Obama and women’s reproductive rights – Take a stand Senator!
Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:14:34 PM PDT
In an election cycle alternatively dominated either by Iraq and foreign policy or by the stumbling US economy, it is inevitable that some important issues have not received the attention that they deserve. Many of these issues are not trivial. As the presumptive nominee of our party, I expect Senator Obama to take a leading role in directing the party’s message and tone going into the 2008 election, and for me that includes addressing some things that he has so far neglected in his speeches and position papers. Although there are others, in this diary I will discuss Obama’s positions on women’s reproductive rights. This is a bread and butter progressive issue, yet is not afforded significant coverage in the "Issues" pages of Obama’s website or in his detailed "Blueprint for Change." Instead, Obama’s position on women’s reproductive rights was added to his campaign site only recently and is still relegated to the "Fact check" section. That is disappointing. Some of you might not think this is a big deal, but I strongly disagree and I’ll tell you why.
If you haven’t already flamed me for daring to criticize Obama's campaign strategy, lets take the jump ~~~~~
This is a long diary, for which I apologize to those of you who have gotten used to the insubstantial posts that have proliferated here recently, but I think that the length is appropriate because this is an important issue.
Summary
I want Obama to address women’s reproductive rights more explicitly and more prominently. To do so would be consistent with his record, would establish him as the straight-talker in the elections and, perhaps most importantly, I think that doing so would help him win critical votes in the upcoming general election. If being a post-partisan candidate means brushing aside or hiding issues central to the progressive political movement (on which Obama’s record is exceedingly strong!), perhaps we should give a bit more thought to how Obama and his team are framing his candidacy. I don’t want a centrist in the White House -- I want a progressive, and part of what that entails is taking a firm, public and proactive stand on women’s right to determine t rather than playing defense on the issue. I guess one could say that I am concerned, and if you give a minute to think about these things perhaps you would be too (at least a little, and probably in a good way). Sorry, but I’m a high-information voter and I have high expectations from the candidate I have chosen to support.
I support Obama
I think it’s actually disgraceful that I have to even say this, but I’ll do it anyway in the hopes of invoking less wrath. This is not intended to be a hit diary on Obama in the least, but rather one that inspires or provokes some critical thought about the strategy and tactics of our presumptive nominee and his campaign. My support for Obama has been unwavering since last fall – after considering all of the candidates I voted for Obama in FL, attempted to persuade family and friends across the country to support him (http://www.dailykos.com/...), donated to his campaign multiple times, phone banked to IN and NC (http://www.dailykos.com/...) and participated in a local Vote for Change Event on 10 May.
However, no candidate is perfect and certainly none are above criticism and questioning. In this case, my criticism is based more on strategy than Obama’s actual position. I will absolutely vote for him in November without any hesitation, but I’d be even happier to do so if he spoke up more about his positions and voting record on women’s issues, particularly reproductive rights.
Obama has a strong progressive record on supporting a woman’s right to choose
Senator Obama supports women’s rights regarding their reproduction choices and has stated that he would not appoint SCOTUS justices who would overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling. Furthermore, Obama supports funding for family planning programs and is opposed to abstinence-only sex education. These statements and the votes to back them up are a matter of public record, and I doubt that Obama simply tailored them to indicate a pro-choice position for convenience.
For more discussion of Obama’s position and some quotations from him and others bolstering his pro-choice credentials, check the website.
Some of the highlights of Obama’s voting history include a 100% voting record from NARAL Pro-Choice America and a 100% voting record from both Illinois Planned Parenthood and the national chapter of Planned Parenthood.
Sen. Obama should be proud of this history and should make his position very clear rather than tucking it away in an obscure corner of his website. Even there, the fact check section is primarily a response to criticisms rather than a proactive stand for women’s rights. Indeed, the section was only added to the website in January 2008 when he came under fire from the Clinton campaign on women’s rights.
There has been some consternation over Obama’s "present" votes in the IL state senate on abortion rights legislation. I regard this as basically a red herring, but perhaps one that is indicative of what I see as a potentially larger problem for Obama’s campaign. HuffPo had a decent article a few months ago describing how Sen. Clinton attacked Obama’s apparently noncommittal "present" votes on anti-abortion legislation. In response, the Illinois chapter of Planned Parenthood defended Obama, and in doing so they pretty much completely rebuffed Clinton’s attack:
Voting "present" is a legislative maneuver in Illinois employed by lawmakers to register opposition to a proposal, without being on the record with a "yes" or "no" vote. Lawmakers like the maneuver because it is difficult to use against a candidate in a future campaign ad.
Planned Parenthood knew that Obama was an ally to their cause and was willing to coordinate certain votes with him to protect him from anti-choice detractors. Ok, that makes sense, although I think it’s pretty damn lame. Exceedingly lame, actually, but not irredeemable. For more on this mini-controversy, read the entire HuffPo story here.
How do Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama compare on women’s rights and contrast with McCain? See for yourself:
Quoted from a diary by SaintCog
Hillary Clinton: Strong Pro-Choice
• Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
• Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Barack Obama: Strong Pro-Choice
• Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
• Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
John McCain: Strong to Moderate Pro-Life
• Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)
• Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
• Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Given that Obama has such an apparently strong record, I assume that his lack of emphasis on these issues can be attributed to tactical campaign decisions. Below I speculate what might have motivated these decisions and why they absolutely need to be modified for the general election fight against John McCain. After all, the President does not have the luxury of voting "present" if he or she doesn’t want to make waves.
Pandering to the middle and ceding women’s issues to Clinton is a big mistake for general election success
If their voting histories are so similar, why has Obama almost completely ceded strength on women’s rights to Sen. Clinton? Is he afraid of how people will react to his record? Was it a tactical decision to target anti-choice voters he considered essential for his primary success? At any rate, it seems pretty clear that, at least up until now, Obama has declined to make any major statements on reproductive rights without being asked about them. He has played defense, but not offense. Why not? I have a couple of ideas:
- Obama’s campaign realized that many people for whom women’s right are a make-or-break issue were going to vote for Sen. Clinton anyway. This was borne out in exit polling, which generally found that white women who are registered Democrats voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. Maybe Obama realized that he couldn’t really get traction on women’s rights issues while fighting for votes against Clinton, who claims (and rightly so) that she is a champion for women. I admire and respect Clinton's unambiguous support for women's rights, and I hope the Obama campaign gives them the same prominence in his future campaigning.
- Finding "common ground" is a major theme of Obama’s campaign. In part, this means not alienating people who may vote for him. Because abortion is such a divisive issue, maybe he avoided it to seem more moderate. This probably won him some votes, I would guess particularly from white, anti-choice men who are registered as independents. But this type of pandering by omission does not inspire much confidence or respect from people for whom the avoided issues are centrally important.
Perhaps Obama’s campaign thought that he would do better playing to the middle in the primary process with the assumption that the Democratic voters would come home by November. In hindsight, this might have been a pretty good strategy, but now that Obama basically has the primary in the bag, it is time to change gears. Barack Obama is now faced with the task of convincing Sen. Clinton’s supporters that he can represent them and their interests, and speaking out for women’s rights should be a big part of that. I know that Obama has many pro-choice supporters and that Clinton probably had quite a few anti-choice supporters, but we all know that a majority of Democratic women voted for Clinton in several key primary and caucus states. These women are the base (or one of the strong bases, at least) of the Democratic party: they are informed, they organize, they fight for their candidates and they turn out to vote at high frequencies. Simply put, Obama cannot afford to alienate them. I don’t think that Clinton’s vocal support for women’s rights and the subsequent support she received from pro-choice white women was coincidental. Rather, I suggest that this was a causal relationship, and that it would behoove Obama to make his position crystal clear and to then make an active effort to convince pro-choice women (and men) that he will be a leader for women’s rights.
Why is this important?
The culture wars are not over. Although the anti-choice political movement has declined in power somewhat as the influence of the religious right has waned, it remains a political force that should not be ignored. Several states will have anti-choice legislation on the ballot in November and this will mobilize the far right. It could also mobilize advocates for reproductive choice, particularly if they have a strong leader speaking out on women’s rights. Being a foil to an increasingly extremist John McCain is simply not good enough. I want Barack Obama to be that leader on a national level, but to do that as we move into general election mode, he needs to take a stand as soon as possible to establish himself as a candidate who will fight for women’s rights.
Poll below, but first a quick game: Guess my age, gender, level of education and favorite political blog. Answers in the tip jar.
Permalink | 61 comments