NOW Obama, Not Palin
|
|
Today the National Organization for Women’s PAC endorsed Barack Obama. It may not come as much of a surprise, but it IS interesting.
When people talk about how bold a pick Sarah Palin was as a VP candidate, they’re really talking about the fact that she is (was) a largely unknown woman in politics. It would be foolish to deny that much of Palin’s popularity among some women is really about all those cracks in the ceiling Hillary and her supporters created during the Democratic primary; it’s about getting a woman in the White House.
But what does it all mean if the woman in the White House doesn’t really support women… and their rights? That’s why NOW has endorsed the Obama campaign. On pay equity (which McCain has voted against according to NOW President Kim Gandy on NPR’s Morning Edition), reproductive rights and violence against women, Obama has proven himself to be an ally to women. Palin has made it clear that she is opposed to a woman’s most basic right. And we’re left to presume she agrees with McCain on a myriad of other issues concerning women, our health and safety, and that of our families (except when it comes to stem cell research, in which case she’s actually further to the right).
Another interesting thing about NOW’s endorsement in the general election is that it’s something the organization doesn’t often do. Just one more indication of how significant this election is. In it’s endorsement of Obama, NOW says “this is an unprecedented candidate and an unprecedented time for our country.” That much is true no matter what side you’re on.
on 
I heard them talking about this on NPR this morning and NOW’s talking head was saying negatively that Palin only had a favorable rating among 42% of women voters. But what was not said is how many were in the negative or the undecided categories. 42% approval rating is amazing, especially considering she’s only been a known entity for a month now.
“Palin has made it clear that she is opposed to a woman’s most basic right.”
Whish is Palin opposed to? A woman’s right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness?
“42% approval rating is amazing, especially considering she’s only been a known entity for a month now.”
Jason, I too noticed that number and thought… that’s not bad. But my guess is that approval rating will drop the longer she’s a known entity.
And, Stephen… life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all affected by a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body- particularly when it comes to rape and/or incest.
danae,
Just a question for a moment. Lets put aside the theoretical or philisophical notion of a right to an abortion or not. Lets talk the actual policy. I am assuming that you are in favor of keeping roe v wade in place, which is the dem party line. So now please justify why a 9 month developed fetus should have no protection whatsoever and why it should be permitted that such a fetus be able to have its limbs ripped off it it while conscience via methods so cruel and painful that we dont even allow such practices on lab animals?
Because that is the practicle implications of maintaining roe v wade as is… not just a theoretucal “lump of cells.”
Im interested in knowing in your opinion what characteristic such a described fetus has or does not have compared to a one day old baby that is relevent to why it has no right to live. And this isnt just in the case of rape or incest. A woman can terminate this late of a pregnancy for basically any reason she wills.
I’m just as shocked that the lefties still think that abortion is a woman’s “most basic right.”
I guess the NOW folks would happily give up the right to vote as long as they had the right to an abortion.
“life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all affected by a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body”
Wow! I know many women, many in the age group that Obama is having trouble winning over, and abortion rights have absolutely nothing to do with their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
NOW is just what most of these special interest groups are….partisan.
One problem is that NOW and many Democrats can’t understand the evolution of what being a feminist means in this day and age. Sarah Palin doesn’t fit their cookie cutter definition of a “Feminist”, one that has barely changed in fifty years. But she’s an independent woman, balancing work and family, taking a stand on issues that matter to her and against a male dominated system.
What NOW is not about to admit is that they aren’t about “women” so much as a side to select issues that matter to the leadership of their organization.
Much like unions are more beholden to their leadership and personal causes than those of the workers when they protest the opening of non-union businesses with records of good employee relations. It’s all about the union and its cause than the overall cause it claims to represent.
I know so-called lefties who believe life begins at conception and would never choose to have an abortion. Choice – and not abortion- is but one of the women’s issues NOW based its endorsement upon. There are other issues: access to birth control and emergency contraception, supporting pay equity, fighting violence against women, no tolerance for sex discrimination and harassment, and work/life balance for the family just to name a few.
If we’re to have a real discussion, we’ve got to let go of the extremism and rhetoric (on both sides). The truth is, few people are pro-abortion as much as they are in support of a woman’s right to choose to have one… or not.
To that end, Jason is right. Feminism must include those women who choose a different lifestyle than the stereotypical feminist one (if, indeed, there is such a thing). Women can choose to stay at home or not. Women can choose to marry or not. Women can choose to carry a baby to term or terminate a pregnancy within the bounds of the law. That is at it should be. And should a woman have the unfortunate experience of NOT choosing but being sexually assaulted, I don’t have the right to tell her she must carry to term or give birth.
