out there.

          BTW - they are doing the same thing with the Jewish community.  It is disgusting.

          by Helenann on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:57:19 AM PDT

    •  Thank you.

      by Yoshimi on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:44:08 AM PDT

  •  Yeah

    Not sure what NOW is so upset about.  I think it is the "present" votes but all Democrats in IL were asked by pro-choice leaders to vote present on some anti-choice bills as part of a political strategy.  And NOW thinks he should not have listened to the pro-choice advocates and should have voted NO.

    But Planned Parenthood disagrees. Planned Parenthood in IL supported his present votes.  And both Planned Parenthood and NARAL have given him 100% prochoice records in IL.

    In fact NOW in IL supported Alan Keyes over Barack Obama! Go figure.  They lost credibility in my book with that decision!

    by Helenann on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:22:17 AM PDT

    •  No

      NOW did not support Alan Keyes--there are also different NOW Chapters in Illinois. Illinois NOW is the group that has made the claims about Obama and supported Hull in 2004.  Chicago NOW has been very supportive of Obama and the videos from yesterday show the former head of it who said Obama had a great pro-choice record.  

      by ArchPundit on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:29:13 AM PDT

      •  thank you

        for clearing that up.  Over at MyDD they are claiming that NOW does not support Obama and did not support his Senate Bid in Il or for the US Senate.  But then they are all Clinton supporters over there

        by Helenann on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:37:14 AM PDT

        •  Let me clarify some of it

          I don't know if Chicago NOW endorsed in 2004 or not--but they have always said Obama has been strong on Choice.  Illinois NOW endorsed Blair Hull in 2004 and has been the source of the quotes complaining about the present votes. Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and Personal PAC all argue he has a strong pro-choice record.  

          by ArchPundit on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:09:25 AM PDT

•  NARAL? That's a Lieberman group or

  something like that if I remember.  They even supported confirming Alito in a backhanded way.  So now whenever they say anything about reproductive rights I believe the opposite.  As far as I'm concerned that group is just a bunch of corporate whores now.

  by clyde on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:03:12 AM PDT

  •  Yup

    You're exactly right.

    If you read NARAL's mission statement, it says right there:

    "NARAL is a front group that feigns being a pro-choice issue group, but really exists to elect Joe Lierberman to the Senate... Oh - that, and we're Obama apologists".

    by zonk on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:08:33 AM PDT

    •  LOL

      by Helenann on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:41:40 AM PDT

  •  NARAL...

    ...is probably the weakest of the pro-choice groups when it comes to taking tough stands (they also offered tacit support, in a backhanded way, to Bob Casey in the PA senate race).

    But everything they say in this release is correct. The three frontrunners are all solid on choice.

    by Bill W on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:10:58 AM PDT

    •  Can we send NARAL members an e-mail?

      Hillary's supporters say you guys are the weakest of the pro-choice movement?

      Heh! Like that will build unity come November . . .

      by Bill White on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:22:57 AM PDT

      •  Hey...

        ...you'll notice that I'm agreeing with them here that the attacks on Obama's record are unfounded.

        by Bill W on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:36:57 AM PDT

  •  What is NARAL

    NARAL (The National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) was founded in 1969 before Roe v Wade. Following the Supreme Court decision, they changed their name to NARAL changes its name to the National Abortion Rights Action League.  And in 1993, they changed the name again to reflect a broader mission, ARAL changes its name to the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.

    They help elect prochoice candidates, organize women around reproductive rights, lobby Congress, conduct research and coordinate with their state affiliates.

    by Helenann on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:41:15 AM PDT

  •  my first thought exactly

    nothing like hanging that skin on the wall to show your progressive street cred.

    by YatPundit on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:48:08 AM PDT

•  OK, then, NARAL

  if you are having a hard time deciding because they are all just as strong as the next when it comes to pro-choice, I'd suggest you begin to make a choice based on something else like - character, maybe?  

  by nolalily on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:45:14 AM PDT

  •  And integrity

    And vision

    And hope for the future

    And the ability to mobilize people and bring them into the democratic process

    by Helenann on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:52:36 AM PDT

    •  Yeah. Stuff like that.

      Stuff like that that actually matters and determines what we will or will not be getting from our next President.  Thanks for reminding me.

      by nolalily on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:53:36 AM PDT

  •  Is seems to me that a NARAL endorsement

    is unnecessary since all of the Dems are pro-choice.

    by kck on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:04:41 AM PDT

    •  But it matters to

      many women - just like the NOW and Planned Parenthood endorsements.

      Mrs. Clinton isn't really a feminist.  She just plays one to get elected.  Kind of like Bill hoping blacks would think he was black.  Worked for awhile until they decided they'd rather be Latino.  That'll change, too, eventually.  Hope the Latinos don't fall for it.  It's so disappointing to think you're number one and then you find out your lover's been married to someone else all along.

      by nolalily on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:08:51 AM PDT

      •  That's OK...hahahaha...

        ...if you don't think Hillary Clinton is a feminist then we probably are not going to communicate well using words...but thanks

        by kck on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:12:25 AM PDT

        •  I do think

          her feminism does need to be questioned since she seems to feel she needs her Ex-President to help defeat her competition and eventually drag her over the finish line.

          I was hoping she would stand up for herself and be a role model for other women.  But it is becoming increasingly clear that she is no one and probably can't win without Bill playing attack dog.

          by Helenann on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:41:22 AM PDT

          •  My husband & I were both execs in the same field

            and it was a no brainer to call upon each other. I am sure she's managing the whole team including him with chains and leashes probably. No, I disagree with that one, he is hers, owes her (it's part of the narrative) even if he does love it. She'd be irresponsible and in fact secretive and inauthentic to hide Bill. He's an advantage.

            by kck on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:18:35 PM PDT

            •  I am not suggesting she hide him

              I think he should play the role of supportive husband.  He can say all the good things in the world about her.  But when she goes off to other states unchallenged and he stays behind to play attack dog with attacks that are nothing more than lies and innuendo, he hurts the Party.

              Obama is the brightest star to come onto the political scene for the Democrats in ages.  Even if you don't want him to be President, no one should support the Clinton's effort to completely destroy the guy, especially with lies.

              If there was something constructive for them to criticize, I have no problem.  But when they suggest that he is anti-choice to women and anti-semite to Jews, they have crossed a line.  There is absolutely no truth to those allegations.  But this is what they think is "fun."   It is swiftboating within your own party. It is disgusting.  John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Rahm Emmanual have all asked him to stop, but he keeps on.

              And if she lets him spread them, she is just as culpable as him.  It is nasty dirty politics, the kind Obama rejects.  But he will defend himself.

              Not to mention that Bill Clinton is the senior Statesmen of the party and is acting like a crazy person, spreading lies about Obama and yelling at the media.

              It is behavior that is unbecoming of an officer and gentlemen. But then his behavior has always been unbecoming. . . .

              by Helenann on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:31:53 PM PDT

              •  If I accepted your premises,

                that Bill or Hillary have lied, or that the Clintons want to even partially destroy Obama, then of course I would feel similarly. But I don't at all, even on a bad day. No one has been "swiftboated" nor has anyone been "swiftboating". Crying wolf (e.g., antisemitism, fairy tales) is more like it. And the Republicans will be real wolves...

                 

                (Disclosure: I am not endorsing anyone but have decided to vote for Senator Hillary Clinton. I have nothing against Senators Obama or Edwards,  but ruled them out based on my decision tree. I will enthusiastically contribute and work for the nominee. If a stupid stimulus package is distributed, my rebate will go 100% to the Democratic candidate.)

                by kck on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:03:26 PM PDT

    •  You would think so

      wouldn't you.

      But the truth is that supporters of the Clintons have been spreading this rumor since NH and some women are buying it!

      by Helenann on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:39:17 AM PDT

      •  I responded to that above.

