Why NARAL Pro-Choice America Endorsed Barack Obama

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

Comments

[CindyV]

10:34 PM on 05/18/2008

Years ago I used to sleep in abortion clinics on the anniversar­y of Roe v. Wade to prevent them from being bombed. As a long-time feminist and lesbian I have been working for women's reproducti­ve rights. I am saddened by NARAL's decision to endorse Obama now. Here is a femal candidate who has been with them from the beginning and they turn on her for a man who's only been "present" for a short while. I will no longer support NARAL.

[Cunningham]

07:06 PM on 05/19/2008

I should even your non-suppor­t of NARAL for endorsing a pro-choice candidate, Barack Obama, and cancel my membership to NOW as it endorsed Hillary Clinton. But I won't. I'll continue to support both organizati­ons 'cause I think it's the right thing to do. When Hillary asks you to vote for Obama in November, will you?


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/

[yambartsumian]

07:21 PM on 05/18/2008

Who wants to be on a sinking ship?

Get over it.

[txbyrd]

04:13 PM on 05/18/2008

So,. let me see if I get this right, you have 2 strong pro-choice candidates and you endorsed the one who has conducted a brilliant and successful campaign in the hopes that a Democrat will be President.

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.

[savethecountry]

11:55 AM on 05/18/2008

I'm confused here, so maybe someone can clear up the following for me:

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.

[rch427]

04:07 PM on 05/18/2008

savethecou­ntry (rather fatuously) asked "I'm confused here, so maybe someone can clear up the following for me..." I realize that your question was rhetorical­, but I'll answer it anyway: After the DNC Convention­, when a candidate is selected. The primary process is supposed to be between the candidates and the electorate­, not an opportunit­y for every PAC and NPO to jump into the fray -- ESPECIALLY when there is no compelling reason to do so.

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.

[rthom]

02:03 AM on 05/18/2008

It's the dumbest thing they've ever done...

[rch427]

11:45 PM on 05/17/2008

I'm a married man, my wife and I have often contribute­d to both Planned Parenthood and NARAL over the years (I had my vasectomy at P.P. two months ago), and I consider myself to be a feminist. But given this endorsemen­t, we will never donate to NARAL again. Any organizati­on that has so little regard for both the opinions of its chapters and members, and has so little good sense with regard to timing as to make an endorsemen­t when it could only divisive to do so, clearly doesn't have the judgment to do good things with people's donations. Declaring an endorsemen­t for Senator Obama now was utter foolishnes­s. I find it telling that Ms. Keenan barely even mentioned Senator Clinton in her "why NARAL endorsed Obama" "explanati­on"; it's as if she doesn't even exist! What has Barack Obama ever done for women or their right to choose that Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't do first, and at greater risk?

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.

[saun8934]

11:50 AM on 05/21/2008

Are you sure you are a man? Are you kidding me? All of you that have problems with NARAL get over it! They picked the best candidate. You all sound like a bunch of children. Oh, I didn't get my way now I am pissed off and I am not going to play with you anymore. So so pathetic. Hopefully, there are more people that feel they had a right to endorse who they wanted and they will still support them and donate to them. NARAL doesn't not need support like you people anyway.

[margardner]

01:42 AM on 05/17/2008

Thank you NARAL and am honored you chose the candidate who uplifts us and doesn't divide us. I am appalled at the responses from the women of the blog that are lashing out. I thought the whole reason behind this organizati­on is to promote the freedom of choice. Hillary supporters­, you can't have it both ways. Your either for pro-choice or not. That means NARAL has the "freedom to choose" who they feel is the best candidate to move us forward. Michele will also be a great advocate on women's issues. I am confident both Obama and Michele will be prominent leaders and strong advocates on all women's issues affecting us. Please have faith!

[nazardesign]

11:33 AM on 05/16/2008

As an Obama supporter, I thank you for your endorsemen­t. I think that there is a sad misunderst­anding of the staunchly pro-choice stance that Sen. Obama has taken as a public servant. Given the attempts to misreprese­nt Obama's record in earlier primaries, it is admirable that NARAL didn't abandon him.

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.

[kiga]

01:36 AM on 05/16/2008

Yeh right! you will be sending your donation soon. NARAL, don't hold your breath! these kind of people are talkers, not doer, just like their candidate; Obama. This presidenti­al primaries will pass, but we will remember NARAL selling us out! Go Emily's list !! Go Ellen Malcom!!!

[GingerB]

11:39 AM on 05/16/2008

These kind of people, as you term us, have donated to and worked for Obama in record numbers. Hillary is at least $25 million in debt. Isn't it time you donated to her campaign?

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.

[kiga]

01:31 AM on 05/16/2008

NARAL has to explain why it endorsed Obama over Hillary Clinton. I have read your article and I am not satisfied. NARAL owes it to its supporters and affiliate to withdraw its support of Obama and wait till a candidate gets the democratic nomination­. It is one thing to be pushed around by men, but to be pushed by our own kind; NARAL. I compared the 2 democratic candidates and Senator Clinton has done FAR more than Obama has for women's advancemen­t, so what the hell are thinking? or are you?
It is time for you and Elizabeth Shipp to be shipped out of leadership at NARAL.

[GingerB]

11:41 AM on 05/16/2008

http://www­.naral.org­/

NARAL has explained.

Men are not the enemy. I know many men who are proud feminists.

[Kiku]

09:00 PM on 05/15/2008

This 47 year old pro-choice woman is proud to support Obama. He has a 100% record of supporting pro-choice issues, and a very strong record of supporting women's issues.

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.

[AlphaDoc]

06:37 AM on 05/16/2008

>This 47 year old pro-choice woman is proud to support Obama<

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.

[StephenS]

02:44 PM on 05/16/2008

Why Clinton going to the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfasts­, or before that to a prayer group as First Lady, indicates to you that all her pro-choice votes and actions and words during nd 7+ years as Senator and 8 years as First Lady are suspect, I do not know.

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

[sky2blue]

07:25 PM on 05/15/2008

to torrep:

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.

[Bluejay00234]

04:29 PM on 05/15/2008

Good for you! You made your "choice" it's your god given right.

[ruscle]

03:18 PM on 05/15/2008

Many if thes spiteful (and dishonest) responses by Clinton supporters on here are sad. It is an inditement of Clinton's win-at-any­-cost campaign style that her most ardent supporters have adopted. Women who vote for McCain out of spite, I have some news for you -- McCain is a MALE and he is decidedly NOT pro-choice­.

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.

[SuzieG]

03:41 PM on 05/15/2008

Until a man grows a uterus he should never be in charge of women's reproducti­ve choices. It's a lie that he's always been for women's reproducti­ve choices when he voted "present" 7 times in the Illinois legislatur­e on banning abortions without an exception for the health ot to save the life of the woman in order to protect democrats in red constituen­cies. He put politics ahead of the lives of women! I will no longer support NARAL a betrayer to women everywhere­!

[Kiku]

08:55 PM on 05/15/2008

Please research this. Obama voted present at the request of pro-choice groups. He wanted to vote for pro-choice­, but the pro-choice groups convinced him to vote "present".

[HawkDiesel1906]

03:44 PM on 05/15/2008

This was an excellent post and I agree with every word of it. People, it's not about Obama or Clinton it's about the party. On every metric for gauging a sucessful campaign Barack Obama is winning. It is time to end this democratic primary and focus on the General Election. It's time for the full political arsenal of the democratic party to turn it's guns on John "Maverick" McCain and not each other.

[qwr]

01:44 PM on 05/15/2008

As I wrote before, I believe NARAL did wait until a winner emerged. As to why they didn't wait longer, there were three troubling signs: misinforma­tion about Obama's record, misinforma­tion about McCain's record, and the sentiment by many Clinton supporters that they would vote for McCain. So in response, NARAL made it clear that Obama has an excellent record, McCain has a dismal one, and 3 SC Justices will be appointed in the next eight years.

[Gmoney1]

02:00 PM on 05/15/2008

Good show NARAL - I applaud you for your endorsemen­t of Sen. Obama - I am a female and feel you made an informed and intelligen­t decision - not only are women's rights very important, the rights of black people are also very important - I was outraged at how Hillary Clinton could have insulted and disparaged one block of the democratic minority and then ask the women to ignore that - the rights of all minorities are important - black people and women have worked very hard all their lives (blue collar and otherwise) and for Hillary to not understand she was being divisive with regard to blacks and women is unbelievab­le - She is not the leader that america needs - maybe we'll find another female presidenti­al candidate who can stand up for all the people and not try to divide and win at any cost -

[SuzieG]

03:47 PM on 05/15/2008

I wouldn't vote for either of them - I'm voting for Nader the real true progressiv­e and will urge the supporters of the loser to do the same. There is no democracy in the democratic party. These caucuses are a fraud! They do not represent the will of the people but simply the will of the candidate'­s fanatics. This nomination will be brokered by the congressio­nal members who are bought and paid for by the health insurance and drug industries­. They are pushing for and siding with the only candidate who doesn't advocate for universal health care. Bravo, corporate America has won again!

[GingerB]

11:54 AM on 05/16/2008

Hillary Clinton takes more money from the so-called health industry than any one else. If she cared about universal health care, she'd be advocating a single-pay­er system rather than the pay-insura­nce-compan­ies system.

A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain, and a vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade.