The Dirty Little Secret Exposed by Stupak

Many people on the liberal-left side of the aisle who don't live in DC may be under the illusion that there are major organizations advocating aggressively for abortion rights.  You would be wrong.

As both Digby and Jane Hamsher point out with devastating accuracy, NARAL has become a gutless, mealy-mouthed shadow of its former self.  One gets the sense that its leader (and I use the term loosely), Nancy Keenan, would be happier if they could remove the word "abortion" from their name and probably would but another sell out organization has already grabbed the name "Third Way." 

Abortion rights advocates deserve better.  We need an organization that is an unapologetic fighter for this most fundamental of rights.  This is a vacuum crying out to be filled.  In the meantime I would suggest foregoing NARAL donations and waiting for an organization to emerge that is truly committed to the pro-choice agenda -- one that will hold politicians' feet to the fire on these matters -- before sending your hard earned dollars anywhere.  

   

Comments

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

The trouble is that most politicians on the pro-choice side are equally 'gutless and mealy-mouthed.' It seems like most of them -- particularly male politicians -- view Roe v Wade as an unwelcome decision that they are forced to defend when they'd really rather be talking about something else. That and they've conceded the 'moral high ground' to the opponents, never challenging them either to defend their position or to start taking action on 'defending the born' by increasing benefits for mothers (regardles of marital status), improving both sex education and access to contraception, as well as encouraging non-procreative sex, and taking other actions that will actually lower the number of abortions, before they start preaching their respect for the unborn.

We bloggers and commentators are making that case, but who in office is making it?

[oddjob]

Hmmmm.........

I didin't know that about NARAL. They appear to be just like the Human Rights Campaign.

[oddjob]

It seems like most of them -- particularly male politicians -- view Roe v Wade as an unwelcome decision that they are forced to defend when they'd really rather be talking about something else.

Also a comment strikingly close to what one would say about most DC legislators who are supposedly gay allies.

Melissa McEwan of Shakesville (ne: Shakespeare's Sister) is quite persistent about pointing out how frequently one finds this particular similarity.

[kathy a.]

SC, you are absolutely correct that i have relied on organizations to advocate for abortion rights, women's health, access to reproductive and sexual health services, and health education. i am not of the beltway.

but what are you thinking, that some new organization will pop up out of the blue, right now? go on. even i know that is not going to happen immediately.

so doesn't it make sense to lean on the existing advocacy organizations to do a better job? to make this an issue that legislators know is important to constituants? to talk about on a grass-roots level with women who want to protect their constitutional right of privacy, and want it for their daughters, sisters, friends? to talk also with guys who don't think it is a front-line issue, on account of they will never have to deal personally with an unwanted pregnancy?

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Absolutely OT, but couldn't resist this Barney Frank line -- in relation to the protests last weekend:

"Some of the people [at the rally] that wanted to engage me in conversation appeared to have been the losers in the 'Are you smarter than Michele Bachmann contest?'."

[low-tech cyclist]

There are surely bigger sins in this world, but for some reason, few things aggravate me more than someone who's managed to get themselves in a privileged position, and then gums up the works by not using it. (Like Blue Dogs deciding that legislating is too risky, or Lieberman deciding that he doesn't want to use his committee chairmanship to hold investigations.)

NARAL is a perfect case in point. They've long since gotten to a point where everyone sees them as the go-to outfit for defending abortion rights. So if they fall down on the job, it's going to take awhile before anyone can step up and fill the void.

I wonder what the legal structure of NARAL looks like - just how vulnerable it might be to a hostile takeover of sorts, if people like Digby and Hamsher decided they wanted to run for its board of directors, or whatever equivalent it's got. There are advantages to using their brand rather than creating a new one.

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

Just to get clear on the proposal here, NARAL is supposed to score a vote for the health care bill as a whole -- not just for the Stupak amendment -- as a vote against abortion rights? The Stupak amanedment absolutely should be scored this way, but I'd be much less certain about whether the bill as a whole should be.

[oddjob]

On a purely political sidenote, leading candidate in the Mass. senate special election Martha Coakley (the state's attorney general) has publicly come out against the bill passed by the House due to the presence of the Stupak amendment.

