The Best Candidate for Choice

In a recent Huffington Post article, an impressive group of women leaders examined Hillary Clinton's Senate record on reproductive rights and concluded that "Hillary Clinton is the best choice for president of the United States." The viewpoint of these leaders is important, they are all knowledgeable insiders, committed feminists and have extensive professional experience with Senator Clinton. The 10 endorsers, including Martha Burk, Cecelia Fire Thunder, Irene Natividad, Ellie Smeal, and Gloria Steinem, rightly identify themselves as "women who have spent our careers fighting to protect a woman's right to choose."

As another woman leader who has spent her career fighting to protect a woman's right to choose, with a special emphasis on protecting women's religious freedom, I see the record through a different lens. I have endorsed Senator Obama. While I believe in the nitty gritty of a day-to-day legislative agenda, there will be little difference between Clinton and Obama, I am convinced that in the larger struggle to complete the social transformation promised by Roe, Obama's instincts and values will bring us closer to that transformation.

There is no doubt that not even the most anorectic model could slip through the "space" between Obama and Clinton on some major choice issues. Both will nominate Supreme Court justices who support Roe; both will lift the global gag rule within days of taking office with a coterie of choice leaders standing behind them: and UNFPA can expect that its funding will be restored as both will certify that the agency is not involved in coercive programs in China. The Clinton endorsers rightly point to Clinton's leadership role in the Senate on over the counter availability of emergency contraception and expanded support for Title X and Medicaid family planning funds, but does anyone expect that Senator Obama would not be equally supportive?

Of course, Obama enters the arena with a shorter record and on some of the more controversial reproductive health issues, we don't know what he would do or how he would use his office to advocate for women's reproductive rights. I suspect that in some areas he may fall short and we will need to work hard to prevent that. I also more than suspect, based on her record as a Senator and the record of the Clinton administration, that there are a number of areas where Senator Clinton is more likely to disappoint us and I am surprised at the short memory of my friends and colleagues who are supporting Senator Clinton. While allowing for a change of heart, we need to remember those failures.

While Burk and others noted in their letter of support Senator Clinton's leadership on Medicaid family planning funding, they studiously ignored the question of whether the Senator has led efforts to restore Medicaid funding for abortions. She has not. In fact, in the last years of his presidency it was Bill Clinton who signed into law a permanent Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion, a presidential first. We might have expected that the Senator with eight years in the Senate who our colleagues tell us is "the one candidate whose leadership on this issue is unparalleled" and who is considered one of the best across the aisle players might have tried to overturn that Amendment and shown a stronger commitment to poor and low income women than we saw in Senator Clinton.

Another controversial issue that went unmentioned was the question of whether the health care plan of Senator Clinton will give religious organizations the right to refuse to provide services they consider "immoral" -- emergency contraception, voluntary sterilization, condoms to prevent HIV, and assisted reproduction come to mind. Will the Clinton plan require abortion coverage? Some of us still remember the battles we had with Senator Clinton when as First Lady and health care reform honcho she was at first unwilling to include abortion as a mandated service. To the end the Clinton health care reform plan included the broadest right of refusal to provide services ever introduced in federal legislation. It would have allowed any provider, religious or not, to refuse to provide any service they deemed immoral and still participate in the plan and reap the benefits of participation. Has Senator Clinton changed her mind on these issues? It is perfectly plausible that she has, but it is the responsibility of reproductive health and women's rights advocates to secure those commitments now, not simply trust that the woman they know and love will do the right thing if elected.

Other issues mentioned by my colleagues also require more careful scrutiny. Senator Clinton has led the charge for the Prevention First Act which would expand family planning services and education dramatically thus reducing the need for abortion. The bill has languished in both the Senate and the House for almost four years, including the last two years when Democrats have had a clear majority. It seems fair to ask how high a priority this legislation was for the Senator when the bill never came to the floor for a vote in spite of the Senator's power, a Democratic majority and considerable Republican support for family planning.

To be fair, this is one of those situations where the fact that the Senator has a longer record works against her as well as for her. My candidate, Barack Obama, needs to be asked by the pro-choice community the same questions I ask Senator Clinton. Our task as advocates for sexual and reproductive health and rights and women's rights cannot be limited to electioneering or the idea that getting Democrats elected means the most equitable and progressive reproductive health policies will be supported. We must first and foremost be advocates for both the positions that will make women's lives better and the style of leadership that will enhance feminist values best.

The role of a president is not the same as that of a senator. I fully expect that whichever of the two, Obama or Clinton, become president, I will be fighting with them for more than either is ready to give. I am more suspicious of Senator Clinton because as much as I respect her, she has more than once failed the movement. The struggle for reproductive health and rights over the next decade cannot continue to be about defending against bad legislation or being the biggest pit bull in the fight; it is no longer about "winning" the culture war. It is about completing the social transformation that Roe began but did not solidify. That task, I believe, will best be accomplished by a president who sees her or his role as calling us to greatness. It is not about beating anti-abortion advocates to death; it is about listening to the majority of Americans who believe that abortion should be legal and highly regulated, acknowledging what it is that they are afraid of and making them less afraid. I think Barack Obama is the person who can do that. I deeply believe he is the best hope we have to ending both the abortion wars and the war in Iraq.

Comments

[MsLiz]

Please don't make a wedge issue of abortion, like partial birth abortion was in 2004. Don't ask these questions. Neither Obama or Clinton need to be branded as the abortion candidate.

[loisteagulp]

Ah, so "new" politics don't include honesty of intention?
And to many these issues are important. How many Republicans will support a candidate who will appoint judges to uphold Roe?
How many women will support a candidate who will not?
These questions need to be asked NOW. Because they WILL be asked in November.

[flatus]

" an impressive group of women leaders examined Hillary Clinton's Senate record on reproductive rights and concluded that "Hillary Clinton is the best choice for president of the United States."

Was this a single or double blind study?

Anyway, when it comes to reproductive rights and the Presidency only one thing really matters: Who is appointed to the Supreme Court.

One of the many things that makes this election so important for Progressives is that we have a scary number of aged Progressive judges on The Court.

[suzindc]

Frances, I love your illustrious independence and desire to separate yourself from the pack, but I have some real issues with your assumptions here. Obama says he can "bring the country together," "work across the aisle," "change the way things are done," etc¦ It all sounds great, but when it comes to reproductive rights (and a host of other issues), it frankly scares the crap out of me.
The opposition won"t just change because Obama says so. They"ll stand mighty firm in their efforts to tear down Roe, cut federal funding for reproductive health, promote harmful abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, keep HIV and reproductive health programs separated, and so on. In following through on his commitment to "change the way things are done in Washington," how do we know that Obama won"t compromise with these folks, just so he can say, "See, I"m not like Bill Clinton. I didn"t force the closure of our government because I refused to allow ultra-right wingers to impose the Gag Rule on our family planning assistance"?
I want our next President to stand up for what"s right, not simply hope for what may be different.

[darylfrancis]

I"m not a Hillary fan by any means, but of the two I"d feel safer with her in charge, assisted by wild Bill, who at least knows how to hold things together.

But as Hill"s support ebbs away, it"s still better to go off the cliff with Obama and hope the parachute opens than be stuck with another reactionary, anal-retentive Republican hawk.

[FJRinLA]

TAKING COMFORT IN MICHELLE OBAMA'S JUDGEMENT

As a Black man, I initially supported The Clintons like most Black people.

I had concluded that Obama was "too soft" on issues of social and ecomomic justice. But I changed last NOV just based on a few glimpses of Michelle Obama and a re-assuring vibe I got from her before I ever heard her speak a word.

Her persona spoke loudly to me that if in the White House, she would be the firewall for Black and Brown peoples ensuring that Obama does no harm and takes every opportunity to advance our agenda. I suddenly felt completely at ease supporting him.

And I have not been disappointed as Ms. Obama starting sharing more of herself. She is a strong, independent woman; which projects the same comfort we originally got about Bill Clinton based on his choice of Hillary as a life partner.

However, we also know that Barack is very different; and that his two daughters have a better example of how a strong man co-leads his family with a strong female partner. Are you aware that Michelle had been Obama's boss/supervisor at the law firm when they met; and she resisted his advances for quite some time.

No disrespect here, but I suspect Obama's daughters may ultimately be more assertive and comfortable in their own skin than Chelsea. If so, it won't be due to female parenting; but to Mr. Obama's values and his lack of personal insecurity compared to the former President.

I would cite again "judgement" here. Michelle Obama wouldn't have suffered a boyfriend like Bill Clinton for 5 minutes....and with Barack, she clearly never had to. Hopefully her judgement gives some comfort to proponents of women's rights as it did to me regarding the my own issues and concerns.

[loisteagulp]

We don't KNOW Barack is different. We BELIEVE he is.
And while I tend to agree with you about your assessment of Michelle Obama, that only persuades me to urge her to run for office, and not her husband. Enough of women running the show behind the scenes. Do it yourself.

[isis]

I have an idea. No abortions. No birth control. No education. No regulations for water pollution Give everybody guns. Let's see what happens. It's the Republican way.

[MsLiz]

You got that right.

[BeeOplentee]

Your idea is sensible except for the "no education" concept. An educated public is necessary for democracy to work. We can always fix the water supply.

[Macready]

wonderful . . .thank you so very much for posting.

[vbond]

Thank you, Frances.

[Irishajw]

This is why you are right. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs

[DeanOR]

This is an amazing post. The author gives one fact after another demonstrating Clinton's known record of support for reproductive rights. Then it comes down to the usual bottom line: the fantasy that Obama the Great will transform the universe in some unspecified way through inspiration.

[Brgotn]

But how can you doubt Obama?? He makes us feel oh so good. As long as we have hope who needs anything else?

[LisainNYC]

Something the author didn't bring up: EVERY Democratic senator was asked by Planned Parenthood to help defeat the abortion ban in South Dakota. ONLY Barack Obama spoke out against the ban and raised money for it. That is not a fantasy, no inspiration involved.

Senator Clinton was nowhere to be found. She didn't want to stand up and be counted over a contraversial issue. She also distorted Obama's record on choice in New Hampshire in order to win the primary. That shows me she will do the politically expedient thing, not that she will be the best candidate for choice.

[Macready]

Thank you for this reminder LisainNYC . . . I agree with you . . . hillary will pick political expediency every time . . .

[lagunabeach]

The fundamental issue for me is protecting and advancing reproductive rights so I appreciate your analysis of both the Democratic candidates and I thank you for your commitment to a woman's right to choose.

[loisteagulp]

Frances, I don't mind if you support Obama. Really. But don't try to use women's rights as your reason for doing so. You mention that his instincts will bring women's issues closer to social transformation. You neglect to point out that in UNITING with Republicans could have a damaging effect on reproductive freedom for women. You point to what Senator Clinton has done and say well Senator Obama probably would have done the same. You give a laundry list of questions that you have to ask Senator Clinton about work she HAS tried to do. You add as an after note that Senator Obama should be asked those questions as well. If you are really using this as reasoning for your endorsement, try getting those questions answered first. See who answers on the specifics faster. Or, just don't ask and admit you support Obama because he's likeable enough. Thats the biggest of all women's issues. The freedom of choice in ALL things.

[HowardRoarke]

Hillary will maintain the status quo. Unless one of the Republican Supreme Court justices step down, that's the best she can do.

Barack will maintain the status quo, too.

The difference is one of them will bring more legislators to DC (coattails), and more of the public into politics.

The reason Roe is in danger is because it was the right decision, but the public isn't strongly and actively behind it. Politicians are afraid of it. Which candidate is better positioned to change that?

[MsLiz]

You forgot all the District and Circuit Judges, US Attorneys and other Justice Department officials a Democrat will appoint. Then there is the Code of Federal Regulations, which is where the devil keeps all those details.

As for the Supreme Court, a Democrat in the White House will allow aging Democrats on the Court to retire or die without regrets. Then a youngster can come on for thirty or forty years.

[Mort]

If it's wanted, it's a child. If not, it's just tissue.

Personally, I think society would be better served by "fighting" for widespread education on prevention and responsibility rather than fighting for more widespread abortion. They're already legal and routinely available. But isn't it better to teach our kids to avoid problems and be responsible for themselves rather than simply flushing whatever "minor annoyances" come their way?

[Simone]

1. Abortion is not routinely available.
2. You want to be responsble - tell the anti-choice legislators to promote science-based sex education and access to contraception. That is the surest way to lessen the number of abortions.

[MsLiz]

Exactly, Simone. The Bush administration has tried abstinence only sex education, which is a failure. In some places in the country, women must travel hundreds of miles to obtain an abortion.

[Mort]

I'm not talking about abstinence only education. Our kids needs every tool available to protect themselves from a host of dangers, complications and life changing situations. While abstinence is the only sure way, it's unrealistic to expect that of everyone. They need a wide range approach. To be prepared, they need to understand all the risks, all the ways to protect themselves and be instilled with a sense of responsibility for their actions.

Simply fighting for greater acceptance of abortion isn't a solution. It's a cheap excuse to relieve us all of responsibility. There's a tendency in our culture to dispose of our problems rather than manage them. We throw away marriage, family, children, friendships, financial and legal obligations, jobs, anything that might take extra effort. Trouble is, we don't learn anything and we end up losing out on the things that can bring the most joy into our lives, all for the sake of convenience.

Nowadays, with all we understand about HIV/AIDS, std's, etc, it's more important than ever to think before we act. If you don't want to be at risk for pregnancy or other things, it's very easy to prevent them. We're not mindless animals who must have unprotected sex at every opportunity.

Yes, there are situations where abortion should be considered. But it must never be touted as the normal form of birth control when there are so many things we could have done to prevent it. Whether you consider a fetus tissue or a child, wouldn't it make sense to prevent it from forming rather than having to rip it out afterwards?

[amberglow]

Neither of them will make choice or rights a priority--they haven't done so on the stump, and it's a "divisive" non-"unity" "partisan" issue, so don't expect anything from Obama at all.

Welcome to the club along with us gays and lesbians, and all for true universal health care and those truly wanting jobs, and class and poverty issues front-and-center, etc --we're all not priorities.

[loisteagulp]

Amen and pass the civil unions.

[XCITIZEN]

Ditto!

[bellecloche]

I agree completely, especially on the gay marriage and choice issues - it's tragic and it's enraging, and I don't think should have to wait any longer for their rights to be afforded to them. But how should it be done? I'd like to see gay marriage passed & abortion 110% accessible, no exceptions, no matter how fervent the popular opposition, but how does one achieve that when so much of the population IS (moronically) opposed without creating a militant backlash? Gravel and Kucinich were right on these issues, and look where they are. History often shows that whenever progress happens too quickly (for the public, that is), a backlash brings us farther back than we already were. What SHOULD the candidates be doing? Anyone have any ideas?

[amberglow]

real leadership means you fight for what's right--like protecting and ensuring our rights--even if there's loud and well-funded oppposition. Hillary's a fighter at least, but hasn't stood up for any of it. Obama isn't a fighter at all, and thinks you can sit down with those absolutely opposed to stuff. And he supported Lieberman very visibly even after the horrors he spouted about rape victims and hospitals in 06.

Realistic, practical (non-abstinence only) sex ed and an total end to faith-based funding would be a nice start from either of them.