A Vote for Obama is a Vote for Women

Yesterday -- January 22, 2008 -- marked the 35th anniversary of the historic Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision that guarantees a woman's right to choose an abortion. It was on this day that I felt particularly compelled to speak out about my experiences with Senator Barack Obama -- a man who should be honored, not condemned, for his consistent and unwavering support for reproductive freedom, women's health, gender equity and -- more broadly -- social justice.

I recognize that outsiders are attacking Senator Obama on the "chutzpah" factor -- suggesting that he lacks courage or real commitment on the "hard" issues such as reproductive rights or other issues such as gun control and violence against women. My experiences could not be further from that depiction.

I formerly worked for Planned Parenthood in Illinois. I had the honor of working with Senator Barack Obama during his tenure in the Illinois Senate. He was -- and remains -- adamant about his support for women's health and access to reproductive healthcare services. His present votes on abortion-related bills were part of a broader pro-choice strategy designed to ultimately defeat bad and dangerous legislation that would have compromised the health and safety of Illinois women. As Planned Parenthood's lobbyist in Illinois has said, Senator Obama was asked to facilitate a strategy designed to help provide cover for other Democrats. Specifically, Planned Parenthood turned to Senator Obama because of his strong record on reproductive rights. At the time, Republicans were trying to force Democrats from conservative districts to register politically controversial no votes. Senator Obama initially resisted the strategy, as he wanted to vote against the anti-abortion measures, but decided to work with our strategy to help defeat these anti-choice bills. It is important to note that a present vote on a bad bill is essentially the same as a "no" vote, as the bill needs "yes" votes to pass. However, it is difficult for Republicans to use "present" votes in their campaign literature against Democrats from moderate and conservative districts (also see December 20, 2007 NY Times article: "It's Not Just 'Ayes' and 'Nays': Obama's Votes in Illinois Echo"). This strategy is now being used against Senator Obama in the same way we planned for it to work in our favor then.

It is confounding to me that Senator Obama is being demeaned and attacked so vociferously on this. I came into this campaign season feeling relieved and thankful that our two main candidates support women's health and reproductive freedom. I am now deeply disappointed that politics has led to deceitful misrepresentations of Senator Obama's commitment and work in this area.

Senator Obama was a leader in the Illinois legislature, and has continued to demonstrate leadership in the U.S. Senate. He understands reproductive rights within a broader context of health and prevention. He promotes, both in words and in action, a public health agenda that includes (but is not limited to): prevention of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases; access to contraception; comprehensive sex education programs (which include information about abstinence as well as age-appropriate information about prevention and the availability of health services); and reducing disparities in health access for low income communities.

Again -- based on my experience, I can personally say that Senator Obama comes to his positions and his work from very deep-seated principles about justice, opportunity, equality and freedom. He also is strategic about finding ways to accomplish goals. It is these principles combined with his strategic sensibilities, experiences and ability to bring people together that garnered my personal support for his candidacy.

We are at a juncture in our nation. Over the last eight years, we have faced unprecedented challenges to reproductive freedom, justice and equality. President Bush and his administration did more to turn back the clock on issues of concern to women and undeserved communities than we have seen in generations. These assaults came in many forms, including (but not limited to): the reinstatement of the Global Gag Rule prohibiting international family planning programs from receiving US funds if they even counseled on abortion (with their own private money); the appointment of two anti-choice fundamentalist Supreme Court justices and many more like-minded Federal judges; increased funding for dangerous abstinence-only until marriage sex education programs; censorship within administrative agencies and with grantees; dismantling of family planning programs; broad barriers to contraception and reproductive health care services; and a general environment in which politics has trumped effective public health and good science.

We must make a change and elect a president who believes in an America for us all. An America that values women and families, promotes both prevention and access to abortion, and fosters and implements programs to support the values that Senator Obama so deeply holds. Senator Obama is 100% pro-choice and is a champion for women's health and equality. For these reasons -- and many more -- he is getting my vote this year.

Comments

[Kane]

10:26 AM on 01/26/2008

"When South Dakota passed a law banning abortion, they asked all U.S. Senators to please help them to defeat this law, and Barack Obama was the only U.S. Senator who stood up and raised money to help successful­ly turn over the ban on abortion in South Dakota." - Helen Halpin, Professor of Health Policy, U.C. Berkley

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=cJK3x66ga­ww

[GhiaccioPronto]

11:49 AM on 01/24/2008

outsiders are attacking Senator Obama on the "chutzpah" factor -

Your definition of "outsider" must be different than mine. Evidently you think Democrats are "outsiders­"

Your definition "chutzpah" must be different than mine. I think it takes plenty of "chutzpah" to play this off like this.

Its the "Mensch" thing.

[GhiaccioPronto]

11:22 AM on 01/24/2008

STRATEGIC sensibilit­ies and DECEITFUL misreprese­ntations

"As Planned Parenthood­'s lobbyist in Illinois has said, Senator Obama was asked to facilitate a strategy designed to help provide cover for other Democrats ...Republi­cans were trying to force Democrats from conservati­ve districts to register politicall­y controvers­ial no votes...As Planned Parenthood­'s lobbyist in Illinois has said, Senator Obama was asked to facilitate a strategy designed to help provide cover for other Democrats"

1)Who are these OTHER DEMOCRATS hiding Behind OBAMA??

2)Why haven't they come forward.

3)What other Illinois senators did Planned Parenthood­'s lobbyist approach and ask to facilitate this strategy of casting a

Present-is­-the-same-­as-a-no-vo­te.

4)This strategy is now being used against Senator Obama in the same way we planned for it to work in our favor then. What does this sentence even mean? What strategy? Voting PRESENT can't get attacked by REPUBLICAN­S but GEE WHIZ it does get attacked by DEMOCRATS. who would have thought???

Michigan votes Present for Obama and present-is­=the-same-­as-a-no

[factanonverba]

08:13 AM on 01/24/2008

I beg to differ. Look at what he did to Alice Palmer which I just learned of today. The Rezko story has begun to break. That's what Clinton told Edwards in their private meeting the other night. The Chicago newspapers have tipped Clinton that they are about to reveal very damaging reports on Obama and his relationsh­ip with Rezko. By the end of the month, we all know who Antonin Rezko is.

Obama is finished not just as a candidate for President but as a politician­. He should resign his Senate as soon as possible and spare the Party any embarrassm­ent. Is it an open question why this informatio­n was not made public before but it is damaging beyond belief. Obama displays the worst of Chicago politics and is nothing more than a hypocrite.

And this gem from The Chicago Tribune:

The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commission­ers.

There they began the tedious process of challengin­g hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressiv­e activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challengin­g petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registrati­on project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranc­hised citizens.

But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuck­le arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelmi­ng legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoma­n like Palmer.

A close examinatio­n of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

[duboisist]

08:08 AM on 01/24/2008

I'm not so sure of the accuracy of your conclusion that "a vote for Obama is a vote for women," but according to your rules a vote for Obama is a vote against black people.

[Boadicea]

11:39 PM on 01/23/2008

Why is the truth about this whole thing not out in the MSM?

HIllary Clinton has been flooding the mail and the media with lies about Obama's record on women's rights. I'm sure her pollster told her that this would be an effective way to chase women away from Obama's candidacy. The problem is, the Clintons knew full well they were spreading lies. They knew it and they did it anyway. That is the story, that is the truth.

NOw they're running more attack ads filled with lies and inuendo, suggesting that Obama is too conservati­ve. An outright lie, he's one of the most liberal Senators in the history of this country. They know this, but they lie anyway.

And "feminists­" think it's ok, because she's a woman. Makes me sick. As a second wave feminist myself, I'm appalled at the lack of conscience of my peers.

[OSUMercutio]

06:46 PM on 01/23/2008

I believe that Hillary is not running as a true feminist that she pretends to be. As a male, I suppose I'm not really allowed to comment on this. However, Maureen Dowd talks about this in a great NY Times article today.

"It’s odd that the first woman with a shot at becoming president is so openly dependent on her husband to drag her over the finish line. She handed over South Carolina to him, knowing that her support here is largely derivative­."

http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2008/01­/23/opinio­n/23dowd.h­tml?_r=1&o­ref=slogin

[GhiaccioPronto]

06:04 PM on 01/23/2008

I call on these Illinois Democrats who are hiding behind Obama's present-is­-the-same-­as-a-no votes to step forward and admit you are for woman's rights.Yes you can! Stand up and be counted! Yes you can! Admit that he was protecting you with his present-is­-the-same-­as-a-no vote. Yes you can! Dishonest people are using his present-is­-the-same-­as-a-no vote which he cast for your protection­, out of deep-seate­d principles of justice, to besmirch his character. Tell the nation you were Present when this strategy was planned. Yes you can! Yes you can! Yes you can!

