:: Shame on NARAL

With one despicable endorsement, Nancy Keenan puts the last nail in NARAL's coffin.

First, let's get one thing straight: NARAL is irrelevant. Those of us within the movement who have had the misfortune of attending their yearly galas know its more like a wake than a celebration. Gone are the clusters of members of Congress and celebrities.

Gone are the tables featuring the big-dog presidents of major organizations. What's left are a bunch of interns and low level staff sent to fill up the seats at the tables their employers paid for. NARAL has virtually no grassroots and they've been invisible so far in the presidential race. We all knew that when Kate left NARAL was going to go D-List. But I didn't think things would end in such a embarrassing way.

As I'm sure you know, they've endorsed Obama. I could not be more disgusted. I guess they forgot that they are supposed to support champions for choice, not just the guy who fills out the questionnaire okay. I guess they have forgotten how important ICPD is, VAWA, SCHIP and so on. I note that in NARAL's endorsement statement they don't list any substantial accomplishments Obama has made on women's issues.

Apparently none of that matters.

And apparently Obama's squirmy position on choice has been forgotten too. So let's refresh our memories, shall we? I'll point back to three previous entries at the Canary that discuss this problem.

First there are his answers at last month's Compassion Forum in Gratham, Pennsylvania. To be clear, he refers to himself as pro-choice. But he also uses language that should worry women's rights advocates. It should worry them because the point of using waffle language like this is to imply that you would be willing to deal around the edges. He sounds very uncomfortable - like he's trying to squirm around the questions.

"I think we will continue to suggest that that's the right legal framework to deal with the issue. But at least we can start focusing on how to move in a better direction than the one we've been in the past."

There is also this answer to a question about life beginning at conception:

"What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates."

Pondering moral issues is fine in the context of personal decisions. When it comes to legal frameworks, "moral weight" sounds a lot like something you balance against a woman's fundamental right to autonomy. Actually, it reminds me Justice Kennedy's dreadful opinion from the last time SCOTUS took this up.

How about this, from the RH Reality Check candidate questionnaire:

Question: Does (the candidate) support any restrictions on abortion, or does s/he believe it should be entirely up to women?

Obama's answer: Obama supports those restrictions that are consistent with the legal framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade."

Again, every restriction we have on the books has been considered by the Supreme Court to be consistent within Roe's framework.

Again, not a leader. Not a champion.

And neither is NARAL. Say goodnight, Nancy.

Read more!

:: Obama on Choice - "I think we will continue to suggest that that's the right legal framework"

The only way Barack could give a more weaselly answer on choice would be if he were an actual weasel.

Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were both asked about their position on reproductive choice at a recent candidate forum. Didn't hear about it? Maybe that's because the political chattering class has decided, once again, that "women's issues" don't matter - no suprise there. Maybe its also because this time around, women's groups aren't clamoring after the candidates to clarify their positions and raise the profile of these vital issues.

This time around, most feminist leaders are silent. Perhaps that's part of the reason even dedicated feminists like myself only come across items like this from specialized news clipping services (aka the kid in charge of the clips).

The following statements by Clinton and Obama on reproductive choice are excerpted from a CNN transcript from the "Democratic Candidates Compassion Forum" at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania, on April 13, 2008.

Let's start with Clinton's section, because it reflects the gold standard in statements of this nature. She addresses the legal, moral and public health aspects of the issue and places it in global context.

QUESTION:

Senator, do you believe personally that life begins at conception?

CLINTON:

I believe that the potential for life begins at conception. I am a Methodist, as you know. My church has struggled with this issue. In fact, you can look at the Methodist Book of Discipline and see the contradiction and the challenge of trying to sort that very profound question out.

But for me, it is also not only about a potential life; it is about the other lives involved. And, therefore, I have concluded, after great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, that our task should be in this pluralistic, diverse life of ours in this nation that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society.

And as some of you've heard me discuss before, I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare.

And I have spent many years now, as a private citizen, as first lady, and now as senator, trying to make it rare, trying to create the conditions where women had other choices.

I have supported adoption, foster care. I helped to create the campaign against teenage pregnancy, which fulfilled our original goal 10 years ago of reducing teenage pregnancies by about a third.

And I think we have to do even more.

And I am committed to doing that. And I guess I would just add from my own personal experience, I have been in countries that have taken very different views about this profoundly challenging question.

Some of you know, I went to China in 1995 and spoke out against the Chinese government's one child policy, which led to forced abortions and forced sterilization because I believed that we needed to bear witness against what was an intrusive, abusive, dehumanizing effort to dictate how women and men would proceed with respect to the children they wished to have.

And then shortly after that, I was in Romania and there I met women who had been subjected to the Communist regime of the 1970s and '80s where they were essentially forced to bear as many children as possible for the good of the state. And where abortion was criminalized and women were literally forced to have physical exams and followed by the secret police and so many children were abandoned and left to the orphanages that, unfortunately, led to an AIDS epidemic.

So, you know, when I think about this issue, I think about the whole range of concerns and challenges associated with it and I will continue to do what I can to reduce the number and to improve and increase the care for women and particularly the adoption system and the other opportunities that women would have to make different choices.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen Nicaragua mentioned in her answer, because everyone needs to hear over and over again that the end-point of the "pro-life" doctrine is the real death of real women, and moreover, that this end-point is considered acceptable in the "pro-life" moral framework. I would also like to hear the First Amendment / Establishment Clause argument brought up, because people seem to forget that the Constitution explicitly prohibits the government from privileging one religious viewpoint over another. But that's me. Overall, Senator Clinton's answer is fine.

Later in the forum, Senator Obama responded to similar questions.

QUESTION:

Senator Obama, the vast majority of Americans believe that abortion is a decision to be made by a woman, her family and her doctors. However, the vast majority of Americans similarly believe that abortion is the taking of a human life.

The terms pro-choice and pro-life, do they encapsulate that reality in our 21st Century setting and can we find common ground?

OBAMA:

I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. Number one, it requires us to acknowledge that there is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.

The second thing, once we acknowledge that, is to recognize that people of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.

And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion.

And we've actually made progress over the last several years in reducing teen pregnancies, for example. And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.

But we also recognize the importance of good medical care for women, that we're also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process.

And if we do those things, then I think that we can reduce abortions and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there. If we put all of those things in place, then I think we will take some of the edge off the debate.

We're not going to completely resolve it. I mean, there -- you know, at some point, there may just be an irreconcilable difference. And those who are opposed to abortion, I think, should continue to be able to lawfully object and try to change the laws.

Those of us, like myself, who believe that in this difficult situation it is a woman's responsibility and choice to make in consultation with her doctor and her pastor and her family.

I think we will continue to suggest that that's the right legal framework to deal with the issue. But at least we can start focusing on how to move in a better direction than the one we've been in the past.

QUESTION:

Senator, do you personally believe that life begins at conception? And if not, when does it begin?

OBAMA:

This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on.

I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question.

What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.

Where to begin. He does self-identify as pro-choice (see bold text). That is good. He does it as part of a statement that props up the canard that pro-choice people haven't been sensitive to moral issues - that we're concerned with rights while they are concerned with values - but, whatever. He's bringing us together.

Then Obama does something unexpected - he raises the morality bar. Its not enough to prevent the need for abortion - we should prevent circumstances "that might even lead somebody to consider" abortion. But, you know, whatever.

Obama then states that he trusts the judgment of the woman - and her entourage: "Those of us, like myself, who believe that in this difficult situation it is a woman's responsibility and choice to make in consultation with her doctor and her pastor and her family."

I know that's the configuration that polls the best - but really, that's quite a lot of people to all squeeze into an examination room. And what if you don't have a pastor? Maybe the court can appoint one for you. But things like spousal consent, mandatory lectures, waiting periods and so aren't really up for discussion. So, like, whatever.

And here's the doozy: "I think we will continue to suggest that that's the right legal framework to deal with the issue. But at least we can start focusing on how to move in a better direction than the one we've been in the past."

Now that's what I like to see - a hard and fast commitment to upholding the right to privacy, the right to control one's own reproductive processes without government intrusion. I mean, what part of "I think we will continue to suggest" doesn't say "you can count on me"? And what does "at least" mean? "At least" now, until we can come up with something better? Or "at least" until we all agree on this? Perhaps "at least" now, until we have 100% sexual responsibility, no mishaps, no genetic anomalies, no adverse life-changing events? I am truly curious.

The next bit, "this is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on" just strikes me as funny. Is he not sure whether he's resolved for himself whether life begins at conception? Maybe he should ask himself. No wait, he just did. [sigh] I think if you're not sure whether you've come to a firm resolution, its pretty safe to say that you've haven't come to a firm resolution.

But what follows is not funny: "What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates." Taking "moral weight" into consideration sounds very much like what Justice Kennedy did in the last major Supreme Court decision on choice.

If these words were spoken by a Republican candidate, we all know what we'd conclude. But somehow, with Obama, we're supposed to just accept that what he says is not what he means, or what he will do. We're all supposed to understand, as Samantha Power put it in her BBC interview, that there are some things you say on the campaign trail that don't carry over into governing. But why? Senator Obama - the Man With the Golden Tongue - is all about words.

What bothers me the most about these words is that they reek of stigma. He sounds almost ashamed to be pro-choice, like he needs to defend and explain, couch and coddle his way around a very unpalatable stance.

He sounds tentative, timid, apologetic. Not at all like the champion he purports to be, the champion that - for pity's sake, after all these years! - we women deserve.

Read more!

:: Screw You Guys - I'm Going Home

Obama's campaign has become part of the problem, not the solution... and I'm not going to let it slide.

I’ve haven’t posted comments anywhere for a while, not only because my foster dog ate the internet, but because I’m sick of the Obamamites. However a comment I saw today on http://www.pollster.com/ really inspired me. The comment was this:

As a under 50,000, 50 year old part of the throw away class of women you are speaking of, let me just reassure you I am college educated and I can recognize a load of male bullcrap when I hear it I will not be voting dem if your dream guy get the nomination. Oh and by the way I have never voted for a rep before, but; I guess there is always a first time. Posted by: vera t February 21, 2008 10:45 PM

This really struck a chord with me. I think its also in line with Buffy's post about "invisible women." In response, I wrote:

"I just want to express my appreciation to Vera T for her comment about being "part of the throw away class of women" in this election. That is EXACTLY how I feel.

I noticed last night that once again, Obama mentioned the need to inspire the American people to "go beyond the racial divisions and the religious divisions and the regional divisions.” He seemed to go out of his way to not mention gender (just like, for example, in his MLK day speech when he mentioned racism, “occasional” anti-semitism, homophobia but not misogyny or sexism).

Now the party line from Obama supporters is the Hillary should drop out, despite the fact that the two candidates are running neck-and-neck.

Clearly, the votes, values and interests of people like myself (and Vera T) do not matter to the Obama campaign, nor to the most outspoken Obama supporters. This has been demonstrated in a number of ways, from the content (or lack thereof) of his speeches, to the content (or lack thereof) of his website, and in the strategy that says the votes of my cohort basically don't exist or shouldn’t count.

I have been involved in Democratic politics for my entire career, working exclusively as paid staff for progressive interest groups and Democratic candidates. And I say this now from my heart, not as some sort of veiled threat, but absolutely from my heart - I honestly think that if Obama is the nominee my protest will be to not vote in the general.

Over the course of this campaign, I've heard Hillary's experience minimized and ridiculed, heard every comment parsed for even a hint of exaggeration, I've seen her denigrated for her clothes and her laugh, I've seen her accused of using "feminine wiles" by "turning on the water works" when the fact is she never shed a tear on the campaign trail, I've heard my own vote denigrated as mere sympathy rather than fact- and value-based, I’ve heard Hillary’s daughter called a whore by a prominent newscaster for campaigning with her mother (but nary a word about Mitt’s boys) (believe me, if that newscaster had said Barack was “pimping out” Michelle, he’d be fired and NO ONE would be coming to his defense). I’ve heard Hillary called “ambitious” as if there is something wrong with that, while the obviously equally ambitious male candidates are not criticized. I could go on and on. And who raises a protest? No one. Does Obama say one word about fair play? Never. Is he the beneficiary and sometimes the instigator of this unequal treatment? Obviously.

I'm not going to go into the ways misogyny permeates our culture. I've traveled and lived outside of the United States and I've observed overseas development programs that address gender inequality, so I know whereof I speak. Many countries have national programs that address, for example, violence and discrimination against womenand programs that make it easier for women (and men) to accommodate work and family. Not here. Here, apparently, no one beyond Hillary and her supporters think this is a problem. And no one, outside of Hillary and her supporters, thinks this is worth addressing.

Call my opinion irrelevant, or see me (and Vera T) as canaries in the coal mine. Not only do I not have any enthusiasm for Obama, but I've come to see his campaign as part of the problem. I’m sorry to say it, but as for this longtime Dem activist and one of the “throw away women,” if Obama is the nominee, you boys are on your own."

Before you say it - I know. The Supreme Court. Our foreign policy. The environment. I know, I know. But you know what? I'm sick of it. I'm not going to compromise my principles this time. We survived 8 years of Bush, we'll survive whatever happens next. The fact is, I don't think Obama will be able to beat McCain anyway (I heard MULTIPLE things come out of Obama's mouth in last night's debate that would make excellent negative ads against him). And I'm not sure Obama would be much better than McCain on a lot of issues. Obama has already ceded universal health care. We don't know whether he'd appoint a strongly pro-choice Supreme Court justice, or a "moderate" that appeals to both parties. He has no experience whatsoever in foreign policy - who knows what he could get us into.

And I don't think the Democratic Senate will treat the young new guy any better this time than the Democratic Senate did in 1992 - 1994 with the young new guy Bill Clinton. The first time he doesn't jump when Teddy tells him to, he'll get clobbered. Furthermore, I think he'll reap a whirlwind from the conservatives that will make the vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons look like nothing.

If Obama's the nominee, I'm going to take a cue from his campaign and vote with my heart - and my heart says stay home.

Read more!

:: The Answers

A comparative view of the answers from Sens. Clinton and Obama to RH Reality Check's sexual and reproductive health and rights questionnaire.

Its easier to compare the answers from the Obama and Clinton campaign side by side, so I've pasted the answers from both questionnaires into one document. I left the footnotes and links behind and made several small formatting changes, such as numbering the questions.

A number of differences between the candidates are evident. But if you are looking for a smoking gun that shows Obama is a risky bet when it comes to choice, go directly to #8: Does (the candidate) support any restrictions on abortion, or does s/he believe it should be entirely up to women?

The Obama campaigns answer is simply this:

Obama supports those restrictions that are consistent with the legal framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

This might fool a newbie, but the rest of us know this means only one of two things. Either the person who filled out the questionnaire is completely ignorant of the topic of the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade, or the campaign has given the most conservative answer it thinks it can get away it and still call Obama a Democrat.

Just to make it perfectly clear, all the restrictions on reproductive choice and the right to privacy that we have right now, including Gonzalez, have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to be compatible with Roe v. Wade. In fact, it was the court's finding in Webster, and then Casey, that a host of restrictions were allowable under Roe that got us into our current mess. To say you support restrictions consistent with Roe is to say you could be in favor of any and all restrictions except spousal consent (knocked down in Webster, I believe, or was it Casey?) and bans with an exception to save the life (but not health) of the woman. Even the choice of phrasing - "Obama supports restrictions that are compatable" rather than "Obama opposes those restrictions that incompatible" - points to a conservative message strategy.

It is terrible that several old guard so-called pro-choice leaders have chosen to overlook the obvious clues that Obama is shaky on choice. Did Kate Michelman, Karen Mulhauser and other candidates know about this answer, and endorse Obama anyway? And what could justify giving a kick in the teeth to a candidate with such a strong feminist background and profound commitment to fighting for women's rights in the U.S. and around the world?

To be perfectly frank, I am baffled and ashamed.

---------------

1. Why do you consider Sen. Obama / Sen. Clinton to be the strongest candidate on reproductive health and rights?

Obama:

Throughout his career, Senator Obama has consistently championed a woman's right to choose, earning him 100% ratings from pro-choice groups during his tenure in the Illinois State Senate and the United States Senate. In 2005, he was the honorary chair of Planned Parenthood of Chicago Area's Roe v. Wade celebration. And he has not shied away from tough battles. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama worked hand-in-hand with advocacy groups to protect women's reproductive health.

And just last year, Obama was the only U.S. Senator who supported a fundraising initiative to defeat a proposed abortion ban in South Dakota. And Senator Obama was the only presidential candidate to weigh in on the controversy surrounding the opening of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora.

Clinton:

When it comes to each woman's ability to make the most personal of life decisions, Hillary Clinton is a leader. She has stood firm as an advocate for a woman's right to choose and has worked to expand access to family planning services. As First Lady, she went to Beijing and declared that "human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights," and as Senator, she has consistently stood up for women's reproductive health and rights.

Throughout her time in the Senate, she has consistently spoken out against relentless efforts by the right wing to rollback women's access to the full range of reproductive health care services. She opposed the nominations of Justices Alito and Roberts, declaring that they represented the gravest threat to Roe v. Wade in history, and she condemned the Supreme Court's April 2007 decision to allow the government to dictate to women what they can and cannot do about their own health.

Senator Clinton has supported every pro-choice bill introduced and voted on since she came into the Senate. She opposed the so-called "partial birth abortion" bill; the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was designed to define a fetus as a person in order to lay the groundwork for overturning Roe v. Wade; the Child Custody Protection Act, which would have made it a crime to accompany young woman across state lines for abortion care; and the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which would impose a new, complex, national patchwork of parental notice mandates on doctors and young women. She has also co-sponsored legislation to repeal the global gag rule imposed by President Bush, which has resulted in the closure of multiple health clinics in the developing world, reductions in the number of community health workers providing outreach in rural areas, and contraceptive shortages in the countries most in need of family planning services.

Senator Clinton has been a strong leader in advancing women's health and well-being. As First Lady, she helped found the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, which has helped achieve a one-third reduction in teen pregnancy between 1996 and 2005. Working with Senator Patty Murray, she helped lead a three-year effort to make "Plan B" emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after" pill, available over the counter. She also sponsored the Prevention First Act, which expands access to family planning services for low-income women, requires health insurance companies to cover contraception, and provides a dedicated funding stream for age-appropriate, medically accurate, comprehensive sex education. Senator Clinton introduced the Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies (CARE) Act, which would ensure that survivors of sexual assault and rape receive necessary medical care, including emergency contraception such as Plan B, and the Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act, which would ensure that servicewomen have access to Plan B at military health care facilities. She also co-sponsored legislation to establish an Emergency Contraception Public Education Campaign through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

She has also supported legislation to restore access to privately funded abortion services for U.S. servicewomen and military dependents in overseas military health facilities; lift the ban on international non-governmental organizations that provide to women information on family planning services; prohibit violent protestors, such as anti-abortion activists, from escaping court-ordered fines or judgments by filing for bankruptcy protection; and prohibit funding for federal employee health plans that refuse to provide contraceptive coverage.

In short, Senator Clinton has fought for women's rights for her entire career. She has been a leader on reproductive health care issues in the Senate, and she will remain committed to them when she is President.

2. What sets Sen. Obama’s / Clinton's platform apart from the other contenders on issues of reproductive health and rights?

Obama:

Senator Obama has demonstrated an ability to engage diverse audiences in talking about these issues in an effort to forge consensus. For instance, in December 2006, Obama went to "the political equivalent of the lion's den" when he told a conservative Christian audience in Southern California that abstinence-only education was not enough and that he "respectfully but unequivocally" disagrees with those who oppose condom distribution to fight the AIDS pandemic." Obama drew a standing ovation from the 2,072 pastors and others who came from 39 states and 18 nations.

Similarly, this year at a Planned Parenthood conference, Obama emphasized the need for pro-choice groups to align themselves with religious and community groups that are also working on reducing unintended pregnancy. Obama has also focused on the high teen pregnancy rate. In addition to co-sponsoring the Prevention First Act, Obama has introduced a bill that would devote resources to combating the high teen pregnancy rate in communities of color.

Clinton:

Senator Clinton has been a consistent advocate for women's reproductive health and rights, and she will carry this commitment to the White House as a leader on behalf of all women. When she is President, she will nominate Supreme Court Justices and other federal court judges who believe that the Constitution protects a woman's right to privacy. Senator Clinton knows that reproductive health care is an important part of any woman's overall health, which is why she will ensure that reproductive health care will be part of her plan to provide health care to every single American. As a part of her plan to fight cancer, Senator Clinton has committed to increasing access to screening tools and she has said she will fully fund the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. When she is President, she will continue to strongly support increased funding for Medicaid and Title X, which provide federal funding for family planning and reproductive health care services. She will also work to sign into law the Prevention First Act, which provides federal funding for comprehensive, medically accurate sex education; provides for equitable coverage of contraception among private plans; and expands access to information about emergency contraception. Senator Clinton has been a leading advocate for women throughout her life, and her policy proposals and platform reflect that dedication.

3. How does Sen. Obama’s / Sen. Clinton's health care plan specifically address sexual and reproductive health, family planning, pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and other STDs?

Obama:

Senator Obama believes that reproductive health care is basic health care. His health care plan will create a new public plan, which will provide coverage of all essential medical services. Reproductive health care is an essential service - just like mental health care and disease management and other preventive services under his plan. And private insurers that want to participate will have to treat reproductive care in the same way.

