Obama 'Present' Votes on Choice Don't Add Up

The above video comes from Barack Obama's official presidential website. It's meant as proof that his "present" votes on choice were the right thing to do and supported by Illinois NOW. However, the truth is quite different from what Lorna Brett is saying in the video. How do I know? Just today I've been trading emails with Bonnie Grabenhofer, IL NOW State President. She's pushing back hard on the outright misinformation in Obama's YouTube video, because what Brett is saying in it is evidently pure fabrication.

Below is part of the email Grabenhofer has sent out, which I received via email from readers. I have confirmed with Bonnie that she sent it. She's also very adamant about getting the truth out about Obama's "present" votes, which don't pass the smell test any more than Lorna Brett's video that was made on Obama's behalf.

I thought I'd take a moment to try to add some clarity to the anti-choice Present votes in IL.

Lorna Brett was president of CNOW from 1996-1998. She was not president at the time we were lobbying on these bills. Five of those votes occurred in the 92nd General Assembly session in 2001. NOW records indicate that she hasn't been a member since 1999. She was not there when we were lobbying against these bills. She is using her very old affiliation with NOW to try to validate her criticism of Hillary Clinton.

Voting Present on those bills was a strategy that Illinois NOW did not support. We made it clear at the time that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the awful anti-choice bills being put forth. Voting Present doesn't provide a platform from which to show leadership and say with conviction that we support a woman's right to choose and these bills are unacceptable.

The Present strategy was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district; he could have voted No with very little negative consequence in his district.

- Bonnie Grabenhofer
IL NOW State President

Obama's "present" votes do not explain his willingness to provide cover for conservatives when he was in the Illinois senate, which is his record, at the expense of taking a stand on women's civil rights. Frankly, I could care less what rating Mr. Obama gets from Planned Parenthood or any other group. I care what Obama does when asked to take a stand.

Obama's actions do not match his talk, any more than the video he's been pushing tells the truth. That's because Obama's willingly to reach across the aisle and bring people together, while also offering cover to conservatives, trumped taking a stand on an issue critical to women's civil rights. His let's make a deal style belies the substance at the heart of this issue. It's anything but leadership.

Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh

Comments

[nickzi]

Perhaps we could hear why Hillary didn't bother to read the intelligence before signing off on Bush's war? Perhaps we could hear why she let Walmart screw the unions? Perhaps we could hear why she voted for a creditcard bill she was glad did not pass? Want to discuss the other 100 good reasons why Clinton is unfit for office?

[sdskelton03]

This isn't about choice. Short of stopping by a clinic and performing one himself he has made it as clear as possible that he is pro-choice.

To the best of my knowledge, his position on abortion lines up in perfect sync with the far left of the democratic party.

So why does Ms. Marsh turn on him?

I don't know why, but I am positive it isn't about abortion.

[SEQUOIABISON]

Hillarys votes for War do not add up.

Voting to bomb Baghdad knowing it would kill thousands of innocent woman and children does not add up either.

Why are feminists conveniently overlooking Hillarys record when it comes to her bellicose saber rattling warmongering votes?

[AnninCA]

Wow......t­hat's amazing. I had wondered about that stategy. It seemed very regressive thinking to me.

OK, so what do we bet that nobody will ask Obama about this?

[vbond]

Barack Obama had the unequivocal support of Illinois Planned Parenthood:

"During his eight years in the legislature, Obama cast a number of votes on abortion and received a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives. He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive, a vote that especially riled abortion opponents.

"Obama, with his safe seat and position of power in the Illinois Senate, was able to vote "present" on bills presented by anti-choice Republicans — and because he voted "present," Democrats from embattled seats could also vote "present."

"The bills were not about making good law but about providing campaign fodder, and the "present" votes deprived Illinois Republicans from using a vote for choice to become a campaign weapon.

"Who thought up the strategy of voting "present"? Turned out it was Planned Parenthood working with Obama:

"But while Obama voted "present," he reportedly did not "decline[]" to take a position on the legislation — rather, his "present" votes were part of a strategy he had worked out with the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council in an effort to defeat the bill, according to the Council's CEO, Pam Sutherland.

"As ABCNews.com reported on July 17, Obama voted "present" on the two parental notification bills in 2001 "with the explicit support of the president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council."

"The Chicago Sun-Times further reported on December 4 that the "goal" of the strategy was "to entice moderate Republicans and Democrats to also vote present, helping to defeat the bills."

"The article quoted Sutherland saying of Obama, "The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did." "

[Vic in Chicago]

This is nonsense.

Both Hillary and Barack are solidly - SOLIDLY - pro-choice. This "voting present" nonsense is ridiculous, and smacks of desperation. Barack Obama is not a perfect candidate, but the people in Illinois know him well, and the charge that he is somehow weak on choice is just absurd.

It is a real disappointment to see the National Organization for Women, and its surrogates, reduce themselves to such hysterical, and false, charges.

From the shrill, over-the-top Gloria Steinem op-ed in The New York Times, to the New York NOW chapter branding Ted Kennedy's endorsement a "betrayal", well...it'­s just sad.

Ladies, you're better than this! There are legitimate differences between Hillary and Barack, worthy of serious debate. However, on "choice", there is no difference.

[RadicalRepublican]

Clinton/Obama 08
Obama/Clinton 08
Obama/Edwards 08
Clinton/Edwards 08
Clinton/Richardson 08
Obama/Richardson 08
Any of those tickets beat the hell out of Bush/Cheney 00 or 04
Take your fights to Romney, McCain and Huckabee!

[geg6]

Personally, I will take Planned Parenthood's word on what happened there over NOW's any day. NOW seems to have become the sort of organization that doesn't want anyone to think for themselves and sees things only in black or white, with no room for nuance or results over rhetoric. I can totally understand why Obama voted present in order to provide cover for others to do the same. And if the result is the same as a no vote, then what the hell is the problem?

Gawd. NOW is a complete embarassment. I never thought I'd live to see the day.

[jaywh1]

For the past eight years Bush has used fear to control America. Now, Hillary is sending the same message. She cautions against hope and claims that she can protect us from the risks of an unknown candidate. Fear is the tool of a weak leader. It was with Bush and it is with Hillary. Barack is pro-choice, and efforts to question that clear fact reveal the desparation of a fading candidate.

[awb]

Taylor Marsh?
The same Taylor Marsh who was in the middle of the Nevada Caucus baloney that President Clinton personally witnessed Obama people initimidating caucus goers?
The same Taylor Marsh who used some Clinton supporters at the Paris Hotel to drum up phony intimadation reports againt the Culinary Workers?
The same Taylor Marsh who had daily anti-Obama info to the Nevada voters?

You know the Nevada Caucus pre spin that was abruptly dropped when Sen Clinton got the most votes (and less delegates)
And when the Obama campaign actually filed suit with actual documents and the Clinton campaign dropped all "complaints" abruptly

That Taylor Marsh??

[GreenT2]

The legs on this one have long since waned in strength. This is an old, smelly red herring. All of the leading voices who haven't taken political sides have clearly stated that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards would vigorously protect a woman's right to choose. Anyone who would dare make the claim that Obama would compromise in this regard has been dizzified by all the spin.
Hillary's WalMart tenure, on the other hand--now _that's_ a story that still has legs.

[CadyM]

When SD was trying to pass a law actually criminalizing abortion, pro choice groups begged for help from senators and the only one who responded was Obama. Does that mean that I can claim that Hillary will not stand up for women's rights? Of course not. Senators Clinton and Obama are both pro choice so it's really silly to keep beating this dead horse.

[lynnn]

If democrats attack other democrats over strategy how does that end up benefiting pro-choice movement? I mean it seems like you are damned if you do and damned if you don't!

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

How many times on how many issues is Obama going to take the political fifth for voting "present?"

And how many times are his supporters going to turn the other cheek on this matter?

When you vote "present," you contribute to a bill NOT PASSING. Call present what it is, a "COWARD'S NAY."

He should have been taking STANDS, not voting in a way that wouldn't incriminate his future political ambitions.

[chefrasta]

Plan Parenthood in Illinois has already said that the strategy was to vote present on those abortion issues.You like your candidate will distort the truth and outright lie to win.Be very careful that in your zeal to win that you end up losing when you demonize the one candidate who had the wisdom to oppose this debacle that is killing our young and sucking our treasury dry.By the way didn't you vote for Reagan,if you was true to justice and the common good how can you explain that.