(As a practical matter this is moot because the final special election isn't until January. I've linked to it purely for the reading pleasure of any truly political junkies....)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I can't help it. Another quote from

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Morialekafa -- he's in great form and you should read it all, but

There is another reason we may not get a bill, those uppity women who insist they should have control over their own bodies. In order to get a bill passed in the House Pelosi had to agree to allow a vote on the Stupak amendment. As the Stupak amendment turns the clock back a bit on the right to choose, naturally it passed. Pro-choice women, who are in the majority, are (rightly) furious about this and some are now saying no bill can come out of the Senate unless this Neanderthal amendment is stripped out completely. I don’t know if this can happen as elderly white men seem determined that they, above all others, should have control over women’s bodies. Is this perhaps just the survival of a primitive form of womb envy carried over from the distant past?

and one more line:

This wouldn’t be quite so bad if Holy Joe didn’t insist his conscience will not allow him to do otherwise. From his behavior of the past few years I wasn’t aware he had a conscience, but if he does, it doesn’t seem to bother him that he and his wife have benefitted handsomely from the very interests that do not want to see a public option. I suppose this is just a coincidence.

my own comments later.

[oddjob]

I would love it if some enterprising reporter were willing to make a stink by having the temerity to ask Lieberman, during a very public press conference, how much income his wife stood to lose if health care reform with a public option was enacted.

[kathy a.]

neil the ethical werewolf has a point.

this is a really crappy situation because there are such powerful interests invested in preventing any kind of real change to health insurance -- they've got theirs, everyone else is not their problem. they have managed to whip a goodly number of dimmer bulbs into an irrational frenzy over socialism, death panels, yadda ya.

but more health coverage will unquestionably help women -- not only with their own health needs, but because caregiving tasks for family members still fall largely to women, and in my experience, this burden is greater for families with limited resources.

so, how better to punish those ungrateful "uppity" women than to do exactly what the gasbags insist will happen if more people are covered: carve away their own control over their own bodies and health. would you like a side of hypocricy with that, sir?

and you know, it is just a perfect strategy for those who oppose change because they have theirs. this could shut down the entire effort!

talk about taking the "moral" high road... it's not bad enough that tens of millions lack basic health care, or tens of thousands die of that condition yearly. it's not bad enough that providers of abortion face death campaigns and sometimes actual death, and that people who need this constitutionally-protected procedure are hounded by strangers bearing giant photos of fetuses, or cannot find providers at all. it's not bad enough that we fail dismally to provide adequate resources for unwanted children and their families, but are willing to pay fortunes to lock them up when they fall through the cracks. the stupak amendment is purely a punitive measure, introduced and supported by people with the good fortune to never be affected personally by it.

is there any other medical situation where wads of idiots feel they have the right to make personal decisions for those affected? well yes, see terry schiavo, but fortunately most end of life situations escape that kind of national attention. thank dog.

prup, i like your blog friend.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

So do I, kathy, and he's been doing about a post a day since July 2004 -- and I can't wait to read them all. They are usually political, but if you check the July 04 posts, read the top one, a hilarious piece on deodarant names. (Yes, I'l get back on topic later) It ends:

"Rodeo" is the one I finally settled on. To me it meant a combination of sweat, straw, and manure, a real masculine odor that would clearly identify me to all comers. My wife took it away from me, said it was supposed to identify you with Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. Certainly not for me. She bought me something called "Hidro Fugal." Don't ask me what it means. I just do what I'm told. I don't seem to smell too bad though.

The man -- with his measly 20,000 page views -- don't know when he put in the counter -- may simply be the best writer in the blogosphere.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Now back directly on topic, and I'm sorry kathy, but this is not about 'women who want to protect their constitutional right of privacy' -- even though we agree they have such a right. THAT is what I meant by 'conceding the moral high ground.'

We are talking about a woman's right to have an abortion if she feels it necessary or desireable, nothing more, and every time we use this sort of euphemism, all we do is confirm the little old church ladies (of either sex and any age) in their belief that 'all we are doing is seeking to save "bad girls" from facing the consequences of their sexuality, carelessness and irresponsibility.

We have to start reminding people that there is nothing wrong -- and quite possibly something praiseworthy -- in women making the following statements:

"I already have three children, and it isn't fair to them to add another member of the family."

"I have just raised two children and sent them off to college. I'm glad I did, but I'm not going to spend the next twenty years doing the same thing unless I choose to do so, not because of a mistake, accident or miscalculation."

"I know I am not mature enough, chronologically or emotionally, to raise a child yet, and it isn't fair, to the child or to me, to force me to do so."

"I don't have the resources to raise this hild on my own, but his father might have been fun to date, but he'd be an awful husband and father, and I'm not going to saddle myself of my child with him for the foreseeable future."

"My child will be extremely handicapped. I may admire those parents who can devote the time, money, resources, and strength to raise such a child, but that's not me. I just don't have it in me."

"I had an awful set of parents, and I'm still working my way through what they did to me. But that's the only parenting style I've experienced, and until I'm through dealing with it in myelf, I'm not going to take the chance of doing to a child what they did to me."

"Ive spent the last ten years -- and most of my money --working towards entering this profession, one in which I can do good for people. I've got my chance, and I don't have the resources left to raise a child while I am taking it."

"Danny and I decided to have a child so he'd have a new son or daughter waiting for him when he came back from Iraq, but I just found out he's not coming back, just his body is"

Or just "I'm young, healthy, and have had a hard life so far. I'll choose when I want to become part of a family, but right now, I want to take advantage of my youth and chance to enjoy myself."

These are the sort of arguments we should be making. And -- though this is a hard one to put across to people who assume any mother's love for her child -- once she has one -- is automatic, complete and unconditional -- it is true that many women, after a forced pregnancy have at least an unconscious resentment towards the child that comes out in the way she treats him -- or towards the man she feels a need to marry just so the child will have two parents.

I remember, around the time of Roe that ther were a lot of women testifying, in public, at hearings, in magazine articles, that they had had abortions (even when they were illegal), why they'd done it, and why they were glad they had.

We don't see much of that these days, and I don't think it's because everyone who had one regrets it. It's just that people have become so browbeaten by the religious forced pregnancy crowd that they have retreated behind euphemisms and no longer are willing to deal with what it is they are actually talking about.

[kathy a.]

prup, those are exactly the sorts of examples i was thinking of. when i say "constitutional right of privacy," i don't mean it as a euphamism -- i mean, THE FREAKING CONSITUTION PROTECTS THIS, AND WHY DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE A BETTER ANSWER THAN THESE WOMEN, ABOUT THEIR OWN BODIES? BECAUSE YOU DON'T. SHUT UP AND GO AWAY.

i'm rather in love with the constitution. don't have much occasion to work cases involving personal and bodily privacy, but those are issues important to me, for some of the reasons you mentioned.

i completely agree, that these are the kinds of human stories that persuade. so, actually, are some of the stories i hear from the back end of unwanted pregnancies -- of mothers overwhelmed, abuse, neglect, abandonment of the child or children, and the consequences flowing from all that horror, but it may be harder still to get the direct participants to speak up about how their lives went to hell and their children went to prison, because they couldn't get family planning services when they needed them.

[Sir Charles]

kathy,

Sorry to be so slow in responding, but you know how this lawyer thing gets.

I think there are a couple of ways to either change or challenge NARAL. The easiest and most obvious would be for some zealous funders to push to oust Keenan. The other would be for an alternative abortion rights group to emerge that will attract money and publicity. It's pretty banal, but that's exactly how this works.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

kathy: you missed my point. I entirely agree that these are part of the 'Constitutional Right to Privacy' that we both agree exists. But the discussion was about the ineffectiveness of NARAL and other, similar abortion rights groups. And that ineffectiveness has nothing to do with their ability to convince us that Abortion Rights are important -- because we don't need convincing. (In this particular case, we are also both familiar with the legal history so 'Constitutional right to privacy' means more to us.)

But our audience, those people we are trying to convince -- who probably start 'leaning against' us but whose minds aren't set in stone and are convincable -- don't have that background, don't have the history and may find the idea of a "Constitutional Right to Privacy" dubious -- as do some judges and legal writers -- even some who are 'on our side.'

Most of all, by not saying 'right to choose to have an abortion' it sounds like we are ashamed of the word and trying to 'say it without saying it.' Which works to solidify the very preconceived notion we are trying to blast out of their minds.

(Furthermore, I'd even question if it would help us get another thing we want, which is for people who already support abortion rights -- but put it on a low level of priority -- to start voting on that as a primary issue.)

[oddjob]

Utterly, totally OT, however I just saw this via a Facebook link from an old high school friend, and since there are several attorneys on this blog I thought I'd share it since to my non-attorney eyes it appears to be a delicious morsel of schadenfreude (although I confess I have not carefully read the entire document).

(So far as I can discern this is but a very tiny morsel of schadenfreude, but since it appears to besmirch Glenn Beck's reputation how can I not share it?) ;)

[Voice O' Reason]

It shouldn't amaze me, but it always does, how many people in this nation and this world confuse their small-minded personal opinions for natural god-ordained law, choosing to forget that the whole idea behind this country is that laws and rules and rights aren't just made for one small group of white Anglo Saxons and the people who think like them, but for everybody -- or else it doesn't mean a fucking thing.

I was just reading an acquaintance's Facebook page where she and her friends were cutting loose about how absolutely no Muslims should be allowed in the military, and how outraged these posters all were that the Fort Hood suspect was being referred to as the "alleged" shooter -- how dare they use that word! They didn't even have the remotest concept of how either the Constitution or the American legal system work -- all they had were their blowhard extremist views, and they were of course just so wrongheadedly proud of them.

I continue to attempt to clarify for whoever will listen to me the frighteningly simple idea that a woman's right to choose to have an abortion is not an issue of whether or not anyone -- old white men, young gay Asians, air traffic controllers, Real Housewives of the city of your choice -- should LET women decide what to do with their own bodies -- it's an issue of RECOGNIZING that we ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHT to decide what to do with our own bodies, a right that needs to be defended vigorously.

It seems ridiculous to have to put this into words, because it just makes such basic sense, especially when compared to the far right's vision of a world where a woman is little more than an incubator for a lump of protoplasm that has more rights than she does the microsecond sperm meets egg, and yet the debate rages on. And knowing that the primary supposed advocacy group tasked with leading the charge has weakened beyond anything resembling effectiveness is dismaying in the extreme. As is knowing that electing officials who promise to help and then backslide because they might alienate some large voting bloc of their constituency that disagrees is the norm rather than the exception. I'm sure this all sounds very elementary, but these are the places where I keep getting stuck again and again; this wheel-spinning can frequently interfere with more advanced thought processes.

One last snarky li'l comment: I'm not sure what it says about me how absolutely delighted I was that Sir C. used the word "vacuum" in paragraph 3, sentence 3.

(I am evil.)

[Sir Charles]

I next propose that we put the D&C back in DNC.

[kathy a.]

very nice piece, V O'R.

i've been thinking about prup's comment above, that not everyone agrees there is a constitutional right of privacy. i think that is true, insofar as theirs has never been challenged -- the constitutional cases deal with the right to contraception, the right to abortion, and the right [for consenting adults] to make love [in their own homes] in ways outlawed by "morals" laws concerning sodomy and so on. these are all, more or less, rulings that the private bedroom is nobody else's business.

abortion is where things get hairy, because a small, vocal, and loudmouthed set of people want to call it murder -- preying on people who can't imagine being in such a position. and they have taken their right to free speech to the extreme and beyond, urging and implementing the harassment of patients and the killings of providers.

but do all these people really believe there is no right of bodily or medical privacy? hardly. we do not all get to vote on their prostates or their cancers, their cosmetic surgery or heart surgery. we do not all get to vote on their viagra, or go into their homes and force them to take their meds for high blood pressure or mental illnesses or whatever. if they eat too much, drink too much, or act like idiots, we have no say unless they harm other people in a prosecutable way.

the right of bodily integrity, especially with medical decisions, is so sacrosanct that it does not need a ruling about constitutional protection in the overwhelming majority of instances. you want your zit popped, your tummy tucked, your headaches to go away, your bad hip replaced, your terminal illness to just be relieved while you finish up? that is your business, only yours.

i'll tell you, if i got pregnant today -- which to my sorrow at this advanced age, is still a possibility -- i would need an abortion and seek one. and that is nobody's choice but mine. i do not have it in me to carry and deliver and raise another child. if my daughter got pregnant and was not prepared to carry, deliver, and raise that fetus, i would help her find a way to get an abortion -- and the same for my son's girlfriend, should they decide [she decide] they are not able to parent right now.

[kathy a.]

yeah, i'm still working with the personal aspects. other people here are better versed with political organization; i'm working with what i've got.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Warning: turn off irony meters or duck behind the couch to avoid shrapnel.

Quoting Steve Benen this morning:

But applying this argument can prove problematic. Focus on the Family, for example, one of the nation's largest religious right organizations and a fierce opponent of abortion rights, has health insurance for its employees through a company that covers "abortion services." The far-right outfit, by its own standards, indirectly subsidizes abortions.

Apparently, the Republican National Committee has the same problem. Politico reported yesterday afternoon that the RNC -- whose platform calls abortion "a fundamental assault on innocent human life" -- gets insurance through Cigna with a plan that covers elective abortion. The Republicans' health care package has been in place since 1991 -- thanks, Lee Atwater -- meaning that, by the party's own argument, it has been indirectly subsidizing abortions for 18 years.

Complicating matters, Politico found that Cigna offers customers the opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage -- "and the RNC did not choose to opt out."

Oh, and Marci A. Hamilton has a column arguing that the Stupak Amendment is unconstitutional. Not sure she's convincing -- Sir Charles? -- but worth reading anyway.

[kathy a.]

such dripping irony about the comprehensive plans for FoF and the RNC.

thank you for the link to hamilton. i agree with her assessment and arguments. the problem, of course, is that constitutionality is what the current members of the USSC court say it is. they are obligated to respect precedent, unless they find good reasons not to in a particular case. the unfortunate trend with abortion rights has been to affirm roe v. wade, but allow restrictions in practice. [someone correct me if i'm wrong about this trend; i'm an interested observer but no scholar in this area.]

[Lilith Snow]

@oddjob: Wow! Thanks!!

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And another quote, this time not from Morialekafa -- who is his usual biting brilliance in yesterday's column -- don't have me quote him, read him yourself and give his sitemeter cold chills.

No this is from Shannyn Moore, also worth being on the list: (btw, Sir C. pour yourself a strong one, but drink it before or after, not during the reading.)

Since Congress has decided to balloon government to exert rule over the uteruses of its citizens, maybe they need to think about where all those precious feti are coming from. What’s good for the womb is good for the wiener. Do you hear the sweet, lilting strains of “Every Sperm is Sacred” yet?

You may have seen the ads on TV. America has worked hard to overcome its withering epidemic of erectile dysfunction. Apparently, a blue pill and side-by-side bathtubs help. Every pregnancy, wanted or unwanted, is a direct result of a man rising to the occasion and saluting his power over gravity. My God, think about how many federally-funded doctors’ appointments are needed when “an erection lasts for more than four hours”! How many unwanted pregnancies could be prevented?

Here lies the problem and need for “reform”. The government pays for E.D. medicines and treatments. There is a chance their “cure” will result in an unwanted pregnancy, and we just can’t take that chance! Federal money to stiffen the manly morale, but no funding to pay for an abortion if the woman so chooses? We have to nip this in the pud! The same members of Congress who voted against the financial stimulus package would be hard pressed to vote against the stimulating more local packages.

The suggestion coming out of Washington is for women to buy supplemental insurance to cover an unwanted pregnancy. Really? Should the other gender do the same? Should the American people pay for personal erector sets? Shouldn’t E.D. medications be considered an out of pocket expense? To use their language, erections have consequences.