Clinton:

Senator Clinton's health care plan provides guaranteed, affordable, high-quality health care for every single American. It allows those who like their current plans to keep them and provides a new menu of quality health insurance options, including a public plan modeled after Medicare, for those who are dissatisfied with their coverage or don't have any. This Health Choices Menu would include the high-quality plans offered to Members of Congress through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

Her health care plan will ensure that all Americans living with HIV/AIDS have access to care and will end insurance discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions, such as HIV/AIDS. Senator Clinton's plan to fight HIV/AIDS includes doubling the HIV/AIDS research budget within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to $5.2 billion annually, including the U.S. contribution toward finding a vaccine. To address the disproportionate burden of HIV/AIDS on minority communities, Senator Clinton will increase funding for the Minority AIDS Initiative and support the prevention and treatment efforts of minority-run community based organizations.

Her plan also increases federal funding for substance abuse treatment. She has also committed to providing at least $50 billion over five years to combat HIV/AIDS around the world. This commitment will establish the United States as a leader in galvanizing the global community around meeting the Millennium Development Goal of halting and beginning to reverse the spread of HIV and other diseases by 2015. She will lead the world in achieving universal access to treatment by doubling the number of people that the United States supports with treatment. The Clinton plan will increase the number of healthworkers in training or in place in Africa by at least one million over a decade and ensure access to medications for all.

4. Does Sen. Obama / Sen. Clinton support comprehensive sexuality education? Does s/he believe that the federal government should continue to fund abstinence-only-until marriage programs, despite evidence that they are ineffective at preventing unintended pregnancy and STDs?

Obama:

Yes, Senator Obama supports comprehensive sex education. He believes that we should not continue to fund abstinence-only programs. Over the last decade, the federal government has spent $1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars on "abstinence-only" programs that have not been successful.

While abstinence is one approach to reducing unintended pregnancies and STDs, Obama believes we should also support comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education.

Obama is an original co-sponsor of the Prevention First Act, which will ensure that all taxpayer-funded federal programs are medically accurate and include information about contraception.

Clinton:

Senator Clinton introduced legislation to provide federal funding for comprehensive, medically accurate, age-appropriate sex education. She believes that abstinence-only programs have not been shown to be effective, and, as President, she would support programs that send a strong message to young people that they should delay sexual activity while giving them the information they need to make responsible decisions and protect themselves.

5. Does Sen. Obama / Sen. Clinton support adolescents' access to confidential family planning and reproductive health services, without having to seek permission from their parents? Why or why not?

Obama.

Yes. As the father of two daughters, Senator Obama understands that parents do not want to imagine their teenage child might need to seek counsel on reproductive health. He believes, first and foremost, that parents should be the first and primary source of support. But Obama also recognizes that not every child is in a loving home with a parent or trusted adult to turn to in such a situation. For young women in such circumstances, Obama wants to be sure that there is access to a trained health care provider that can provide needed services or help them make good decisions.

Clinton:

Yes. Senator Clinton supports access to confidential health care for all Americans. She believes families should be involved in any life decision involving their daughter, but recognizes that in some cases, that type of involvement is neither healthy nor appropriate.

6. Does Sen. Obama / Sen. Clinton believe that contraception should be covered by private insurance plans and under insurance plans for federal employees? Why or why not?

Obama:

Yes.

Clinton:

Senator Clinton has been a strong supporter of the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act, which would require private health plans to cover FDA-approved prescription contraceptives and related medical services to the same extent that they cover prescription drugs and other outpatient medical services. This bill seeks to establish parity for prescription contraception. She has also co-sponsored legislation to prohibit funding for federal employee health plans that refuse to provide contraceptive coverage. And she cosponsored the Prevention Through Affordable Access Act to correct a provision included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2006 that cuts off every college and university health clinic and hundreds of safety net providers from being able to offer affordable contraceptives to students and lower income women.

7. Does Sen. Obama / Sen. Clinton agree with the FDA's decision to make emergency contraception over the counter for people 18 and over? Does s/he think adolescents should be able to access emergency contraception over the counter as well? Why or why not?

Obama:

Senator Obama supports the FDA's decision to make emergency contraception available over the counter for people 18 and over. Obama recognizes that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other medical experts have reported that EC use is safe for women of all reproductive age and have called for improved access to EC. Although Obama strongly believes that parents or other trusted adults should be engaged in all reproductive health decisions involving teenagers and adolescents, he also recognizes that not every young women has access to such support. As such, he does believe that teenagers should be able to access EC over the counter. As noted above, he supports the right of adolescents to seek confidential family planning services.

Clinton:

Senator Clinton led a three-year fight to pressure the FDA to make a decision on Barr Pharmaceutical's application to sell Plan B over the counter, and she was pleased when the decision was made to approve the application, in line with the overwhelming consensus of the research community that the drug was safe and effective for over the counter use and the recommendation of every major health care organization. At the time of the decision, she urged the FDA to revisit placing age restrictions on the sale of Plan B, and still believes that it is the path we ought to take. She agrees with the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendation that emergency contraception is safe and effective, can help to prevent unintended pregnancy among teenagers, and should not be confused with mifepristone.

8. Does Sen. Obama / Sen. Clinton support any restrictions on abortion, or does she believe it should be entirely up to women?

Obama:

Obama supports those restrictions that are consistent with the legal framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

Clinton:

Senator Clinton believes abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. She has worked throughout her career to accomplish that goal by working to reduce the teen pregnancy rate and providing greater access to family planning. She strongly opposed the so-called "partial birth abortion" bill when it was considered by the Senate. She supported an alternative bill that, consistent with Roe v. Wade, would have prohibited post-viability abortions except when, in the medical judgment of an attending physician, abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman.