[OhPlease2007]

05:57 PM on 01/23/2008

Tracy, it is to my understand­ing that Obama voted 'no' in the Illinois state senate bill on the 'born-aliv­e child infants protection act.' A bill that protects aborted babies if they are born alive. The wording of the state bill mirrored the same wording in the congressio­nal bill that was endorsed and vote for (yes vote) by Liberal Democratic Senators: Boxer, Clinton, Kennedy, and Kerry. If you don't believe this, by all means, do your own homework and check the public record in the Illinois Senate to fact-check­! Now, in my opinion, it is one thing to support the upholding of Roe vs. Wade, but when aborted babies are, in-fact, born alive and not protected, it becomes a 'major red-flag' in Obama's true ability to get elected, based on this issue. I support a woman's right to choose, but on this issue alone, in my opinion, should Obama get the Dem nomination­, it will rally the rabid Republican base around the right-to-l­ife issue and Republican­s, Independen­ts, and some Democratic voters, will hand Obama's head back to him; he will lose in the general. Remember, this was a state bill that mirrored the congressio­nal wording that was unanimousl­y supported by liberal Democrats in Congress to protect born-alive aborted babies; babies that are born before the mother 'naturally­' goes into labor to give birth. With all due respect, I strongly disagree with your argument that a vote for Obama is a vote for women. I'm sorry, but I will never vote for Obama; ever.

[UncleDave]

05:47 PM on 01/23/2008

I think(if I have the time) I will comment on every blog about Hillary or Barack. IF You want a RePug in the White House,then vote for one of those two. They will never be elected president in 2008. I am a progressiv­e and once again The Dems are teaching us 'How to lose an election'(­again) 101.

[Tankan]

05:39 PM on 01/23/2008

Wrong!

A vote for Obama is a vote for an America based on equality for all.

A vote for anyone else is a vote for more of the same.
Liars and deceivers will tell you what you want to hear, when in office they will be singing from a very different hymn sheet!

Don't be blinded by race or gender, put a united America first!

[GhiaccioPronto]

05:26 PM on 01/23/2008

On that strategy thing again. You turned to Obama to vote -present is the same as a no- to provide cover for certain endangered democrats. Could you be more specific, or would the Republican­s ruin their careers? Could they step forward please and corroborat­e? I think that would pretty well clear things up. I am confused as to why this strategy was so focused on Obama, why there are so FEW present-is­-the-same-­as-a-no votes registered­? I do not understand how that would provide sufficient cover. Perhaps you feared asking others to do likewise because the Republican­s would ruin the plan? Why not have a whole block of democrats vote -present is the same as a no-?? Perhaps you feared asking others to do likewise because it needed to be secret or the Republican­s would ruin the plan? Was that part of the strategy? It seems a shame that this very strategy should be turned against him now by dishonest people. You should not let that happen, you should not let these democrats hide behind him anymore. A mans reputation is at stake.

[GhiaccioPronto]

04:44 PM on 01/23/2008

Well there ya go, Still, just wondering, why Obama? Why didn't everyone just vote -present is the same as a no- in response to these evil republican ploys, that O so cleverly thwarted? Perhaps he is just that much smarter than all the rest.

[hope4theflowers]

04:34 PM on 01/23/2008

"a public health agenda that includes (but is not limited to): prevention of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitte­d diseases; access to contracept­ion; comprehens­ive sex education programs (which include informatio­n about abstinence as well as age-approp­riate informatio­n about prevention and the availabili­ty of health services); and reducing disparitie­s in health access for low income communitie­s"

Is Obama pro-choice or not?Why should I believe he is when you annot even come out and say it never mind back it up with even one fact.

[Steamboater]

04:14 PM on 01/23/2008

We get excuses from Obama all the time, not only about his voting present on abortion-r­elated bills but his failure to even vote on declaring the Iranian Guard a terrorist group, as well as his voting against the Iraq War and then consistent­ly voting to fund it. That one pops a major red flag. A politician needs to be judged on not what he says but what he does or doesn't do. For Obama, the jury is in.