A Woman's Right to Choose...a President

For my entire adult life I have worked to advance the lives of women in the U.S. and abroad. From 1975 to 1982, I was the national Executive Director of NARAL when NARAL became the political arm of the pro-choice movement. It is gratifying that all Democratic candidates for president have 100% pro-choice voting records. Yet, it saddens me greatly to see Barack Obama's flawless voting record distorted.

A century ago, women fought hard for the right to vote. For decades, women have been fighting for the right to make reproductive choices, and for other important milestones in the battle for equality. What women do not need now is a divisive fight within the Democratic Party over which candidate is better on women's issues such as choice. The leading Democrat candidates all have 100% pro-choice voting records. The issue is not how they vote in Congress or how they will support reproductive choices as president. Instead, the issue is how are they using abortion rights in the presidential campaign, and what kind of leadership they will demonstrate once in office.

In Iowa and New Hampshire the Clinton campaign asserted that Obama's record on reproductive rights is not as strong as Senator Clinton's. It began with a blast from Ellen Malcolm, president of EMILY's List, which has effectively supported pro-choice women candidates in the past, but bungled this issue with an unfair attack on Obama's record. Pointing to votes that Barack Obama cast on abortion-related bills while a member of the Illinois Senate, the Clinton campaign claimed that Obama lacked leadership and has a less than perfect record on reproductive justice.

What Malcolm failed to mention was that Obama cast these votes as part of a strategy employed by pro-choice leaders in Illinois. Organizations like Planned Parenthood and NARAL have made it clear to any reporter who asks that Obama's present votes were part of a legislative strategy that they designed specifically to protect abortion rights. Further, Lorna Brett who was the President of Chicago NOW at the time of the votes has recently withdrawn her support for Senator Clinton and has become a supporter of Obama's campaign saying, "Barack's leadership on this issue went above and beyond the call of duty, and for anyone to intentionally mislead voters about that fact in the days before an election is simply sad. I am disgusted that this tactic is being used against a good man like Senator Obama." The Obama campaign also released excerpts of letter that Malcolm sent to Obama in 2006 thanking him for speaking at an EMILY's List event and complimenting him on how he energized their members.

There are two things are at issue here: substance and politics. On the substance, the record is clear. Barack Obama is 100% pro-choice -- always has been, always will be. That's why he made sure that FDA-approved contraceptives were covered by insurance plans for women in Illinois as a State Senator. That's why Obama spoke out against South Dakota's attempt to outlaw all abortions. And that's why Obama has worked so hard to make sure that low-income and college women can access affordable birth.

In terms of politics, the truth is that the Clinton campaign took a gamble that may be having unintended consequences. It has caused division and opened debate within the pro-choice movement, which has enough on its hands protecting reproductive justice against those who would return us to the days when abortion was not legally available. And, most disturbingly, these attacks on a legislative strategy created by choice leaders may threaten the ability to implement such strategies in the future. If pro-choice legislators are going to be attacked by Democrats, what incentive do they have to carry out voting strategies crafted by choice leaders?

As the pro-choice movement celebrates the 35th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, let's not argue over choice. Finding a Democratic candidate on the basis of choice is easy -- they are all good. Choosing a leader who will deal honestly and fairly with the American public is the real electoral test and the key factor that may turn off or turn on voters. On that score, the winner is Obama -- by a long shot.

Karen Mulhauser
Senior Advisor, Obama for America
Former Executive Director, NARAL

Comments

[lornabretthoward]

Karen has only one factual error in her otherwise correct and important editorial. I was not the president of Chicago NOW when Senator Obama made his present vote. I never said I was -- watch the YouTube video.

This is only important because Illinois NOW has tried to discredit Karen and my opinions. I was president in the 90s, when he was elected.

Here are the relevant facts as we vote today: Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America endorsed Barck on Sunday -- does anyone want to doubt her credibility?

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, released a statement on January 24th saying: "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, 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.

She went on to say: "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."

Anyone want to question Nancy's credentials?

OK, enough of this, let's go vote and support the pro-choice candidate who wins.

Lorna Brett Howard

[old91A10]

From my comment: "... 'present' means 'I object' ... a strategy cooked up by the supporters of women's choice and him. Please, show me statements, ..., or publications contemporary with that vote that support this later day, unsubstantiated characterization."

From a comment by Ciccina: "Does this mean Barack preferred to placate people who are mixed or anti-choice rather than standing on principle...?", "Its not like every Democrat voted 'Present,' Karen.", "Only the ones who were wavering did. ... who wanted political cover."

Even if Karen Mulhauser participated in this strategy, a later day statement is not a sufficient. A dubious strategy, seemingly contrary to the organizations' charters, would have required discussion amongst some of the organizations' elite and Obama. There ought to have been some conversation with constituents of NARAL or Planned Parenthood generating a paper or electronic trail.

Show me evidence contemporary with the vote. Without it, one might consider these characters deceitful. With it, one might still consider them sleazy. Dubious strategy or political timidity? Is there a problem here with principles and honesty?

For the most part, this is one of the issues that has been glossed over by both the MSM and non-MSM. It is far enough below the radar that I was able to paraphrase it in a discussion with a half-dozen of my friends (all ultra-progressives and of mixed age and sex). They were outraged -- arms flailing, comments full of invectives and unsubstantiated claims. I sat back and listened. When I corrected my paraphrase with "Oops, I should have said Barack and Illinois, not Hillary and New York," they changed their tune to STFU.

[Giskard73]

Thank you for this fair article. I hear from so many women who are insulted that people assume they are for Hillary Clinton. As well as from African Americans and other groups who all make up their own, individual minds. Women need to give Obama a serious look, listen to him speak and see how he inspires the next generation.

A good president MUST be able to unite and inspire and that is what Barrack does. I've never felt inspired by Hillary Clinton and as an independent will vote elsewhere if she is nominated. I'm sick of the Clinton's scandals, lies and requests to define the meaning of "is".

[Lolalabloggera]

Hillary was fighting for women's rights when Obama was surfing in Hawaii.
Hillary '08

[Ciccina]

It is also quite disingenuous to bring up Obama's support for contraceptive coverage in the Illinois state senate - the softest prochoice issue - without mentioning Senator Clinton's exceptional leadership in pressuring the FDA to release the morning after pill; without mentioning that she was a major proponent of ICPD; without mentioning her leadership in the Senate fighting for funding for UNFPA; and I could go on and on. That, Karen, is called a track record you can depend on.

Have you taken a look at Barack's answers to the Gay Men's Health Crisis candidate questionnaire on HIV/AIDS policy? You'll notice Barack never brings up issues pertaining to women. Hillary, by contrast, talks about the need to integrate SRHR and HIV/AIDS programs - a major issue now with the Global Fund and elsewhere. I would bet real money that Barack has no idea what she's even referring to.

For those of us who are committed to women's rights, the choice between Barack and Hillary comes down to this: do we want a true believer with a track record of success, a deep understanding and a lifelong committment to these issues, or do we want someone who occasionally mentions women and would have to be brought up to speed on why women's rights are central to international development, ensuring public health, economic development and so on?

Do we want someone we know would make women's rights a priority, or someone we would have to lobby and cajole to pay attention to women's rights?

Would an Obama ambassador to the UN do hand-to-hand combat with the Holy See, the Sudan, Nicaragua, Iran etc. on LGBT and SRHR issues - or would we trade them away as chits towards "bigger issues"? We have no idea, do we? But we do know that LGBT and reproductive rights are always the FIRST issues to be thrown overboard when "consensus" is sought.

Its fine to support Barack based on other issues. But to pretend that there is any valid reason to support Barack over Hillary in the area of women's rights is quite simply absurd.

[Ciccina]

Karen, this article is completely misleading.

You know as well as I do that Pam, Steve and others have explained that Barack's "present" votes on four abortion bills was a strategy NOT to protect choice but to protect Barack from criticism further down the line for being too "extreme" on choice.

The fact is, and as it has been explained many times, the legislators who voted "Present" felt pressure from their constituencies to vote anti-choice; voting "Present" was a way for Barack and others to split the difference and appear "moderate."

Does this mean Barack is anti-choice? No. (Of course, no one from Hillary's campaign EVER said Barack is anti-choice.) Does this mean Barack preferred to placate people who are mixed or anti-choice rather than standing on principle and educating them? Yes, it does.

Otherwise he would have voted pro-choice. Its not like every Democrat voted "Present," Karen. Only the ones who were wavering did. Only the ones who wanted political cover. (In that sense, you could say this was a strategy to protect choice in that if they hadn't voted "present" they might have voted "anti." But that's some pretty disingenous spin).

You know very well the power of stigma in abortion politics. Anti-choice groups have done an excellent job stigmatizing legislators who vote pro-choice as anti-family, anti-Christian and anti-values. That's why its important for legislators to take a stand and be visibly pro-choice, rather than validating the stigma by taking the easy way out. Isn't that what you used to say when you headed up NARAL?