9. Does Sen. Obama / Clinton support the Hyde amendment? Under what circumstances does s/he believe that Medicaid should cover abortions (all pregnancies, life- or health- threatening pregnancies, pregnancies that are a result of rape or incest, extreme fetal malformation)?

Obama:

Obama does not support the Hyde amendment. He believes that the federal government should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor woman's decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors.

Clinton:

No. Senator Clinton does not support the Hyde amendment. She believes low-income women should have access to the full range of reproductive health care services.

10. Does Sen. Obama / Sen. Clinton believe adolescents should have the right to choose abortion, or should they be required to seek their parents' consent? Why or why not? Are there any circumstances that might make a compelling case for waiving the parental consent requirement?

Obama:

As a parent, Obama believes that young women, if they become pregnant, should talk to their parents before considering an abortion. But he realizes not all girls can turn to their mother or father in times of trouble, and in those instances, we should want these girls to seek the advice of trusted adults - an aunt, a grandmother, a pastor.

Unfortunately, instead of encouraging pregnant teens to seek the advice of adults, most parental consent bills that come before Congress or state legislatures criminalize adults who attempt to help a young woman in need and lack judicial bypass and other provisions that would permit exceptions in compelling cases.

Clinton:

Senator Clinton believes families should be involved in any life decision involving their daughter, but recognizes that in some cases that type of involvement is neither healthy nor appropriate. She does not believe the federal government can dictate healthy families. That is why she supports New York State law that does not require parental consent for minors. In states where that is not attainable, she supports judicial bypass provisions.

11. Does Sen. Obana / Sen. Clinton support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers? Why or why not?

Obama:

No.

Clinton:

No. She does not support federal funding for programs that misrepresent facts in order to further a political agenda.

12. If elected president, what specific measures would Sen. Obama / Sen. Clinton support for women who choose to become mothers (prenatal care, maternity leave, childcare, healthcare for children)?

Obama:

Under Obama's health care plan, women will be able to receive coverage of prenatal care under the new public health plan. And participating private insurers will be required to provide the same coverage. Obama has proposed a $1.5 billion fund to encourage all fifty states to adopt paid leave programs. Under these programs, women would be entitled to take paid maternity leave.

Clinton:

Ensuring guaranteed, affordable, high-quality health care for all Americans will be Senator Clinton's top domestic priority. She was instrumental in creating the Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides health care for six million children today, and she has fought for 15 years to expand access to quality care. Her health care plan will provide access to critical services like prenatal care. She has put forth a bold plan to provide paid leave for new parents and caregivers by 2016, expand the Family and Medical Leave Act to include 13 million new workers, and end pregnancy discrimination. She is also the lead sponsor of legislation to ensure equal pay for women. (Please visit [here] and [here] for more information about Senator Clinton's plans.)

13. Does Sen. Obama / Sen. Clinton believe that gay and lesbian couples should be able to adopt children?

Obama: Yes.

Clinton: Yes.

14. If elected president, would Sen. Obama / Sen. Clinton overturn the Global Gag Rule or reinstate funding for UNFPA?

Obama:

Yes, Senator Obama would overturn the global gag rule and reinstate funding for UNFPA.

Clinton:

Yes. Overturning the Global Gag Rule and reinstating funding for UNFPA would be among her highest priorities. Senator Clinton has said overturning the gag rule would be one of her first acts as President.

Read more!

:: Hillary and Barack on Reproductive Rights

RH Reality Check has published the responses to its candidate questionnaire

RH Reality Check has posted the responses to its reproductive health and rights candidate questionnaire. Apparently I missed this news while it was fresh - the posts are dated Dec. 31 and Jan.15 for Barack and Hillary, respectively.

Here are the links to the responses from Hillary and Barack. I haven't read them yet myself, but I plan on giving them a Talmudic level of attention. Free feel to post your own exegesis, of course.

Read more!

:: Juno

So have any of you seen Juno yet? I'm dying to discuss it with some like-minded souls. I went to see it with my mother, which was interesting in itself. And then my father said later on that he hadn't wanted to see it because he didn't like the premise, i.e. a pregnant 16-year-old. To which I responded that there are about 750,000 teen pregnancies each year in the U.S. so it's not like one movie makes that more or less a reality. (This also seems strange seeing as I work on precisely this issue, but I guess it's okay because I work on the prevention aspect, and of course, prevention always works...)

I don't have to go on about the fact that there are barely any pop culture examples where women actually make the choice to have an abortion. And while I will give the movie props for the fact that she at least goes to an abortion clinic, it was not a great portrayal. (Plus, to be technical, the movie takes place in Minnesota, and they make reference to having to involve your parents at one clinic but not another, which doesn't make sense unless she's going to another state without a parental notification law like Minnesota has. Also, Minnesota has a 24-hour waiting period law, and they make it seem like she just went to the clinic and could have had the abortion immediately and been on her way, and it wouldn't have been that easy.) Even without all the technicalities, they did make it seem like you can just pop in for an abortion after school and be home for dinner, and it is a little bit more complicated than that. I could almost understand if you were a concerned state legislator watching this that you would think there need to be some more procedures in place to make sure women are making informed choices when she barely got past the waiting room. That being said, I also could see how being 16 and alone in that waiting room might be enough to make you decide against the whole thing without having had any more information than she had at that moment. And as my mother said, she did make her own choice even if she didn't have all the information and support that I wish she would have had.

