I am pleased to announce that today, NARAL Pro-Choice America's political action committee endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president.
I know that most of you are probably thinking, "Why did you decide to endorse Obama, and why are you doing it now?"
Sen. Obama has been a strong advocate for a woman's right to choose throughout his career in public service. Since joining the Senate in 2005, he has worked to unite Americans on both sides of this debate behind commonsense, common-ground ways to prevent unintended pregnancy. He supports legislation to provide our teens with comprehensive sex education, prevent pharmacies from denying women access to their legal birth-control prescriptions, and increase access for family-planning services.
Sen. Obama has said, "A woman's ability to decide how many children to have and when, without interference from the government, is one of the most fundamental rights we possess. It is not just an issue of choice, but equality and opportunity for all women."
Further, I believe Sen. Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee. He leads in pledged delegates, superdelegates, the popular vote, and cash-on-hand. As a former elected official, I know that having the three "m's" of a campaign - money, message and manpower (or womanpower!) - are how we win elections. Sen. Obama will be our next president.
Now, let's take a look at the opposition. Sen. McCain has been getting a free ride for far too long. As even Dan Balz says, until there is a head-to-head, McCain will continue on as the media-maverick darling. We must show voters how extreme McCain really is and contrast his record with that of Sen. Obama, the candidate for the pro-choice majority. NARAL Pro-Choice America is unique in our ability to reach the crucial voting bloc of Republican and independent pro-choice women. These voters are essential to win the White House and we've seen that Obama can inspire them to vote for him in November.
Finally, NARAL Pro-Choice America, as the political leader of the pro-choice movement, felt it was time to take a leadership role. We have been so fortunate to have two fully pro-choice candidates running for the Democratic nomination and to that end, we've consistently praised both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama for their leadership in standing up for women's reproductive rights. We continue to look forward to working with them in the future. But, for the sake of the reproductive-rights movement, we need to put any perceived differences behind us, and get to work putting Sen. Obama in the White House. We want to let women know that, no doubt about it, we have trust and confidence in Obama's ability and willingness to fight for a woman's right to choose. He's already proven himself in that regard.
We all know that America is a pro-choice nation, and whether you live in a red state or a blue state, whether you're young or you're old, whether you're black, latino, asian, or white, whether you are a man or a woman, we know that Sen. Obama will represent our interests well in the White House and make sure that reproductive choice is protected.
Sen. Obama is the leader who can unify Americans on both sides of our issue. He has reached new generations and energized young voters, independent voters, and Republican voters. He's the candidate of the future, and today we are proud to put the power of NARAL Pro-Choice America's one million strong members, activists and supporters behind Sen. Barack Obama.
Nancy Keenan is president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Follow Nancy Keenan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NARAL
Posted on another thread:
KiwisCanFly
There are two sides to this issue patch61
Obama's critics say he ducked a "no" vote; supporters say it was a tactical move.
Obama should have voted "no" on those bills, said Bonnie Grabenhofer, president of the Illinois chapter of the National Organization for Women, which has endorsed Clinton.
But Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said Obama was helping advance a pro-choice agenda by voting present.
"He always was going to vote 'no' on these bills. We needed to keep some of our moderate Democrats from voting yes, which is something you never want to happen," Sutherland said. By having a well-known supporter of abortion rights also vote present, it gave other Democrats cover, she said.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/339/
Get over it.
Instead of assuming that a woman should be endorsed.
To me, feminism is not judging people based on gender.
Good for you! We need more of this style of feminism.
Would June 4, the close of the primary season, have been a better time for NARAL to endorse Obama? Given the vitriol still coming from Clinton supporters, perhaps THAT would have been too soon. How about August, just prior to the Democratic convention? Still too soon, eh, how about the day after the general election? Still not right, then how about the day after Obama is sworn in as president? Still premature? How about the day, perhaps in his first term, when he gets the chance to make his first US Supreme Court appointment (he has a 100% voting record on NARAL issues), a person who may hold sway on NARAL's issues for the next 20 or 30 years, and a person who might be confirmed by a SOLIDLY Democratic Senate (meaning Obama won't have to field a compromise candidate)? Still not a good time? Okay, well, we're running out of options here...