EJ,
Thought I’d let you in on some information as it relates to terminating a pregnancy, should a woman CHOOSE. The law states (Roe v Wade) that the Court set the time of viability at 24 to 28 weeks of gestational development–that is, approximately the end of the second trimester of pregnancy. No doctor terminates a pregnancy in its 9th month.
For those interested, C-SPAN has the endorsement announcment.
As for the debate at hand, I find it ironic that Obama is supported, given his record. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
So Obama doesn’t even practice what Danae preaches?
Bogus math - or rather pointless. Gender based pay equity is entirely relative to position/value, and the averages above take no account of the relative positions of staff by their gender. About the only comparison you can make from the above is that a larger percentage of McCain’s staff is women than Obama.
april,
incorrect… because there was a follow up case after roe… that being doe v bolton that basically said that a state can not prevent a woman from having an abortion at any point if for what ever reason the woman’s health is deminished. This has later been applied as even mental health. If a woman says that she will be stressed in having a baby than is legal justification to have a late term abortion. Effectively then, there are no restrictions on abortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolton
What do you think the partial birth abortion debate was all about a couple of years agi? If there are no late term abortions then why was there a debate or a bill? If you can stomach it, i highly recommend you watch a video of this absolutly grotesque procedure.
Though it is true that this late form of abortion counts for only a limited percent of them, as seen on the following chart of distributions of abortion by time in the pregnancy. (this particular chart is for the UK, but its imilar to the US).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UK_abortion_by_gestational_age_2004_histogram.svg
This 0.17 percent still accounted for 2200 partial birth abortions in the US in 2001. Now keep in mind this isnt all of the late term ones, but only ones done by this one particular procedure that has now been banned. But there are other procedures that can be used in late term. It is likely then between the multiple procedures there are thousands more per year. And this is just the very late term. A government paper in 1980, estimated that at the time about 4.5 percent of abortions occured in the third trimester. To put this in context, babies have been born viable as early at 5 months and it is not rare to have them at 7 months (including myself).
Now even though this previous number is a small percent, I will garrentee you that if there was some other kind of permitted legal act that was blantently in the open that barborously slaughtered thousands of babies per year, there would be huge public outcry to stop it. If a company created a toy that killed thousands or a factory dumped polutants into a river that killed thousands per year, or a local police force was going around abusing power and killing children, then these pracrices would quickly be stopped.
Your understanding of how roe v wade is applied is a common misconception of abortion law that it only happens early on in pregnancy. Even if what you said were true about the secoind trimester, at this point fetuses are viable at the end of it, and can feel pain, have brain activity and a beating heart. It is not just a “lump of cells.” It is this popular misconception that allows for the general “pro-choice” policy to exist. Even if abortion in general is to continue to exist in principal, the current application of it is in reality very extremist and brutal. The vast majority of americans polled are against late term abortions, but the slight majority are for keeping roe v wade. There is therefore a disconent where people do not really know what roe really is.
As i said, if you are to defend roe v wade, your burden is not just to argue for the general notion of abortion. You have to be able to defend why it should be legally sanctioned so that one is able to tear the limbs off of a 7, 8, 9 month old fetus for no reason other then the mother would feel stressed (esentially she just doesnt want a kid). Because that is how current law is applied.
If you can not argue for this or your agree it shouldnt be, then that means you agree that roe v wade as it stands should be overturned.
EJ, i have not done near the amount of inquiry you apparently have into the matter, but something above is not clear to me. Roe v Wade, as i understand it, is predicated on the viability of the fetus or the health of the mother. Its the sister case of Doe v Bolton which enumerates the “health of the mother” to very general terms, which results in later-term abortions with, as you say, “no restrictions.”
As such, wouldn’t attempting legal address of Doe v Bolton seem to be the more pragmatic choice? If the majority of the nation polls as against later term abortions, but still protecting a woman’s right to have and abortion in general, DvB seems an easier target for the pro-life lobby.
Of course, pragmatism and pro-life don’t seem to go hand in hand very often. But really, they shouldn’t, should they? Thats why i tend to stay out of this issue. If someone truly believes that independent life starts at conception, there is very little ground for compromise, and almost nothing i can say will serve to justify my own beliefs to them.
Yes…. Let’s all get side track by extreme issues. Lets not consider the fact that no one (except 600K Alaskans) knows anything about Sara Palin.
