Late-Night Wins for Pro-Choice Americans

It was a late night last night for the U.S. Senate. In the past, when anti-choice politicians controlled the process, that would have meant something dreadful would have happened to women's freedom and privacy.

Previous Congresses were famous for votes at 3 a.m., hoping their shenanigans would go unreported and slip under the public's radar screen.

But, pro-choice Americans, I am pleased to report different news: Last night, the Senate rejected two anti-choice amendments, but the razor-thin margin by which we won these votes is a reminder of why elections matters.

To what amendments am I referring?

Well, you can depend on anti-choice politicians to lack creativity and imagination, and last night was no exception.

In a blatant attempt to entangle the budget resolution in anti-abortion politics, Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) offered an amendment intended to codify a controversial Bush administration regulation, put in place in 2002, which allows states to make an embryo or a fetus -- but not a pregnant woman -- eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The amendment failed 46-52. Last year, a coalition of pro-choice and pro-life senators defeated a similar Allard proposal -- but last night we picked up a few new senators. The tide is moving in the right direction!

As I said, the same stuff over and over again.

And speaking of items off the anti-choice shelf, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) put forth an amendment modeled after the so-called "Child Custody Protection Act" [PDF] (CCPA). This divisive and controversial proposal would prohibit anyone other than a parent -- including a grandparent, aunt, adult sibling, or member of the clergy -- from accompanying a young woman across state lines for abortion care if the home state's parental-involvement law has not been met.

Here is another sign of progress: the Senate's rejection of CCPA late last night, by a tie vote of 49-49, is a major milestone for pro-choice Americans.

Our message of how this proposal jeopardizes the health and safety of young women who can't reach out to their parents for fear of violence, or in cases of rape or incest, really got through this time, thanks to our allies in the Senate for making the case to their colleagues.

We applaud our pro-choice friends in the Senate who blocked these anti-choice measures. They stood up against the divisive attacks which were simply trying to distract the public from our nation's true priorities like fixing the economy or making health care more affordable.

Pro-choice Americans made tremendous gains in the 2006 elections and restored pro-choice leadership in Congress, but anti-choice members still outnumber pro-choice lawmakers in both chambers. Until the numerical composition of Congress matches America's pro-choice majority, we will continue to see dangerous and divisive assaults on the values of freedom and privacy.

It is fantastic that new senators, such as Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Jon Tester (D-MT), and James Webb (D-VA), who defeated anti-choice incumbents in 2006 continue to show why elections matter, vote by vote.

So, celebrate today -- we won by a whisker -- and then volunteer tomorrow for a pro-choice candidate for the House or Senate.

Comments

[Zeusthunderbolt]

Is it possible for democratic party to move beyond CHOICE and the republicans to move beyond LIFE ? The hatred and trench warfare this issue has generated, has divided a nation beyond recognition. It is now a litmus test on both sides of the Isle.

Will this lead to a second civil war? I cannot imagine that more passion would have been possible before the Civil war.

How about a national refrendum, in time to avoid hatred boilng into the streets or before the south declares independance ?

[GBecker]

Yesterday was a good day - First the House Dems rejected telecom immunity and then two anti-choice amendments didn't pass. Let's keep this tide turning back to restore our Constitutional rights. Call your reps, get involved. It can be done. Thank you, Nancy.

Obama '08!

[nellie]

Thank you for this piece of real news. It's refreshing to read a blog article that gives something substantial to the readership and consists of more than an opinion.

[TerrapinCB]

I have only one question:

Who the hell thought it was a good idea for men to determine what a woman is to do with her body?

[IMD]

That would be men, of course. But they needed the support of women as well to tell their daughters to know her place, and give up.

Thank God for the women who said TO HELL WITH THAT!

[gogocat]

I HAD AN ABORTION! I have never ever had any regrets, guilt or embarrassment concerning this EASY decision. As soon as I thought I was prengnant I went to Planned ParentHood to confirm what I already knew to be true. PPH offered me 3 options, I didn't want two of the options I wanted an abortion. Period. My choice! My decision.