Overall, though, the movie did a good job at showing why adoption is not the be all and end all solution to the problem of unintended teen pregnancies - it's complicated and messy and has lots of unintended consequences that spill out all over the place in ways that 16-year-olds can't foresee. And the movie does a great job of portraying that messiness. I won't give away too much of the plot, but I also felt an enormous amount of empathy for the prospective adoptive couple and how much they were so dependent on the whims of this 16-year-old to give them the thing they want most of all because of their inability to conceive on their own. But they are also lucky because they have the resources to actually be able to do something about their situation. (I am forever haunted by this story I read in the Washington Post magazine several years ago about infertile couples who don't have the resources to invest in adoption and infertility treatments and how few options are available to them for having children, although I guess becoming a foster parent is always one option.)

In the end, reproduction can be quite complicated when it doesn't take place within certain boundaries, and the movie portrays the messiness and complexity quite well. While I may quibble with certain parts of the movie, this larger point remains true. And it's definitely thought-provoking - I've been thinking about it for hours, and I hope it's generating discussion among people seeing it about some issues that often times people would rather not discuss. But we love to discuss thing so I'd love to hear your thoughts if you've seen it. And if you haven't, I recommend it because I want to talk about it with someone... Read more!

:: Former Head of Feminist Organization Admits Life is More Important Than Privacy

Why, people?

Why must we offer bad soundbites like so much leftover Halloween candy?

"Let's face it: Weigh the moral scales of privacy against life and there is no contest."

Well, read the column. Yes, the human rights argument is valuable and effective elsewhere around the world. Unfortunately the last time Americans cared about "human rights" as defined by international norms was... was... when was that, exactly? Last time I checked, we're still the country happy to take a long, leisurely piss on the Geneva Convention if Jack Bauer thinks its a good idea. Besides, you get into "whose human rights?" and all that.

The next person who knocks privacy (aka "the right for you to keep your goddamn hands to yourself") and Roe in my presence is going to get a special knock of their own.

Just sayin'. Read more!

:: A Fine Idea

To defeat anti-choice legislation, attach a rider making the state financially responsible to the women who are influenced by it.

By now, all state legislatures have considered bills designed to pressure pregnant women to not have abortions.

I’m not talking about provisions that remove obstacles for women who want to carry a pregnancy to term, such as improved health services, maternity and paternity leave, subsidized child care and other forms of public assistance, and better enforcement of child support orders.

I mean the anti-choice legislation designed to hector, guilt-trip or scare women away from abortion by means of government-scripted lectures, waiting periods, misinformation about physical and psychological consequences (the bogus “abortion causes breast cancer” claim; “post-abortion trauma syndrome”) and tax-payer funding for fake “crisis pregnancy centers.”

The usual strategy for defeating this legislation is to fight it head-on with arguments based in fact and ethical reasoning. Alongside that, I suggest another tactic that I think would be effective. It occurred to me after reading the following article:

Woman awarded damages for pregnancy

28 August 2007

THE HAGUE – The IJsselland Hospital in Capelle aan den IJssel has been ordered to pay damages of EUR 400,000 to a mother who was incorrectly informed about her fertility.

This has emerged from a ruling by the appeal court in The Hague. The court upheld a ruling from a lower court in this case.

The gynaecologist had told the woman she could no longer become pregnant. The woman subsequently became pregnant with twins, who are now 13 years old. The hospital is being required to contribute to the costs of raising the children.

In the early 1990s, the woman, 37 at the time, and her husband asked the now-retired gynaecologist if the woman could still become pregnant. After an examination the woman was assured that she could not become pregnant.

Not long after the woman did in fact conceive. The family already had three children at that point. As a result of the pregnancy the woman had to leave her job.

The hospital and gynaecologist have always denied that they failed to alert the woman to the risks of a pregnancy. The court said that the dossier indicates the opposite.

The court also rejected the hospital's argument that no damage would have been caused had the woman opted for an abortion at the time.

Hospitals have been ordered to pay damages in previous cases involving failed sterilisations. This is the first time that damages have been awarded for the birth of a child after the administration of inaccurate advice on birth control.

There you have it.

Every bill that seeks to impede access to abortion by funding fake crisis pregnancy centers, spreading false information through advertising or state mandated lectures or impeding access through waiting periods should carry a rider making the state financially responsible for any pregnancies brought to term that result from these efforts.

Its only fair, isn’t it? If a woman goes to a taxpayer-supported crisis pregnancy center and they tell her that if she has an abortion she will get breast cancer (false), and she decides not to have an abortion only to find out later that she was lied to, the crisis pregnancy center and the state that funds it should be held accountable for the resulting expense of raising the child.

Physicians who give bad information to their patients are already subject to malpractice lawsuits; if the government wants to play doctor, it should face the same risks. And tobacco companies have been ordered to pay damages to people with lung cancer who claim they were influenced by misleading cigarette advertising. Efforts to penalize the purveyors of junk food for influencing people to become obese are stirring around out there.

Once proposed, the rider could be used in a public relations context to refocus the debate on what it really means for the state to “support life.” If attached, it would be an effective poison pill and would give wavering electeds cover for voting against the legislation.

Read more!

:: Stupid Beyond Belief. Beyond Belief!!!

Check out this column - and no, its not about Michael Vick - -

[It occurs to me that I can only name two football players off the top of my head: Michael Vick, and Boomer Esaiason. Okay, and Joe Namath, and the guy in Something About Mary – that’s four.]

- - its by Anna Quindlen, writing in Newsweek (the magazine that arrives free of charge at my door and proceeds directly to the trashcan designated for junk mail) about a “mini-documentary” she found on the You Tube. I could tell you about it, but why not just watch it instead. [UPDATE: this video has been disabled, but you can view it at a different address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo.
You know, we’ve been screaming that these people are total f-ing idiots for years now… and yet I am still stupefied by the stupidity. The Canary is not pleased - not pleased at all!!!

