Setting the Record Straight: Illinois NOW's Story on Obama Has Changed Over Time

I'm here to set the record straight about Barack Obama's record on reproductive choice. Barack Obama has always been committed to a woman's right to choose. He has a 100% pro-choice voting record both in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois Senate.

Barack Obama has NEVER wavered.

You wouldn't know this from Illinois NOW's recent statements on Obama's record. The fact is that it is NOT Obama who has wavered, Illinois NOW is the one who's changed its mind.

When Obama was an Illinois state senator he worked with Planned Parenthood to develop a strategy combating a series of extreme anti-choice measures designed to paint pro-choice legislators into a corner. Obama and numerous other state senators voted "present" on these bills in order to protest the politicization of the health and safety of Illinois women. Illinois is one of the few states that allows legislators to voice their objections to legislation through a "present" vote. These "present" votes are counted in the official roll call of the bill, and they DO affect the outcome. For all intents and purposes, they are a vote against the bill. As a matter of fact, Senator Obama wanted to vote "no" on these bills. But, he stood with his colleagues in protest against the anti-choice extremists who controlled the Illinois Senate at the time.

During his time as a state senator, no major pro-choice organization questioned Obama's present votes. Instead, Obama received endorsements from Personal PAC, NARAL of Illinois PAC, the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, and, YES, EVEN Illinois NOW.

That's right! Illinois NOW endorsed Barack Obama in his elections in 1998 and 2002 AFTER he voted "present" on several bills. As Illinois NOW officials have stated, they were aware of the "present" vote strategy, and they still endorsed him. They also endorsed several other prominent Illinois politicians who voted the same way.

It is only after years have past that Illinois NOW has changed its mind. Apparently, these days they don't agree with the strategy that they originally endorsed. Why didn't they think that in 1998 or 2002?

I don't know why Illinois NOW has changed its opinion of Barack Obama since his record has remained the same and since his time as a state senator, he has only demonstrated a full and steady commitment to choice.

I don't take issue with Illinois NOW having a preference for a woman candidate for president. However, I do take issue with their distortion of Obama's record.

My organization has not made an endorsement yet because we have two solidly 100% pro-choice candidates running for President. However, we feel it is important to defend Senator Obama (or any candidate) who has stood with us to protect our precious reproductive freedoms.

If we don't defend people who stand with us, how can we ever expect them to be there when the going gets tough?

Read more Super Tuesday coverage on HuffPost

Comments

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

One would think it more likely that the "inexperienced" Barack Obama would use the smoke and mirrors strategy in order to win, talking up a short record while downplaying a weak grasp of the issues, hoping we'll overlook all this.

Yet it's Hillary Clinton, who tends to gain more support from voters without a college education, who is trying to fool Democrats in order to win, who is glossing over the facts and trying to scare us with false distinctions.

First, abortion. I believe her victory in New Hampshire had more to do with the flyers she sent out scaring women voters about Obama's pro-choice record than with her tearing up or getting picked on by Chris Matthews. But it's a distinction that doesn't exist: Obama is as pro-choice as Hillary.

In fact, Hillary-- not Obama-- gave a jaw-dropping "safe, legal, and not ever" speech on abortion positioning herself as a centrist.

Universal health care is another area where Hillary is hoping voters just don't notice before they vote. If Hillary were for a single-payer, truly universal plan, I would be impressed. But hers is a plan that puts more profits in the pockets of private insurance companies-- and would only work if those who did not buy private health insurance were charged fines. It's a good plan, but it's not one that gives her bragging rights over Obama's plan.

Obama's plan would cover all children. It would lower premiums and deductibles for those who have health insurance but can't afford it. Hillary is trying to scare us by saying Obama's plan leaves out "15 million." That's like Bush saying Democrats want to raise taxes on Americans-- sure, on the top 1%. Just like some wealthy people won't buy health insurance. But Hillary will force it on them because universal health care is a "core Democratic value"?

Voting for a dumb war in Iraq is not a "core Democratic value." And using false fears to get votes is not Democratic either.

[Oeht]

The strategy was designed to protect other pro-choice Democrats that represented Republican districts. It was done to keep Republicans from using their vote against them come the elections in '98 and '02. Look it up! He was only trying to assist his Democratic colleagues. Just like he did at the convention in '04 by saying he didn't know how he would've voted on the war. He was protecting Kerry and Edwards. Do your research on it! Clinton is just using spin against him.

[Mysticalsister]

Ok -- so let me get this straight. Obama voted present as part of a strategy that Planned Parenthood was aware of --

Can anyone explain to me why it has taken this long for the "present" votes to be explained? This was brought up twice in two debates, and all this time I have predicated my decision not to vote for him on the basis that, in my opinion, this showed a lack of conviction and the self-serving desire to avoid taking a political hit on a controversial issue.

Now I learn from a blogger that this was not the case, that it was in fact, a "strategy." Why then has his campaign not addressed it.

Could it be that there was in fact more than one reason he didn't just vote no? Was this "present" vote in fact to give a man with national political aspirations, some cover on a vote that could do damage down the line? If it was such an acceptable thing to do, why not just come out and defend it? But he said nothing.

I find his sales pitch that somehow he's above politics to sound even more hollow now that I know this. Clearly he's been on this track for some time now. Which is ok, they all do it -- he just shouldn't try to sell people on his purity. He's a politician, just like Hillary. At least she doesn't try to pretend to be something other than who she is.

[lovethesinner]

"If we don't defend people who stand with us, how can we ever expect them to be there when the going gets tough?"

Another way to look at it...

Why should anyone support an organization that permits it's members to be dishonest and abusive just because that organization also stands for a woman's right to choose?

[LeoMarvin]

I love Barack and Hillary annoys me. But I keep reminding myself that the alternative to one or the other of them is too horrible to contemplate. The message of today's votes was, "Strap yourselves in kids, it's going to be a bumpy ride." So let's try not to kill each other before we get to the convention. That's when the real race begins.

[patrice37]

And to think of how fanatically I fought for abortion rights in the '60's .... I had no idea that NOW had turned into a bunch of freaky old ladies who are broadcasting disinformation in order to get an old lady elected. If you want to tell them what you think, here's the link:

www.now.org/comments.html

Go ahead and fill their damn mailbox.

[Ides]

I think I'm about to give up "debating" with some of these people. I just keep a notepad with copies of links I can copy and paste in response. Saves me time.

[ChiGuy]

The fact that various NOW chapters have come out against Obama using this lie points to factions that have decided that a woman should win the nomination regardless of who else is in the running.

I thought NOW was against sexism.

[zull2]

I have an issue with anyone who'd prefer a woman president solely on the basis of her gender, just like I'd have an issue with anyone who'd prefer a male president solely on the basis of his gender. That's called sexism, either way you look at it, and it's essentially the same as flipping the bird at years of struggle by folks who realize that embracing gender and racial equality is the morally right and progressive choice.

If NOW is attacking someone they once endorsed solely because the folks running it only want a woman president, and nothing else, then members of NOW should protest that decision. If they support Hillary Clinton for the issues, then that's fine. But if they're going to attack Obama as a surrogate for Clinton, then they've got to explain themselves a whole lot better than they have.

[rwe]

no matter the spin 1.4 million unborn children terminated per year.

[illinoisan]

Didn't I read somewhere that the "present" votes were recommended by NOW as part of their legislative strategy when unwelcome amendments were added?

[illinoisan]

Just say no to dirty tricks. Obama NOW!

[john456]

NOW lost credibility years ago when it became a personality cultfor the Clintons; like the Republican Party has become over Reagan and Bush II.

[isis]

Thank you for clearing up the on going spin.

[tstamp]

thank you. important post.
obama '08