Why such an easy decision? I was about to graduate college, I was unemployed, had an enormous college tuition debt and most importantly I knew I was emotionally unfit to nurture, care or provide for myself much less a baby.

I can respect other woman being pro-birth. What I do not respect is a man telling me what I should and should not do with my female body. This is a woman's issue and therefore men should keep their lack of understanding out of this issue and debate. Why don't we start demanding men not masterbate or deny them medical access for conditions like penile erection dysfunction, or enlarged prostate. Better yet, lets demand Viagra be taken off the shelves of pharmacies. Men(white) have always has their rights respected, their votes counted and their voices heard. Men, this is not your battle. This is an issue for women, by women. Let the women decide what is best for themselves.

My Body, My Privacy, MY CHOICE!

[mydogshakespeare]

Your choice honors and validates me. My own mother often angrily spit that she should have aborted me, and would have done so if my "devout Catholic father" (who I only met once at a funeral) hadn't beat her and forced her to carry me to term. She apologized often enough, and explained that, like you, she was unready to be a mother. She had just started her career as an RN, had tons of debt, family scorn, and a desire for freedom from responsibility for anyone but herself and her patients. Also, she had serious reservations about the quality of my "sperm donor". Neither she or I, or several groups of surrogate parents, had much joy during the first 22 years of my life. Finally, a few years of counseling paid off, and life is about average for all concerned.

I often wished that she had aborted the original fetus and conceived me when she was good and ready to be a mother. I am glad that you had the simple courage, and the ability to choose how to handle your pregnancy in your own best interests. The kind of crappy lives endured by me, my mother, my gutless absent "father", my grandparents, aunts and uncles and cousins and hapless neighbors endured because of my premature birth were avoided by your intelligent decision. Giving a crappy start in life to a kid is a poor excuse for forcing unready and unwilling women to become mothers.

Disgusted, selfish folk, like "PaNevvy", ought to experience my life and then decide if unready, unwilling mothers should be forced to raise babies.

[sdskelton03]

A little biology lesson for you. Mothers don't get to determine which fetus to put thier children in and which ones not to.

Had your mother decided to abort you, it is most likely that it would have occured after the point at which YOUR body was fully wired to feel pain. You would have died a relatively quick but incredibly painful death and would not be here to be as pro choice as you are.

[klmebane]

a little lesson for you, skeleton: a mother doesn't know her child until after it is born. there are nuances of personality, the sound of their voice, the way that they smile, a whole assortment of things that make that child theirs.


something i often wonder is in all of time how many billions upon billions of people have inhabited the earth?? i wonder this because i have trouble believing that each and every one of those no matter what time period they were born into is a separate and distinct soul. i believe that souls "recycle" if you will. so whether a woman miscarries, has an abortion, or loses a child while they are young, that soul would eventually be reborn into another body.



religious types keep saying god wants this, and god wants that, and he doesn't want such and such. how do YOU know?? does he speak to you personally?? and if he does, have you ever been checked for schizophrenia, cuz anyone else hearing voices would be. the bible isn't exactly clear and there are a lot of theoretical and philosophical messages in it, many of them contradictory. if god gave people the intelligence to figure out how their bodies work and how to control what happens to them, are you second-guessing his judgment? how do you know an angel didn't whisper into someones ear (the way a muse would) and say: here is a concept that will help control reproduction so you all don't get too crazy with it. while i'm at it, here's a way for you to explore your bodies and their capabilities. god trusts you to do what is right for you, and to use your knowledge to come up with ways to help your fellow man.


if we start ignoring "god-given" intelligence then why don't we stop treating cancer while we're at it, or developing drugs to treat illnesses, cuz, hey, if god wanted us to have those things he would've started us off with them right? for a bigger step, we could make it illegal to treat any illness, cuz god wants them to die, right? otherwise they wouldn't have gotten sick, right?

[mydogshakespeare]

"sdskelton03" offers "A little biology lesson..."

Great, another authoritative, condescending moralist telling me how I "have it all wrong".