Quindlen’s column features Jill June, who we (all five of us) know and love... Jill should have ground through all her molars years ago (and for all I know, maybe she has). Read more!

:: Two Things

... Yesterday was Kathleen Turner's birthday -the orginial B-list celebrity of the choice movement. I commented on this fact at work and the nice young man with the desk across from me said "Who?" I said, "You know Romancing the Stone, Body Heat, Chandler's mom?" He says, "That is before my time." Sigh . . .
... Title IX is not just about sports! Or destroying football teams. While I love Billie Jean King I think a basic message about equality in the actual learning part of education has been lost. Read more!

:: Get Back Under Your Rock, Goddammit!

Update: Yesterday Wolfie blew off a meeting with the WB board, and the WB board decided to start an "urgent" investigation into whether the WB should blow off Wolfie, with a decision expected the week of 23 April.

* * *

This is the latest on the World Bank's "other" scandal - no, not the girlfriend one... this is the one I wrote about here. But just to recap: one of Wolfie's deputies, a likely Opus Dei minion, oversaw a revision of the Bank's country strategy paper for Madagascar that removed the references to family planning, contraception, etc. Activists kicked up a fuss, European government ministers got chuffed, and now we hear from said deputy (Juan Jose Daboub) that it was all a misunderstanding... this is from a leaked internal WB memo written by Daboub:

“Regarding the Madagascar CAS, none of the editorial changes that were made at my direction changed, or intended to change, the Bank Group's program in the area of family planning. These changes were simply intended to clarify what I understood to be the Bank's role in this area, given the roles of other donors… I am here to carry out professionally and faithfully the Bank's policies. The policy on Reproductive Health is clear, had been endorsed by the Board and in place for many years; it has been followed by the President, the Staff and me, as reflected in projects and programs brought and to be brought to the Board. We understand and respect our partner countries' decision on this subject.”

Oddly, Daboub's statement contradicts real life, at least according to WB staff and a Government Accountability Project investigation. As reported by the LA Times:

Yet internal e-mails obtained by the Government Accountability Project appear to indicate otherwise. Referring to Daboub as the "MD," an acronym for his title as managing director, Madagascar country programcoordinator Lilia Burunciuc wrote to colleagues on March 8, 2007: "One of the requests received from the MD was to take out all references to family planning. We did that."Burunciuc added that this is "a potential problem for us" because Madagascar had made a "strong request for help" on family planning in the document, which serves as a three-to four-year plan for the goals a country wants to achieve with the bank's help. Madagascar identified improved family planning as one of its national commitments.

Yet a copy of the report includes edits and deletions, which a bank staffer said were made by Daboub's office, showing that specific targets to boost contraceptive use were cut and broader aims were rewritten. In one graphic, the words "improved quality of health services to ensure easy access, affordability and reliability" were inserted in place of "improved access and provision of contraceptives."

For a good analysis of how this situation reflects on Wolfie, read this op-ed by the Guardian’s Sara Bosley. Sample:

If [Daboub's] conscience prevented him from carrying out bank policy, he should quit. If he does not quit, he should be sacked... What this episode suggests is chaotic management. How could Mr Daboub unilaterally change the bank's reproductive health policies? Perhaps because his boss is not concentrating. The answer, surely, is for the pair of them to pack their bags.

Wolfie’s situation has only gotten more precarious, and his resignation is expected as soon as today. The main scandal – or the only scandal, in the world according to WaPo – has only gotten worse. More from the Guardian:

In recent days evidence has emerged that a contractor for the US government working in Iraq said in 2003 that it was ordered to hire Ms Riza as a consultant on governance issues. The order was issued by Douglas Feith, then undersecretary of defence. Mr Wolfowitz was deputy secretary at the Pentagon at the time, and Mr Feith's boss.

Apparently, outside of the Bush administration, people are held accountable for their misdeeds and mistakes. Of course, if that were Bush administration policy, the only people left in the White House would be the blue and pink collar workers. Read more!

:: On No They Didn't!

We told them over and over again that the Presidential election mattered. We told them in 2000, we told them in 2004. We told them that if President Bush was elected he would appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court. We told them he liked Scalia and Thomas. That he wasn't going to appoint another Souter like his dad. We told them that the right to choose hung in the balance. They elected him anyway. And what did he do when given the chance - he appointed Roberts and Alito. And with their new found conservative majority the US Supreme Court has unpheld an abortion ban. "In a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which Bush signed into law in 2003, does not violate a woman's right to have an abortion."

Sometimes I hate being right.

Read more!

:: The Fifth Column

These people are everywhere, just waiting for the right moment to crawl out from under their rocks...

A key figure in the World Bank, said to have links to the Roman Catholic sect Opus Dei, was accused yesterday of undermining its commitment to the health of women by ordering the deletion of goals, targets and policies relating to family planning.

The U.S. media is focused on l'affaire Wolfowitz, and rightly so, but this simultaneously unfolding drama will also play a role - albeit uncredited - in his demise. Major European development NGOs and governmental agencies are shaking the rafters over this. Two crises at the same time = not a good thing for a man no one liked from the get-go. Read more!

:: Madame Speaker

Maeve is unimpressed. I on the other hand got a little choked-up about the "Madame Speaker" stuff. Did you catch that he said that the "best health care decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors." Except pregnant women, of course. Read more!