Letters to the Editor
-
@AKA Smith
I am not attacking Obama here but don't think I agree with Planned Parenthood's strategy. Parental notification is one of ugliest of the antiabortion crowds issues. It seems to me to be an extremely important issue to actually take a stand on. "Present" is not a stand. That is all I am saying.
I guess you're entitled to disagree with PP's strategy, but I think that's a really bad choice. Basically the Planned Parenthood/Obama strategy provided cover to Democrats in conservative districts and moderate Republicans to make sure these bad bills didn't get passed.
NOW (and you, apparently) seem much more concerned with loud grandstanding and "taking a stand" than you are with assuring you get the legislative outcome you want. Would you have been happier if Obama had loudly denounced these bills at every opportunity, and then voted "Yes"? That's the logical extension of your line of though.
-
Illinois was complicated at that time...
When Democrat Glenn Proshard was running against Republican George Ryan for Governor of Illinois in 1998, NARAL and Planned Parenthood both were stumping for Ryan aggressively. I got phone calls, direct mail pieces, etc., all endorsing Ryan.
The problem at the time, was Ryan was a known crook. It was no secret. I was appalled that those organizations (both of whom I send money to) were aggressively backing him. I can be pretty single issue about abortion, but not to the point of stumping for a criminal.
Ryan became Governor of Illinois, but is now in Federal Prison.
Does this have anything to do with Obama? Not sure at all, but I am just pointing out that the abortion legislation landscape in Illinois at that time was pretty extraordinary.
-
@soylentgreenleftovers
I have a lot of sympathy with the question you are asking about parental consent, partly as a parent of teenaged children. Out of historical context, I would have a lot more sympathy for the argument that parents should know about their children's clinical care. However, the anti-choice movement has made it overtly and abundantly clear that they consider such legislative maneuvers mere stepping stones toward banning all abortion, therefore I think drawing lines in the sand and holding to that line a strategic imperative.
-
Lies? What lies?
There were no lies. We just had a simple misunderstanding.
Who knew that in Illinois ‘present’ means ‘no.’ I didn’t. I would love to see any proof, or any explanation of why they bothered to have ‘yes’, ‘no’, and ‘present=no’ instead of, let’s say, ‘yes’ and ‘present,’ but I am fine with blindly believing your explanations.
Who knew that Obama went so much further than just standing for his convictions? Who knew that he manipulated the state legislative process to let his more timid colleagues to get away with a ‘no.’ So sneaky! He is not shy to tell us that he is a ‘uniter,’ a ‘Christian leader,’ a proud owner of the most liberal voting record. He should not be too modest to advertise his being so clever about being pro-choice without actually voting pro-choice.
-
Well maybe that is not all I am saying after all.
Upon rereading the article, it seems to me that people aren't understanding or are glossing over one paragraph. Therefore, I went to HuffPo to read the Taylor Marsh article. What Marsh is saying is that according to Grabenhofer, Lorna Brett is lying.
The time frame might seem to indicate that she may be. If she is lying about her NOW presidential tenure, might she be lying about other things related to the issue.
The Obama campaign is accusing the Clinton campaign of using, knowingly, his votes against him when they should instead see him as on the prochoice side. Why then couldn't Obama just present truthful information to counter the alleged unfair information? Why is Lorna Brett not more forthright on her tenure as president?
It seems to me that neither campaign looks so nice here.
Nitpicking perhaps, at this point, with these candidates actually so close together on the issues, there is little else left to jaw about. I predict that the media will try to stir things up just to keep it interesting, but why should Clinton or Obama make it easy for them?
-
@Lynn Harris
Thank-you for writing back. I had written to Joan Walsh earlier in the month asking for clarification on the "not present" issue, but you're right that other media did cover it, and I see your point in why you're writing this today instead of yesterday.
You write, "Also, in NOW's defense: Regardless of what one may think of Illinois NOW's handling of this particular issue, I do think that there's a case to be made for the approach of not compromising on fundamental issues, even in the name of enlightened pragmatism. It's the "accept an inch and they'll NEVER give us a yard" theory; it's why some gay rights may advocates oppose civil unions, for example. (Of course, you might say that Illinois NOW lost their no-compromise credibility when they lter endorsed Obama in spite of these votes. But still.) Again, agree with it or not, but it is, in principle, a defensible strategy."
But I'm not sure that I agree with you that it is a defensible strategy that (timing wise) they first apparently agreed with this strategy, and then--when the candidate is involved in a fierce Presidential race--to disagree with it. The fact that they have changed their mind about this after the fact is difficult to understand, other than the less admirable possibility that because a woman is running against Obama in this race, and some members are motivated to help her cause by taking a hard line against this strategy--after the fact. (It would be interesting to see whether they have hit up other candidates who used the "present" vote in Illinois in a similar way).
Clinton's campaign has caused me to question my own "feminist" credentials. A roommate and I talked a long time ago about when "feminism" would be overtaken by the larger term, "humanism", and in this case, in this campaign I feel like I have been changed--for better or worse--from a feminist into a humanist (maybe a femi-humanist). I believe in justice for women. But it bothers me to think of humans, male or female, being treated unfairly, and when I read about the Clinton mailer in New Hampshire claiming that Obama is not a champion of women's right to choose (although he has been) I felt myself take another step backward from this sort of "feminism."
A strategy difference is a strategy difference. But questioning Obama's fundamental commitment to women's rights (when he had the approval to begin with from NOW) during a fierce campaign like this--just strikes me as striking below the belt. And not a great moment for women.