[Sir Charles]

Prup,

I am hardly a constitutional law scholar, but I find Ms. Hamilton's arguments sadly unpersuasive in light of existing precedent. Her establishment clause argument is particularly weak.

kathy,

I'd say you are generally right regarding the trend. And this Court makes me very uneasy. It's a Court that I would try to avoid as an abortion rights advocate.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sir C:
Entirely agree with both points. I didn't want to say it on my own, but she's the weak link at Findlaw.

And I'm scared as hell of the current court, not just on Roe but on SSM, as I've said many times.

[oddjob]

And I'm scared as hell of the current court, not just on Roe but on SSM, as I've said many times.

That's a big part of what bothers me about the suit Olsen & his liberal colleague (whose name escapes me at the moment, even though I know the colleague is a famous attorney) are bringing to federal court regarding SSM. I remember Bowers v. Hardwick!

I like the case Massachusetts is bringing much more, but I wonder whether that one will win, either.

[oddjob]

I do think that given the right case this court would not hesitate to reverse Roe altogether. I'm not sure what it would take to get Kennedy to go there, but I wouldn't trust him not to.

[oddjob]

Regarding SSM, the saving grace insofar as there is one is that Kennedy, whom I suspect would be the swing vote, has twice before penned eloquent opinions in favor of preventing homosexual Americans from being singled out for discrimination, including in Lawrence v. Texas an explicit reversal of Bowers v. Hardwick.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

The colleague is David Boies. The problem is that while Kennedy spoke for gay rights, he explicitly stated that his decision did not include gay marriage. Maybe he'll vote our way -- especially if Scalia tries to marshall SCOTUS to rule SSM is inherently unConstitutional.

We can hope.

[kathy a.]

scalia doesn't strike me as much of a uniting force on this court, to put it in genteel terms. he has the thomas vote locked up, but bless his heart [i mean that in the southern sense], the man does not have a rep as a peacemaker, or as one who contemplates the views presented before deciding.

i'd feel much better about people litigating abortion and same sex marriage [and other issues] if someone scalia-like was replaced with someone who might ever vote in the directions i favor.

[oddjob]

Alas, for that to happen while Obama is in office I fear you're going to have to pray for untimely cancer, or an untimely cardiac arrest or stroke.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Actually, oddjob, no. All you have to wish for is major boredom from Alito or Thomas. Not Scalia, who strikes me as a James(?) McReynolds type who stayed on and on, slowly becoming the leader of a shrinking minority, getting uglier by the day -- and he started by refusing to ever shake hands with "the Jew, Brandeis."

That also depends on Kennedy moving just enough leftwards that the Fearsome Foursome see that they are in a permanent minority. Scalia would stay on, but Alito? Thomas? (Thomas in particular seems unlikely to exult in writing dissenting opinions, and even he must be wishing he had more comfortable places to sleep than in his seat, with all these people talking at him and making noise.)

I think that even if Obama's next appointment merely replaces one liberal with another, stronger one, one of those two will be thinking of other things to do.

[Sir Charles]

Ah, McReynolds, a truly repulsive figure -- the spiritual leader of the "Four Horsemen of Reaction" who inspired FDR's court packing plan.

[kathy a.]

hasn't thomas seemed desperately unhappy for about as long as he has been on the court? scalia's having too darned much fun to imagine him retiring soon, but i wonder about thomas. there is something peculiar about him never asking questions at oral argument.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Quick one, but Shannyn Moore -- who gets credit for the idea, not the blame for the presentation -- is delightful. Her new name for the SCOTUS horrors:

Since they are
Roberts
Alito
Thomas
Scalia

why has it taken this long to call them the

RATS?

[Cheap Fioricet Online]

For many women, getting a positive pregnancy test can be great. But for others an unexpected and unplanned pregnancy is not welcome news. The aim of this leaflet is to help you consider your options and know your rights when pregnancy is not planned. It also deals with some of the questions that are frequently asked about having an abortion. Despite the fact that around 160,000 abortions are performed in England and Wales every year, there is still very little good information and a lot of misinformation about abortion.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Spam alert, though the comments are on target, it's just the source. (Hmm, have spammers actually discovered a new way to get on, taking a boilerplate piece that actually refers to the topic being discussed, hoping some one will click through on the name?)