“Ooh, she’s the greatest thing since sliced bread!”
Both the right and left make me sick.
Everyone needs to pull their asses out of their heads and ask themselves who this person really is. It doesn’t matter what she says (she is a professional politicial, which means she’s going to “say” what ever’s politacally expedient.)
Lets all start with the fact that she’s been in the polical limelight for less than two months. Which means that we don’t know shit about her.
That doesn’t mean she isn’t capable, nor that she shouldn’t be Vice President. But it does mean America needs to be asking serious questions about her ablity and mindset.
And just because she’s a women doesn’t me mean she should get any slack. Nobodies pulling puches on McCain, Obama or Biden, they shouldn’t pull any on Palin.
EJ,
What I agree with is it is a woman’s choice to decide what she should do with her body. Now would I make that choice, no but that’s beside the point. I certainly do not want anyone dictating their will or ideals on me, last I checked we all have FREE WILL. And none of us have to agree with another person’s decision. Whatever your beliefs are we all have a right to choose the what, when and how of our lives evidenced by you CHOOSING to post on this site today….
Wikipedia’s your source???? okay
“What I agree with is it is a woman’s choice to decide what she should do with her body.”
Who gets to decide what happens to the little baby girl’s body inside her mommy?
Now that’s funny right there!
NOW always endorses the Democrat candidate.
I’ve never heard a NOW member say “I wish my mother was pro-choice”
“The truth is, few people are pro-abortion as much as they are in support of a woman’s right to choose to have one… or not. ”
That would make them pro-abortion… if they’re in favor ot it. Because there is more at play here than merely a choice. If that were the case, I’d choose to abort everyone who had an abortion.
april,
my last post on this… i went to wikipedia simply because it was convinient that a lot of info was int he same place. You can go to the links they provide if you want a more “legit source” and you do not trust me. But more importently, you just responded with ad hominum attack. You attacked the messenger (wikipedia) rather then the message in an attempt to not have to dirrectly respond to the argument made.
With regards to your free will/ body argument. This is a standard cop out argument because it means that you get to dodge the actual question. What if i said we should make rape legal, because i have free will and if i decide that if i rape someone, i should be allowed because your moral values should not impede on my own free will? Any takers? I thought not. The reason why we make that illegal is because depite it restricting the rapists freedom of action, it more importantly is an agregious violation of liberty of the woman being raped. And the woman’s right to freedom trumps that of the rapist.
So the argument over abortion is not a matter of free will. We should be having a debate over at what point a fetus merits the protection of life and liberty. And like i said, if you can not make an argument over why a 9 month developed fetus has no right to life, they by defaulf you belive that present court law be overturned. The argument for having choice is often well no one knows for sure when life exists, its not 100 percent universal. Wellt hsi is true for any law. Im sure there are those out there who think rape is fine, but do we make a universal allowence to accomidate those few? This is the real argument we should be having, not this faux debate about right to choose.
And jerremy, i somewhat agree with your sentiment even if the end result is not completely agreed upon. I have long felt that the pro-life movement has missed the ball politically. The goal should not be at this point to completely remove abortion, it should be arguing that the notion of abortion on demand with 0% restriction must end. Thats the legal/sociatal crack that must be made first. Theys hould be focussing on late term abortions at this point and really pushing haard that being pro roe means allowing late term abortions for any reason. If that connection can be made, thats a winning political argument.
Also, a problem with the pro-life movemnet is that many of the partcipants, though motivated by it which is perfectly fine, are driven by appeals to religion and morality. This only works in convincing people who start with the same underlying premice, but the bulk of americans do not. There are perfectly secular/ logical/ scientific/ legal precident reasons for why unborn children, particular in later terms of pregnancy should be deamed alive for the purpose of law, and these are the arguments that should be put forward. Furthermore, by appealing to religion, this allows pro-abortion/pro choice advocats to hide behind the defnece that the pro lifers are just trying to mandate their religious belifes on them. But i ask, rape is deamed imoral by religious belief. Should we not make rape illegal because i wouldnt want my religious belifs to be placed on you? I didnt think so. Just because religion says yes or no to something, doesnt mean there isnt also secuar justification for that action. The pro-life movment is missing the ball in my opinion.
Roe wasn’t decided on the basis of free will. It was privacy, and even Roe said the state has a compelling interest in protecting life in the womb. The point was at what point does the state’s interest supercede the woman’s privacy, and the Court said that at viability, the woman’s rights were subordinate.