Jane Hamsher continues her
excellent efforts to push NARAL and Planned Parenthood toward a more pragmatic politics, one in which they withdraw support for people like Lincoln Chafee and Joe Lieberman who allow the likes of Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.
Now I have always given Planned Parenthood a pass, mostly because they are more a servce organization than a political one, providing vital health care to thousands across the country. But PPFA is getting more politically active (how can it not in this political climate?), and it's obviously imperative that they don't fall into the same traps NARAL can't seem to escape. Traps like this one:
PPFA (and NARAL) were the main players in the 2004 March For Women's Lives, the under-reported and largest protest in American history (over 1.125 million).
Longtime readers are well aware of my disdain for protest marches. They are useless, obsolete artifacts of a bygone era. How much money and energy expended in that march could've been used for more effective forms of organizing? As Jane says:
It shows just how behind the times these organizations are that they would put so much energy into something like the "March for Women's Lives" in this day and age when the impact of an action like that depends on the media's willingness to cover it, something they quite obviously haven't been willing to do for a good long while.
20 million single women did not vote in 2004, a demographic that is amongst the most solidly Democratic in the nation. If NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, and others want to protect the important rights they're trying to safeguard, they need to start finding ways to reach these women and other friendly voters. Marches ain't the way to do it.
And they need to be smart about how they wield their resources. Helping keep the GOP in control of the Senate won't safeguard choice and other privacy issues, no matter how much Chafee and Collins might pretend to be "pro-choice". Supporting Democrats (like Lieberman) who fail to back the choice position on key Senate votes (like the Alito cloture vote) aren't doing their cause any favors.
The women groups may be running through a streak of ineffectiveness (along with the rest of the progressive movement), but it doesn't have to stay that way. We can't afford for them to remain this ineffective.
While it's open to debate how much influence NARAL's decision not to support anti-choice Langevin in the Rhode Island race had on his decision to drop out, it was perceived as significant. Their endorsement may not mean a lot in Alabama, but it means a lot in solidly pro-choice New England states. Further, their decision to continue to support Lincoln Chafee and Joe Lieberman even after their disastrous vote on Samuel Alito is a signal to other Senators that is okay to vote like this in the future and keep your official pro-choice credentials in the process. NARAL and Planned Parenthood are rubber stamping these votes. How exactly do they plan on coming out and fighting the next Supreme Court Alito-lite nomination if they don't start yanking chains now?
Whenever major media outlets need an official quote from the pro-choice movement, they call NARAL and Planned Parenthood. If they are not speaking up against this bullshit, nobody is [...]
I wish it were otherwise but it is not. I can scream about how Lieberman and Chafee are not truly pro-choice all day but their constituents aren't going to listen to me or any other blogger if NARAL and Planned Parenthood are telling everyone not to worry, they're great.