[klmebane]

most abortions are performed within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. 10 weeks and wired to feel pain?? i don't think so, there isn't even a brain yet! so no, it isn't most likely that had the previous posters mom decided to abort (which is an asinine statement. it obviously didn't happen and it ain't like you have a fucking time machine) that they would have felt it.


im so sick of neocons parading out that line of "your mother didn't abort you". no, she didn't, AND THAT WAS HER CHOICE!! that is the whole point of this issue. im not forcing a woman who wants a baby to abort it, and you shouldn't be forcing a woman who doesn't want it, for WHATEVER reason, to have it. pro choice means exactly that. i'm not living your life, i can't decide what is best for you and the rest of your family. would you want someone else to decide other medical decisions for you? like whether you could have a tumor removed, or get plastic surgery? no... it is an issue that needs to be between the woman her doctor and whoever else she chooses to involve. period.



also, it isn't a matter of choosing which fetus... whenever a woman is ready to have a baby, she will love it and nurture it and care for it. if you want to demand that all women who get knocked up then u must support welfare right?? cuz if they are too broke to care for the children they have they need it. and if you REALLY cared about the children you would want to make sure that they have food and healthcare, right?? the children they have are still their children. children shouldn't be punished for being born, regardless of what you may think of their parents. the children they didn't have, whether because of defects, non-viability, death in the womb, or a whole host of other reasons never existed in the first place.


late term abortions are prohibitively expensive and very few people have them unless there is some kind of problem, like anencephaly (no brain in the fetus), miscarriage without discharge of the dead fetus, or some serious defect that couldn't be detected until later in the pregnancy.

[Purple Girl]

Are you deluded? these are not victories- these are proof we are still combating the undue influence of Religion in our gov't policies.
Roe v Wade ahs been on the books for 35 yrs- and we are proud we barely scraped it through AGAIN? This is Proof we have had serious Losses not gains!
NOW has done nothing to solidify this Right! We should not be in the same national discussion that was resolved ove r3 decades ago! they have Failed and you want US to pat them on the Back???
Tehy haven't even called the 'right to Lifers' Bluff- failed to define waht Rights those of US alive should have - which take preedence over those who have not even reached the point of 'Life ' Yet. Right to Life should be held to it's Rhetoric- stem cell research for those suffering from dibilitating dieases, kids getting their nutritional and health needs met, an economy which helps parents care for their children, Long term care for those who are disbled or elderly, an environment which promotes living things.
I'm a right to lifer, bu ti am not a Pro Birther regardles of the consequence to the life that will be lead once actually born. Granted any one who harms a Pregnant woman should be held responsible for the potential for a second victim, but only if they are aware the woman is pregnant and inflicts harm on her Becasue she is pregnant- Husbands/boyfriends who kill the expectatnt mother to avoid their responisblity. Let's focus on the needs of those already here first - then the rights and freedoms of a multicelled parasitic organism later- once we creat a world worth being born into.

[Egghead]

Thank you very much for a substantive essay on a subject that matters to me.

[LyricalLexicon]

How about this, a woman should be able to choose what to do with HER OWN body without anyone else's interference. Just because pro-life people feel abortion is wrong doesn't mean their beliefs should be forced apon pregnant women who feel abortion is right for them. Unless you plan on personally supporting that woman's child when it is born I suggest you keep your nose out of her business.

[sacto92]

There are a whole lot of people that would be willing to support the woman's child. It's called adoption.

[dadw5boys]

There are a lot of children born with terrible handicaps that no one adopts and there are thousands of children waiting for foster homes because no one wants to adopt them.

People who adopt only want perfect babies and mostly white perfect babies.

[klmebane]

yes, and they would rather adopt children from other countries then the ones born here. there are many people looking to adopt, but they only want to adopt a child that looks a specific way. many minority children spend their entire adolescent lives in the foster system. where were the 'whole lot of people' willing to support those children?

[MsLiz]

This is an alternative for some. Others can not afford to be sidelined by a pregnancy and delivery. As for me, I would never give a child up for adoption, or encourage any one in my extended family to do so. Responsibility for a child does not end, and not all adopted children fare well. I have very strong notions about blood relations, and would be very disturbed to have a child from my family out in the world apart from us. Of course, I have a great extended family and someone would care for the child.

Professionally, I worked in Family Court, and became familiar with an adoption agency which charged hefty fees to adoptive parents. They had pregnant girls referred to them from pregnancy counseling centers. I am deeply suspicious that there are financial motivations at play here. Not all adoption agencies, of course.

On a side note, it frankly offends me when infertile couples pressure pregnant girls to give babies up for adoption.

[MACS]

.
Perhaps you can explain why soo many children remain unnadopted.
Which pro-life fundamentalist evangelical televangelist do you know of that has adopted an AIDS teenager???
.

[MsLiz]

Sacto92 is thinking of healthy white babies. They have been in short supply since 1972. It's too risky to take on a multiracial or disabled child or an older child who has been removed from a negligent or abusive home, since they may be sociopaths. Yes, I am being snarky.

[schlitzntl]

Disclaimers first, I'm pro-choice, why? Selfish reasons really, if I was in a situation where my girlfriend was pregnant and we both agreed that we're not ready for this in our lives then I would want abortion as an option.

Onto the meat of the subject, I make this call to everyone out there who has strong feelings on the issue, they're are not anti-choice, and they are not anti-life. Both sides of this issue are striving to preserve something, not take something away, at least as they see it. The Pro-lifer's are not crying, "Yay, we hate woman's rights, take them all away" and the pro-choicers are not, "Yay, kill, kill, kill." So please, its just a difference of opinions and it doesn't have to be displayed so negatively.

In addition, to both sides of the issue, stop trying to use deceitful tactics and methodology to get you're point of view pushed into law. Have some guts, and straight up bring it up for a vote, should woman have the right to terminate there pregnancies, make some amendments as to the time frame of the pregnancy and then vote on it. To everyone in the congress, yes you are from your home districts/states, but don't forget that you represent America now, all of it, and if legislation that is pro-life or pro-choice passes and you disagree with it, suck it up and deal with it. Bring it up for another vote in two years when the legislature changes, I'm sorry that we offended your little southwestern town/large northeastern metropolis, but that is evidently how the American majority feels and you work for us.

If the legislature passes pro-life amendments, so be it, I cede to the majority of America, but don't you dare try some underhanded method to bypass what America wants as Senator Keenan is accusing some in the congress of doing.

Like all really decisive things I'm sure that this will be solved by science one day in the future when we'll be able to turn on and off the reproductive parts of our body at will, or something equally as cool.

[sacto92]

"Selfish reasons really, if I was in a situation where my girlfriend was pregnant and we both agreed that we're not ready for this in our lives then I would want abortion as an option." Then maybe you should "choose" not to have unprotected sex, or sex at all, at this point in your lives. But at least you're admitting that abortion, most the time, is done out of convenience to avoid the consequences of your actions.

[schlitzntl]

I generalize with this point but use you as a target simply out of convenience, whether it applies to you or not.
Your dad, probably had sex before he was married to your mom. Your mom, probably had sex before she was married to your dad. In addition they probably had a lot of sex just for the sex and not to have a kid. And really its the same with the newer generations, although I feel that my generation is a little more open about it.
Sex is one of those innate human drives up their with survival, so it is pretty hard to go your whole life up to the point you want to have kids without having sex. And even past that, why would you want to? Sex is a great experience. I can't really describe it except theres something about holding someone tight to you that makes the world seem like a better place. Hugging doesn't count
Lastly, choosing to have an abortion isn't avoiding consequences. If my girlfriend was pregnant and I left here and moved away leaving here to deal with whatever happens alone, that would be avoiding the consequences. Having an abortion is making a decision together about what's best for us. And its a hell of a tough decision, even one that I do find distasteful sometimes, but its not avoiding anything, its confronting it head on.

[klmebane]

what about the consequence to the child of being born to parents that don't want it? all the horrible things people do to children that are already here and people keep focusing on a clump of cells with the POTENTIAL to grow into a fetus if the right conditions exist inside the womans body. do you know what any other growth with cell replication and bloodflow would be called? a tumor. thats alive too. should we stop fighting cancer? most abortions are performed within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. that is not a baby, by any stretch of the imagination. this is coming from a pro-choicer who could never and has never had an abortion.

it isn't just about not wanting a baby. perhaps the baby is deformed, or has a genetic defect that will make its life short, painful, and miserable. perhaps the woman was raped. perhaps the pregnancy is not viable or it is ectopic. perhaps the woman is married with 3 children and despite all efforts to avoid a pregnancy it happened anyway and they can't afford another one. perhaps the mother is unable to carry a pregnancy to term without serious threat to her health and possibly death. i don't like abortion, i don't see it like its candy and everyone should have one. but unfortunately it is a symptom of the world we live in. help make it a world worth being born into and then we can talk, ok?

if every pregnancy that has been aborted hadn't who would be caring for the resulting children? where would they live? would they be guaranteed healthcare even if it was a pre-existing condition? or would you tell the mother that she should have just kept her legs closed and forget the fact that there is an ACTUAL child involved who may suffer because you feel that the mother needs a lesson.

[MsLiz]

If there were no unplanned pregnancies, humans would be extinct.

[klmebane]

are u serious?? yes before science allowed us to control when we reproduce all pregnancies were unplanned, but that doesn't mean that every single pregnancy must be brought to term. that ignores a whole host of possible issues and complications.

[Kundera]

why are lefties pro choice on abortion but anti choice on education, 2nd amendment..........etc...

[dadw5boys]

Where do you get this stuff????
Lefties as you call us are free thinkers.

Go with the sheep we will fight our way thru every issue to find what is best for all Americans.

Roe v Wade does not force any woman to have an abortion but it does not allow any man to force a child on a woman either!

[nellie]

We're not anti-choice on education either. We just don't believe public dollars should be used to fund private institutions. That's the difference between private and public—funding source.

[MsLiz]

Why are righties insisiting on maleducation for their children, paid for with public funds? You know, teaching creationism as science, claiming that the founders were fundamentalist Christians who wanted to eradicate Islam, and that sex is evil until blessed by marriage? See, I can make assumptions based on my prejudices too.

Many of the amicus briefs filed in the DC gun control case pending before the Supreme Court are from minority groups seeking to establish their right to keep and bear arms because they are fearful of the righties. Have you ever heard of the Pink Pistols? Yes, gays are armed and dangerous!

[Quaoar]

Don't generalize. There are plenty of us who are pro choice on guns as well as abortion.

[klmebane]

when you speak of choice of education do you refer to the choice to have or not to have one??

i support our right to defend ourselves, but in a society with increasing gun violence that doesn't mean we should throw all gun control out the window.

a zygote is a clump of cells with the POTENTIAL to turn into a baby if the hostile environment of the uterus or body doesn't kill it first. at least half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (also known as a miscarriage) would they be criminals as well, kundera?

[Liberal2]

One option I've never heard from anti-choice wackos is a contract to bribe the woman to not abort the child but raise it through college. A bunch of wackos would contractually offer the woman a house, food, medical, clothing, a stipend, a good private school education for the child(cuz public school are sooooo bad) a 401K (cuz a mother should stay home to raise the child, not work......I bet many pregnant women would accept such an offer. But not one wacko would be willing to make such an offer. Their "generousity" doesn't extend to their wallets.

[MsLiz]

No, but they will be glad to take that perfect white baby and sell it to an infertile couple.

[schlitzntl]

For the same reasons that 'the righties' are pro-life, but not pro-welfare or pro-universal health care.
Because those are entirely different issues.
Whether or not a woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy is an entirely different issue from a person's right to own guns and each should be judged on their own merits and not based upon other views that an individual may hold.

[1will]

Good question.