Why Women's Orgs Must Become Non-Partisan

After yet another evening of being thrown under the bus, it is high time that women's organizations drastically change their approach!

Women in the Democratic Party have been taken for granted and have lost their bargaining power as a result. Ladies, this is business, plain and simple, and what it comes down to this: We can no longer work with only one political party: that is "speaking." Women's organizations must learn to "negotiate" and establish dialogues with all political parties. Party exclusivity is why women's organizations are failing in their missions to protect their members and their members' interests. Women's organizations must become non-partisan immediately.

Last night, our Congress, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi primarily and President Obama secondarily, approved a health care bill that does not include funding for abortion. What did they gain for this concession? Nothing. Still, 39 blue dog Democrats voted against the bill. There is no better indication of how little bargaining power organizations such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood currently have thanks to their efforts with one party.

The organizations and religious groups that are against abortion have amply made their case with the Democratic leaders. The DNC Chair is anti-choice. Half our country does not know whether President Obama is pro-choice.

Here are some short-term suggestions for women's advocacy groups:

1. Change of leadership. I agree with parts of what Jane Hamsher wrote last night at HuffPost. Groups set up for this issue failed. Nancy Keenan in particular who endorsed then Senator Obama over Senator Clinton in 2008 when only Clinton had any clear record on reproductive rights -- the sole issue on which her organization is focused -- should step down immediately. Records show that Keenan has had ample access to the White House and yet has been ineffective at advancing her organization's cause. She must go.

2. The leaders of the women's group devoted to choice must immediately head this bill off at the next pass. These organizations should mobilize their members to write to their senators and ask them NOT to pass the bill in its current form.

3. The leaders of women's groups devoted to choice should immediately set up meetings with Michael Steele, Chair of the RNC, to make their pitch. While opinions in our country are split on abortion, most believe that this a personal decision.

4. The leaders of the all women's organizations should open lines of communication with political leaders of all political parties. Starting immediately. On all issues concerning women and girls. We need advocates in all parties and this is attainable.

The days of women's organizations being an appendage of the DNC must end immediately. Women have been taken for granted and speaking to one political party has led to defeat after defeat for causes important to women.

It is high time that women's organizations blaze a brave new path for their constituents. It is time that we fight for women and girls. And in order to do so, we need to make our case to all political parties. Else, women and women's issues will continue the easiest give for the Democrats.

 

Comments

[Beca]

Amy, I agree with you. Womens' organizations must be non-partisan in order to have the freedom to pressure all members of Congress equally, and to support only those who stand strong for women's equality on all matters. However, I think perhaps it would be a good first step if you tried to offer a more accurate depiction of the Stupack amendment. There is already a law that bars any federal funding from paying for abortion procedures. The Stupack amendment goes a huge step further by forbiding any health insurance plan (public or private) that participates in the Health Insurance Exchange Program (basically all will participate) from offering said procedure as a benefit, and specifically forbids any woman who receives any amount of subsidy from purchasing health insurance that covers abortion procedures, even if she choses to purchase an additional rider with her own money.
What this amendment does is, in essence, prevent any insurance company from offering abortion procedures as a benefit, as most do now.
The amendment is a big mess, that is what the bottom line is.
Now I propose a counter-stupak amendment that would bar federal funding from paying for erectile dysfunction treatments--I am fundamentally opposed to having my tax dollars pay for such 'morally repugnant' treatments since they go against the "will of God". I mean, if God made willy limp there must have been a good reason, right? (I say this half in jest)

[OtayPanky]

I appreciate your frustration, but your solutions are not going to work.

Let's start here: When you say pro-choice women need to be engaged wtih ALL the political parties...what you really mean is the repubs as well as the dems. Because that's all we've got in this country. The rest don't count for jack squat..

so...pro-choice women cozying up to the repubs? Ask Christie Whitman (former repub NJ gov and Bushco EPA chief) how that's worked out for her.

Frustrated black activists feeling the same sort of disenfranchisement have often said the same thing, but they know that the repubs don't really want to be bothered with them and their issues at all.

Like it or not, you're gonna have to dance with the one that brung ya...even if he's got a big fat zit on his nose.

[jcwtts1]

The black community has switched parties en mass. After the civil war until the 1930s we were mostly republican. then until the 50s we were about evenly split and then because of civil rights we pushed fully into the dem party. If the super delegates of the dem party had push Hillary over President Obama you would have seen a shift towards the republicans about equal to what happened during civil rights. about half would have voted republican. Large chunks of blacks vote against their economic interests and against their fundamentalist values because of social justice issues. Because of our location in the country, concentrated in the NE etc., if that had happened, if Hilary had been given the nomination over Obama blacks would have cost the dems the following states. PA, MD, VA, NC, FL, OH, MI, IL, IN, NJ, CT, NY, maybe MA. Those states have large enough black populations who vote 90+ percent dem that if they shifted their vote or stayed home the states would go red.

[OtayPanky]

Do you really think that the black community would have defected, or even stayed home en masse, if Hillary had been nominated?