Hey, I have a date that'll please some Clinton supporters: the 12th of never.
THIS MYOPIA WILL SET BACK WOMEN'S RIGHTS AT LEAST 35 YEARS.
Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.
If you choose to you can pick up your ball and go home. In the meantime the ADULTS have business to conduct and a campaign to wage and win that moves this nation into the 21st century and beyond and not return it to the 1950s.
You point out that Obama "has a 100% voting record on NARAL issues". So does Clinton. So since the differences between them are so slight, WHY GIVE AN ENDORSEMENT NOW? It just pollutes the process. Believe me, I'm not happy about EMILY's List or other groups endorsing Clinton ahead of time either, but they are at least more overtly committed to fielding female candidates. NARAL is supposed to reach out to men as well. And as a man, I am at a loss to understand why NARAL would stab one of the most tireless supporters of women's rights (not just reproductive) in the back, because they think they've found a candidate that's 2% better. And more to the point, I cannot understand why they would feel any sort of urgency to endorse before all of the states had the opportunity to hold their primaries. Their logic and their timing defy any good sense.
Whether you or I consider one candidate or the other to be better for the position isn't really the issue. The issue is WHY make this endorsement NOW? There was absolutely no compelling reason. There was nothing to gain and much to lose, as NARAL is no doubt discovering by how many long-time supporters have said that they feel betrayed and will never donate again. Just like us. Shame on NARAL.
I also read your endorsement not as a rebuke of Sen. Clinton, but as a recognition of who many agree is the Presidential nominee for the Democratic Party. It's evident from your letter that NARAL would be equally as enthusiasitc to have Sen. Clinton's pro-choice stance representing the party in the election, but supporting the most likely candidate is understandable and makes the most sense.
Again, thank you.
I'm a member of NOW and NARAL. I didn't stop donating to NOW when it endorsed Clinton and I won't stop donating to NARAL since it endorsed Obama. Neither organization sold me out. BOTH candidates are pro-women and pro-choice.
It is time for you and Elizabeth Shipp to be shipped out of leadership at NARAL.
NARAL has explained.
Men are not the enemy. I know many men who are proud feminists.
I think Obama will be a more successful president that Hillary could be because of his personality. Therefore, I think that he will be better for woman's rights than Hillary would be.
Thank you NARAL for being a leader in the field. I will send you a donation shortly.
As is this 54 year-old one. Obama is one of the few polis I've ever heard use the actual words "I am pro-choice," without hesitation or equivocation. Ever since I'd read about Clinton's affiliation with "The Family," that Senate prayer group which has included the likes of Brownback, Ashcroft and Santorum, I've been wondering about her own stance on a woman's right to choose, wondering if it has changed. Would a staunch group of right-wing anti-choicers actually allow a pro-choicer into their inner circle? Somehow, it doesn't seem likely.
I do know that no one has been producing objectionable quotes from either venue. If they do, the Repub and Democratic senators, predominantly Christian though with a Jewish co-chair in 2006, will stop the breakfasts.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-01-30-prayer-breakfast_x.htm
Not every state allows abandonment without question.
I won't be held accountable for someone else's choice.
2/3 of abortions today have something to do with the mother's/family's financial struggles. Most abortions have nothing to do with convience. And even those that are only about sheer convience of not wanting stretch marks - I can't decide for someone else she has to have the stretch marks. She'll be held accountable for her actions; I'll be held accountable for mine; neither of us will be held accountable for the decisions of the other.
Clinton has thrown so many people and so many states under the bus in her quest for the White House, that it seems she now has women trained to throw their own interests under the bus just to spite themselves.
Sad for Women. Sad for Men. Sad for our country.
Just sad.
A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain, and a vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade.