Blog for Choice Today

Emily Farris — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:53:00 GMT

Today is the 36th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade and NARAL's National Blog for Choice Day. If you'll recall, last year on this day we blogged about our own experience with choice and this year, NARAL is asking participants to blog about their top pro-choice hope for President Obama and/or the new Congress.

See what Scanner Brian and Scanner Emily had to say after the jump and learn how to sign up.

Scanner Brian: "For the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart," Obama said, "the Supreme Court held—upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors. For the first time, the Court's endorsed an abortion restriction without an exception for women's health. The decision presumed that the health of women is best protected by the Court—not by doctors and not by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong."

My hope is that Obama rescinds these restrictions. There is no way you can justify saying that abortion is bad AND a mother should still have the baby even if her life is in danger.

Scanner Emily: I hope that today Obama reverses the "Global Gag Rule," that tomorrow he talks about it using the term "anti-choice" and that going forward he encourages Congress to lift restrictions on female reproductive care for women who have Federally-provided health care. And that's just the beginning. When I lived in New York, my "girl parts" were insured by the state. My girl parts should be insured by every state. Unfortunately, I now live in a state that, like my father, would rather just ignore the fact that I have a vagina.

Add your blog to the Blog for Choice Blogroll.

Related:

Roe v. Wade 35 Years Later

My Obama, My Choice

Abortion Issue Heats Up... For The GOP

Send Flowers to Your Abortion Doctor

Sorry, Scanner Emily, But We Gotta Hate On Emily's List

Brian Fairbanks — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:30:00 GMT

First, a few disclaimers:

1) Emily's List is not affiliated with Scanner Emily or her totally rad Top 10 Lists. Emily's List, for those of you not in the political know, is a PAC that exclusively supports "pro-choice Democratic women running for congress and governor." Of course, that doesn't ever stop them from wading into the Presidential race.

2) We acknowledge that Emily's List does a great service for womankind with its service. But if you stick your nose in Democratic primaries where the female candidate is a conservative, awful pro-choice Dem running against a strong progressive male Dem, you are going to incur our wrath...

Firstly, back in 2006, when Representative Yvette Clarke ran in the Democratic Primary to represent Brooklyn's 11th Congressional District, she lied during a debate about having been endorsed by Emily's List. (In her failed 2004 run, she had also lied in campaign literature, claiming to have been endorsed by the New York Times.) Emily's List for comment acknowledged and appeared embarrassed about the lies, but endorsed her a few weeks later anyway. Clarke went on to win, even though she was arguably the most conservative candidate in a very progressive district.

Now, Ben Smith at Politico relays this retaliatory message from the founder of Emily's List about NARAL's endorsement yesterday of Barack Obama:

I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton - who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade - to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process. It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them.

Courtesy? The whole point of endorsing during a primary is that it actually counts-- once Obama is officially nominated, who cares if a Democratic Party organization endorses the Democrat? As NARAL expressly noted in their letter endorsing him, they decided to endorse Obama because it's important to go after McCain ASAP, a point seconded by a Politico commenter:

Well, I think it's "tremendously disrespectful" to pro-choice women everywhere to endanger the Democratic Party's chances in November by continuing to back the failed candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

All due respect, Ms. Ellen Malcolm, but this is politics-- candidates aren't supposed to stay in the race after the race is over. Barack Obama leads in the delegate count, popular vote, and states won; even Clinton's senior strategists admit that she will drop out. No candidate in modern times has ever won the Presidency if the nomination is decided at the convention. Never.

If you can't have Hillary Clinton, isn't it better to win with a Democratic male than to lose to a Republican one?

Scanner : naral

Blog for Choice Today

My Obama, My Choice

Abortion Issue Heats Up... For The GOP

Send Flowers to Your Abortion Doctor

Top Ten Scanner Posts of 2008

Sorry, Scanner Emily, But We Gotta Hate On Emily's List