Sounds highly unlikely to me. All of the dems, including Obama himself, along with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the black congressinal caucus, etc etc etc would have gone out stumping like crazy for candidate Clinton. Maybe SOME blacks would have stayed home, but not enough to cost Hillary the majority of the blue states.

That said, your historical references are accurate, but they really reflect a CONTINUAL refusal, rather than an occasional one, to care about a core constituency by one party or another.

And - speaking honestly - that's just not the case right now with the pro-choice contingent of women in this country right now.

There's really no place else for them to go, if they want ANY say at the table. If they leave the dems, they'll be "Christie Whitman'ed", or "Ralph Nader'ed".

[emidesu]

My organs have been nonpartisan for years...

[Hdaryl01]

Suggestion:

Women's groups should become HUMANIST while they strive to be non-partisan. The same old tired, retrenched, turned up a notch (it's already at max and been there for awhile), gender exclusive (women, girls), thereby gender exclusionary (us vs. them-men, boys) approach is no longer working. Not only has this never ending Energizer Bunnyesque perpetual battle with attendant drum banging and cymbal clanging alienated men, it has alienated a number of old school, principle minded, equality conscious and equality motivated feminists.

History lesson:

The feminist movement began as a principled movement in pursuit of equal rights, opportunity, and treatment regardless of gender. Unisex principles and practices that would apply to any gender. Gender equality. Remember the ERA? Principled men played a pivotal role in this movement.

Where we are now:

The ERA didn't pass. I often wonder how things would be different today. Women's groups have become more and more gender exclusive (women, girls), and gender exclusionary against (men, boys). Women's groups have adopted the worst features of the democratic party in that they attempt to satisfy an unworkably large divergence of female interest groups, which prevents real pursuit of unisex principles-whereby women step up and accept the burden, with the benefit. And give up victimhood and sexist 1950's traditional roles and chivalry demands (should they choose), while expecting to be taken seriously flying fighter jets.

Until then, the women's movement has lost my support...and my 67 year old mother's...and my 65 year old aunt's.....

[h0tr0d]

and my 3 sisters....and my mother...and my wife...and my daughter......and we ALL vote democratic.

[Beca]

Here is the problem with your premise. You are assuming that the reason why women's rights groups evolved into exclutionary clubs was to satisfy a large divergence of female interst groups.
However, I believe that the reason why women's rights groups evolved into the almost exclutionary clubs they are perceived as is because we realized that 1) society was man's society and we got to sit in the back looking pretty and not saying anything. 2) asking pretty please got us nowhere; 3) except for very very few brave men who actually believed in equality of women, like V.P. Joe Biden, most men in power still held strong to their beliefs that equality meant having them have to converge with the dumber gender, in essence, lowering their powerful social standing, and hence, they held strong on denying us even the right to defend ourselves against our abusive spouces and boyfriends.
So you see, in theory the "we are all equal we are all human" premise is nice, but we are so far away from that that we can't afford to say, OK we are for human rights and we are not making distinctions--when the very people who are in power make those gender distinctions every time they author, sponsor and vote for any piece of legislation.

[HC4BO]

Exactly, Palin should be fighting for women ...

Like Scossafava in NY-23 district ...

Oh, I forgot ...

She endorsed the other dude ...

My Bad !

[h0tr0d]

Most women's groups that are affiliated with the democratic party are seen as fringe groups. The worst thing for women is to allow liberal feminists to speak for them. An anti-male, anti-father, anti-family platform is not going to get you many votes....

[lizr]

you have no clue and clearly dont know any enlightened women so what are you doing here?

[h0tr0d]

If you mean mean ideological dogma as enlightenm­ent.....ye­ah I dont run with that crowd.

[susanthe]

Most of you are missing the point. Groups like PP and NARAL support Democrats - they campaign and canvass for them - and still the Democrats sell women's reproductive rights down the river.

Instead of fighting for Democrats, women's groups should be fighting for women.

[LiberalDem]

And precisely what do pro-choice women voters have to gain from voting for GOP candidates, 99% of whom are anti-choice? The Republican party has been in bed with the anti-choice, religious right crowd for quite some time and shows no sign of changing.

[Adrienne4Dean]

What do you think shifted Republican leadership in the anti-choice direction? The influence of committed anti-choice groups who offered political support in the form of votes and campaign funds in exchange for accommodation of their views, that's what. They NEGOTIATE. They have continued to offer support to BOTH Republicans and Democrats. Democrats were just slower to accept the trade, but they're rapidly closing the gap.

Women's groups could have similar sway if they'd hold out their endorsement for the highest bidder, instead of just giving it away. Women have allowed themselves to be taken for granted by the Democratic Party. Why should we sell ourselves so cheaply? Where is our self-respect?

*****A

[jcwtts1]

Wow, and while you are selling yourselves expensively the GOP is still run by the right. Abortion rights stand on a razors edge. If the dems hadn't won in 2008 there would an anti choice court with 5 votes before 2012. Think about that. Because that is where you are going.

J

[Beca]

Exactly

[Sharon Corcoran]

Read the headline just posted- A Repulican just compared women's healthcare to smokers- Who stood up to him? Democrats blasted him- good luck with reproductive rights- I would suggest that we start promoting what agencies like Planned Parenthood accomplish- They are viewed as the abortion agency- It's time to show people how effective these agencies are in preventing abortion s- and show some effort in trying to create programs that pro-lifers can work on- Maybe day care in churches- Adopting unwanted and abused children- In Los Angeles County 800 children a month are put into fostercare- and asking the prolife groups to put their money where there mouths are-It will bring to light just how strong their convictions really are when they have to take action in a positive way - instead of using the political system to assert their beliefs- solving the problem and working on having more opportunities to help women who want to keep their babies but don't for various reasons .Use research and polls to discuss why women have abortions-? Let's see what we can accomplish working together- Didn't Obama just increase pell grant's to make it easier for single mom's to go to school? Show that these organizations are being efftective in the common goal- helping the children and use education to limit the number of abortions- without taking away a women's right to choose-

[ReedYoung]

If you want to negotiate with the GOP, you're going to need an expensive bargaining chip. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that "the women's vote" is not something that you, or anybody else, can deliver to the current GOP. So may I make a suggestion?

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-22-fossil-fuel-subsidies-dwarf-clean-energy-subsidies-obama-wants

If you turn around quickly with an effective campaign to get into the climate bill a restriction on funding coal and petroleum corporations, similar to the restriction that special interests got shoved into the health care bill, then you will get the attention of the corporate interests the GOP loves the most. In a moment, they'll begin begging the GOP leadership, and its DLC followership, to stop pandering to the xian religious extremists. And you won't even have to ruin your good shoes to meet with them personally.

To accomplish this, you'll need to work with environmental groups, possibly including the Green Party, which you'll find to be more trustworthy partners than the Republican Party. Such alliances will also arouse the suspicions of fewer Liberals than meeting with Michael Steele, which I think is a hilarious idea but not very promising.

[Sharon Corcoran]

I think you need to watch John Boehner and Charles Rangleon the floor Sat - where Boehner tried to make Rangle give his word that the abortion amendment would not be taken out of the bill in comittee. Rangle refused to make that promise- You really think that the Republican's would be supportive of choice? They want less government and less taxes how does that translate into the government paying for abortions? Hillary Clinton almost won- Obama is the first African American President that is also historic- theodds were agains't him- take a look at what they throw at Obama- He wasn't born here- he is a socialist- communist- pictures of Obama as Hitler are on their signs- The worst thing we can do is splinter- we have more power in numbers-
It's time for women to stick together and fight for what we can agree on- Instead of blaming the Government look at the people- Why are so many antichoice-Look what happen to Gay marriage in Maine that was via the vote of the people- same thing happened in California- Many people didn't want to vote for Bush the 2nd time but abortion forced them not to vote for the Democrat-

[soupson52]

Your last sentence proves there is STILL a fool born every minute. Saving fetuses is more important than killing living breathing children.

[SonofLiberty1]

I just heard Cokie Roberts on NPR and she said that it was unlikely that the Senate would get rid of the language.

A heck of a lot of Americans don't like Abortion but you still have the right to have one if you want to.

I've heard the "mantra" of "the right to have an abortion" and that it's a "private decision between a woman and her doctor"

Well, we've come full circle here...

A private decision does not rate public financing.

If it does...

It is no longer private.

You've had your fun in the sun now....

You've lost and you will continue to lose.

If the shoe fits...wear it:)

And don't you dare tell me that I must pay for your mistake in judgement.

You may not believe in hell but I do and you will not make me complicit in your sin.

[snarkopolitan]

Ladies and Gentlemen, here's "approachable" for you.

[RhodaA]

Received your reply but it wasn't displayed on site. I hope you will re-write in a way that can be displayed. It is very informative.

[jcwtts1]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29308.html

What great timing... I hope Ms. Siskind reads the article about the party she wishes to now support.

[Patriot86]

Really, women should support the anti choice crowd because somehow this will give us more choice? Silliness-the fact is the bill could not have been passed without this redundant amendment ...redundant because the Hyde Amendment is in full force anyway...you know Hyde...the GOP Congressma­n...suppor­t a party that gave us the Hyde amendment is complete foolishness. Not to mention a party that except for the few women welcomed into the party voted against the Franken amendment designed to keep women working overseas safe.

[jcwtts1]

my point exactly. I write about those issues and more in posts on page two. Ms. Siskind wants to negotiate with the GOP, good luck with that. I hope she's ready for it.

J

[RhodaA]

"We need advocates in all parties and this is ATTAINABLE." [Emphasis added]

This is really the crux of your argument and your underlying assumption, but you give not one shred of evidence or fact to support it. In fact, all the evidence completely refutes it.

[minerva117]

I agree. I just don't see Republican women lining up to support reproductive rights.

[Notrepublicrat]

"Whoah!" is right.

Since when are women monolithic?

This grouping of people into aggregates that politicians and social scientists can play with more easily is a big problem. The world is made up of individuals.