        I haven't seen the text...

        by kck on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:19:53 PM PDT

        •  I posted it in a separate link

          by Helenann on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:33:38 PM PDT

•  Clinton even lies to her friends

  this shows just how sleazy she is: not that she'd slime Obama, we know that, but that she would openly lie to some of her most devoted and dedicated followers, those strong people who don't just talk about women controlling their own bodies, they work for it.

  by catchaz on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:59:32 AM PDT

•  When they said Obama isn't pro-choice enough

  I knew the Clintons were going to go dirty and negative. That's such a weak tactic and it's usually only pulled out by Machievellian types like Bill and Hill.

  by Slatersan on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:14:37 AM PDT

•  Just got a call from NARAL

  for the first time ever since 1989...I declined to support them because they do not support exclusively Democrats.

  by dvogel001 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:49:28 AM PDT

  •  Huh?

    We need as many Republicans who are pro-choice as possible.

    by Helenann on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:58:16 AM PDT

    •  No such thing...

      as soon as they vote for their leadership it is an anti-choice vote.  I support Emily's list that supports only pro-choice Democrats (women) and pro-choice candidates directly through Act Blue and other websites.  Still support the non-political portion of PPF.

      by dvogel001 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:12:35 PM PDT

      •  I don;'t understand

        As soon as they vote for their leadership it is antichoice.

        Who is they, and who is their?

        How can a vote requested and supported by the prochoice community be an anti-choice vote.

        by Helenann on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:14:27 PM PDT

        •  Because...supporting the Rethug...

          leadership which has an "anti-choice" plank in their platform is inherently anti-choice.  Besides, so-called pro-choice Rethugs cave in on procedural and fillubuster votes all of the time when they are needed.

          So there is no such thing as a pro-choice Rethug anymore...

          by dvogel001 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:19:45 PM PDT

          •  wow

            you really see the world in start black and white terms.  This is not communism.  Not everyone needs to fall in with the party.  There are probably democrats who are not prochoice and republicans who are.

            The movement needs all of them.  How narrow minded.  With thinking like this we very well could elect another anti-choice Supreme Court Justice.  Why would anyone think we might need some Republicans to join the fight?  Geesh!

            Let's only support women democrats.  Yeah, that sounds like a winning coalition.  Way to build a coalition.  Talk about a loosing strategy,

            Is this how Hillary supporters think?  If so, we are all doomed.

            by Helenann on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:23:21 PM PDT

            •  I did not say that...

              Emily's list is one of the groups I support...I also support pro-choice Democrats only directly with campaign contributions.

              Bob Casey's vote to support our leadership is worth more than Arlen Spector's vote to let the SCOTUS vote out of the Judiciary Committee even though he is supposedly pro-choice.

              They supported Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont who is way more pro-choice than Joey

              I do not agree with their strategy...I am ardently pro-choice and will continue to be so...my resources are directed in a way where I believe more pro-choice votes will be counted.

              The reality is if there are 51 Rethugs and 51 Pro-choice Senators...no pro-choice legislation will even be brought to the floor for a vote...if there are 51 Democrats and 50 pro-choice Senators legislation will at least be debated.

              In addition, so-called pro-choice Rethugs still vote on party-line votes in procedural matters that kill pro-choice ammendments and bills without having to actually vote on the bill.

              BTW this is a pro-Democratic site not a pro-choice site (although there is much overlap)

              by dvogel001 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:35:23 PM PDT

              •  So lets stop all this division

                in the party and elect majorities that can't be filibustered.

                by Helenann on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:54:36 PM PDT

                •  That we can all agree on...

                  Go Democrats!!!!

                  by dvogel001 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:01:34 PM PDT

•  All your links are broken.

  by Sean Robertson on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:34:53 PM PDT

  •  huh?

    by Helenann on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:14:28 PM PDT

  •  I think they are fixed

    by Helenann on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:17:56 PM PDT