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

[LisainNYC]

Tracy, this is a great post and shows just how disengenuous Hillary Clinton's (and now Edwards') attacks on Obama have been.

Clinton sent out a deceptive mailer using theses present votes in NH just before their primary. It is much more likely that these deceptive mailers, rather than Hillary's tears, changed any female voters' minds.

[bauersox]

Obama wasn't a "leader in the Illinois legislature." In the first place, the Illinois State Senate is a part time job. In the second place, Obama was hardly ever there. And he got into the state legislature by depriving his mentor -- Alice Palmer -- of her seat, in a manner that can charitably be described as "two-faced." And he won his US Senate seat virtually be default, after a series of scandals basically removed his opposition.

[facemn]

Great article. I'm glad someone is writing about this. I hope that women all over the country hear about this.

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/
http://barackforpresident08.blogspot.com/

[mainstreetgirl]

Yes, BUT Obama never acknowledges any of this with the same taking of responsibility. Smart as he is, he should have known not only that these questions would come up in the primary but that they will make mincemeat of him in the general. This is the problem with what he did or didn't say about Reagan and the Republicans. He takes a posture, instead, of blaming the blamer instead of saying, you know you're right, I can see how that could be misconstrued, and then move on. He reveals himself more and more as not ready for the Oval Office when statements that can be misused have global ramifications. And none of that demeans him for the stalwart activist he is. His other mistake is to make his battle now against the Clintons - HUBRIS, Obama, look what it did to the Republicans !!!

[SteveD]

Tracy Fischman is a consultant for non-profit and political organizations, ..... Do you now work for a company? Are you now available to work for nonprofits outside the arena of "Choice"?? please email me at emilydfund AT gmail. thanks, Steve

[veemarge]

It's my understanding that the Illinois National Organization for Women PAC did not endorse BO due to his "present" votes on reproductive freedom.

[Anthmroy]

Thank you!!!!
Amongst all the lies being perpetuated by a former President and first lady I used to respect, it is refreshing to find the truth. The Clintons have no shame. And if the Democratic party is not smart enough to see the tremendous opportunity before us to elect an honest person with integrity, leadership and judgement, than we are a party that will deserve to be divided. As a Democrat, I will not stand for the Clintons. I am not alone.

[AnAmerican]

Laughable. A 'present' vote is the same as a 'no' vote but the GOP couldn't use a 'present' vote in their literature against Obama?

That explanation is ridiculous, and it doesn't explain why if Obama was taking a stand, why he'd be fearful of GOP hit-peices.

The more empty rhetoric I hear from Obama, his preaching and his lack of balls when it matters, is why he's not ready to be President.

We have an empty suit in the White House now, we don't need another one.

Afraid of being catagorized in GOP literature...what a flaming cop-out.

[Researchguy66]

So, this is what it's come down to? Every vote has to be explained in terms of favor,neutral or oppose for some Democratic constituency group? Pro-women, pro-African-America, pro-Latino, pro-gay (well, usually not)...aren't there more similarities in what we believe in than differences?

Obama and Clinton have succeeded in doing nothing but breaking the great whole of the Democratic consensus into meaningless little pieces to rotated and fitted into some sort of jigsaw puzzle winning strategy.

I'll say "no, thanks". Neither one of them deserves my vote, reagrdless of who they're "pro".

[sixletters]

Wow, this is the first clear explanation I've heard of Obama's present vote. It's actually a very skillful way to combat Republican tactics.

I really wish that the Clintons would stop playing these games they're really hurting the Clinton legacy.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

I hope a great many people will read this post and learn what the truth is about Senator Obama's pro-choice record.

There were-- it appears-- flyers handed out in New Hampshire which criticized Obama's stance on this issue and could very well have contributed to Senator Clinton's unexpected victory-- a victory fueled largely by a huge advantage among women voters.

This is why Obama had to stand up for himself in the debate the other night. Television news programs such as "Countdown" with Keith Olbermann misread this as Obama "getting down in the mud" instead of staying on his message of "hope" and perhaps letting the ex-President "get in his head."

Obama has tried to stay on the same themes as he has from the beginning, but when false messages get out there, and continue to circulate, your silence in addressing them becomes-- in some perverse way-- an admission of guilt.

This simply wasn't childish bickering, as John Edwards (in a moment of understandable yet disappointing political opportunism) has described it. Obama's record has been smeared from one end of the map to the other and one could see the genuine passion to clear his name-- it wasn't just "fun" squabbling, nor was he simply "getting warmed up" with a grin on his face as if it were nothing but a game.

Obama's image as an upbeat messenger of hope had been taken advantage of by a campaign that hadn't expected such a close race.

Imagine being 100% pro-choice, with a record that proves it, and then have a campaign telling people that you aren't committed to women's reproductive rights.

Wouldn't you respond aggressively as well?

[Kundera]

if the aborted babies were female, is that pro-woman?

[jade7243]

Thank you, Tracy.... the truth is always the first casualty.

[sonofloud]

and a vote against equal gay rights.
Hillary 08