What the "Present" votes mean is that we should think twice before we assume Barack would stick with us on really tough issues rather than throwing a few bones, at our expense, to the Christian lobby.

[fitCTmom]

Instead putting this information on a political junkie website where you are obstensibly preaching to the choir, why not put this piece in the opeds of the NYT and all the other papers that stupidly and selfserving backed Billary

[old91A10]

Something to consider regarding Naral or Planned Parenthood statements, actions, and especially endorsements. Early in 2006, Joe Lieberman said, "In Connecticut, ... a short ride to get to another hospital." Yet, NARAL and Planned Parenthood endorsed him. This has never been adequately addressed. Other endorsements that were contrary to their charters included Alito, Chafee, Cantwell. This is even more critical, since the dumbing down of the judicial system affects the struggle to maintain Roe vs. Wade. So, we see their leadership is capable of duplicity of the highest order.

Something to consider regarding a candidate. Voting records count. Obama has either no explanations or feeble ones to explain a few of his many missed votes or ones that seem contrary to his professed positions. Some of the contrary votes have been explained as 'oops, I pressed the wrong button.' Well, isn't that just ducky.

I am more than merely suspicious of any new truth table where 'yes, no, present' mean things other than what they are -- especially, when it is purported to be a local political lingo or lore.

There is the particular case of his voting 'present' in Michigan, where the feeble explanation is that 'present' means 'I object' and that it was a strategy cooked up by the alleged supporters of women's choice and him. Please, show me statements, arguments, correspondence, or publications contemporary with that vote that support this later day, unsubstantiated characterization.

[Obama2008]

Karen: Thank you so much for writing this piece. I was in New Hampshire for the week leading up to the primary election and we received so many calls from confused female voters who had received a deceptive piece of mail from the Clinton campaign. Now, The Union Leader in New Hampshire has written an article about the "buyers remorse" in New Hampshire because HRC lied to the people of New Hampshire about Florida.

I don't want to imagine the entire country with "buyers remorse" when this primary is complete.

We should be able to expect the truth from our candidates. With Barack Obama, you can.

[OneAmerica]

Truth will always prevail.

Obama 08!

[Independent_voter]

Very well written piece with the facts clearly laid out. Thank you for your honesty.

Clinton didn't bungle, she tried to obfuscate again and got busted for it again. I can't support someone as morally bankrupt as hillary.

[Boadicea]

The most clearly stated response to the Clinton "anti-choice" lies I've seen yet. Thank you.

And thank you for protecting this middle-aged feminist's woman's right to choose who I vote for, regardless of that person's race, religion or gender. I want to vote for a "person" and I refuse to vote for a clitoris and a pair of breasts just because it's not a penis and a hairy chest. HIllary, stop this divisive campaigning, and call off your feminist attack dogs. How DARE they question my commitment to feminist causes.

I'm basing my primary decision on that now forgotten item - the worst foreign policy blunder in our history, the one that's costing us billions and will for decades to come. The Clinton/Bush invasion of Iraq. John Edwards said in 2003 that he based his decision to support the war on "Clinton's people." I believe him.

Lincoln Chaffee asked for a private session with CIA officials before making his nay decision. Why didn't Hillary do that? Ready to lead on day 1? NO, ready to FOLLOW on day 1.

I'm tired of having to choose between two war candidates. If the Clintons win the nomination, I'm going to make a 2300 donation to Ron Paul.

[daveny]

I feel the same way about the distortion of Obama's record on GLBT Issues -- the Hillary camp has no shame with playing divide and conquer politics on a fraudulent basis!

[daveny]

I'm kind of amazed there haven't been angry posts from the NYS Chapter of NOW condemning you for being a slave to the phallocentric gendertocricacy!

[BionicWoman]

Here is a more salient point: Women have been held down and subordinated forever. Hillary could only say so much at the time she was on the board at Walmart because its the men who have the power. Things are different today - but not that much. We still have to keep quite when we hear the sexist jokes and inuendo. For the young people, however, it is easier to come up. Us older women do not want a man to ensure our rights or provide anything for us. It is insulting to say that Obama or Edwards would do more for women. No, its not about doing more. It is about empowering women. This is what Hillary's presidency is about. Women I know are standing straighter for seeing Hillary rise. Karen Mulhauser doesn't have enough insight to be a jouralist if she can't understand that most women really need this empowerment moment.