This is Obama reaching out to evangelicals:

In an interview this week with "Relevant," a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."

Obama then added: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."

Last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions, Obama said he "strongly disagreed" with the ruling because it "dramatically departs form previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women."

Now this is not a direct contradiction to what he said per se, but seriously, since when is 'mental distress' not a serious affliction. He is talking about taking away rights of women under serious psychological and emotional distress. What is up with him?

I hope this is some pandering to evangelicals that he doesn't actually believe, but even then minimizing the seriousness of mental afflictions of pregnant women is simply a way of saying that women should not have control over their bodies even if are in deep emotional and psychological distress. The extension of that argument is that women get cranky and emotional and dont know what is 'the right thing to do' in their emotional fits. It is highly patronizing and pathetic.

How do you think NARAL is feeling right about now?

Seems that MOST Press Releases about Obama's Official Endorsements are PROUDLY touted here:

http://www.barackobama.com/newsroom/pres s/

or here:

http://www.barackobama.com/newsroom/inth enews/
(In the News)

But...
There is absolutely NO mention of NARAL's endorsement last Wednesday (5/14) on either of those pages. You have to go here:
http://women.barackobama.com/page/conten t/WFOhome

Why would this not be given the same weight/respect as other Endorsements (like Union Endorsements)? Why is the Obama Campaign choosing to relegate this important endorsement to the "People" (Blog) part of his website? Shame on NARAL for not demanding a prouder acceptance of their support! Shame on Women for not demanding it!

I've already been turned-off and alarmed that the entire Issue of Women's Reproductive Freedom is not deemed important enough to be listed as an "Issue" on Obama's website. Now this sends off even more alarm bells for me.

I know that Obama's supporters think this is being "extremely picky" and that it is purely a "design issue" in how his website is laid out. I disagree. Think about how would you feel if an issue YOU cared deeply about wasn't listed as one of Obama's issues? What about if his stance on Civil Rights was ONLY listed under the "People" section. Or if a MAJOR Civil Rights endorsement was only mentioned under "African Americans"?

Women are watching closely Obama. You say you want our votes? This is NOT the way you're going to get them. Badly played.

There has been quite an uproar over NARAL's endorsement of Barack Obama, and with good reason. Hillary Clinton's record of supporting choice is far more extensive than Barack (Present) Obama's. The timing reeks to high heaven. It was obviously done to help push Clinton from the race at a time when her candidacy is tenuous. NARAL's endorsement of the nominee, after the nomination had been decided, would have been expected and welcomed by most Democrats. Instead, they have jumped the gun and been peppered by thousands of complaints from infuriated supporters. Their state chapters are putting distance between themselves and NARAL's national office, calling the endorsement "premature".

Many protestors at the NARAL site and other progressive forums state they are withdrawing their support. I, too, disapprove of the endorsement, but it concerns me that resources would be diverted from the cause of choice. A temporary influx of $10-$20 contributions from Obama supporters will not be a sufficient replacement.

May I suggest former supporters of NARAL consider Emily's List?

Six state affiliates of NARAL Pro Choice America have distanced themselves from the national organization's endorsement of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.

According to the Washington Post, "Pennsylvania, Missouri, Oregon, Washington, Texas and New York...have issued statements signaling their continued neutrality in the Democratic race and emphasizing that the national group did not speak for them on this matter. These groups represent nearly a quarter of NARAL's state chapters."  [Source:  5/15/2008 Washington Post/The Trail blog "NARAL Affiliates Question Obama Endorsement"]

From what I can gather, the NARAL state affiliates are not upset with the Obama endorsement per se.  What they're upset with is the fact that the national organization picked Obama without consulting them -- the grassroots.

Case in point, in Oregon, a state where Sen. Obama is expected to win their Democratic presidential preference primary, Michele Stranger-Hunter, the Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon issued the following statement:

"This decision was not made in consultation with the affiliate network and NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon will not be endorsing a candidate in this race.  We are proud to have two strongly pro-choice candidates running for President. And we look forward to supporting whoever the nominee will be and are committed to defeating Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in November."

Let that be a lesson to national organizations.

If you're going to endorse a candidate, then make sure your local affiliates are A.) consulted; and B.) behind your decision 100%.

I am deeply saddened to read many comments here and on other diaries, which are so caught up in Hillary versus Obama, that everyone seems to forget what NARAL is about.  

At 60+ I am older than most of you I think.  
I doubt many of you ever knew a woman who died from a back alley abortion.  I knew three.

Clinic defense: it's getting up very early on Friday and Saturday mornings and driving to a clinic which performs abortions in order to help the women who are coming to them from medical care get into the clinic without having to deal with the harassment of anti-abortion protesters.

It's challenging work.  It requires you learn to focus on the clients and not react personally to anything the protesters say to you (gay-baiting, race-baiting, threats on your person, etc.).  

When you do clinic defense, you don't even refer to one another by name where it can be overheard because if they have your name, they make the attacks much more personal.

It was difficult work, but it was well worth it.  It taught me a lot about myself, about responding to personal attacks, and it taught me a bit about courage, too.

In the last few days I have been growing more concerned about the us vs them mentality that appeared to be developing in Hillary's camp, especially in terms of its potential impact on feminism. I wrote here and in my blog < http://msa4.wordpress.com/ > the following:

"It is time that feminists who have supported Clinton for the right reasons step up to the plate and criticize her for unacceptable remarks and practices. The women's movement has been deeply divided over the Clinton candidacy. Yet what started out as a legitimate disagreement about the merits of the candidates and their agendas has turned into a test of one's feminist credentials. But the test is perverse. It is not a test of feminist principles and values. It has become a test of loyalty to Clinton, in spite of the fact that she is undermining basic feminist values..... ........"

I can't tell you how pleased I am that NARAL has stepped up to the plate, even if its position doesn't entail any direct criticism of Hillary's remarks and practices.  

When I was a girl my mom and I drove 6 hours from Detroit to Chicago to help lobby for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment.

When I moved to the DC area some 24 years ago, I didn't waste any time in getting involved with the progressive causes.  With the national headquarters of so many great groups here in our area, it was easy to volunteer and feel like I was making a difference.  One of those groups was NARAL - then called the National Abortion Rights Action League.

I'd show up every Wednesday evening to hang out in the conference room, go through "hate mail" and visit with friends.  We had a great group of folks - and it was kind of funny to see what some of the anti's sent back in NARAL's pre-paid mailers.  The idea was to weed out addresses from the mailing list so the group wouldn't waste money on them once we id'd them as anti's.  They got pretty creative actually - more than once we'd open the envelope to find a squished frog or something equally gross.  Another time someone sent the envelope back taped to a brick - running up the postage charged to the group.

I also showed up to help with national marches, and was a regular at clinic defenses when we got word that the anti's would try to shut down a clinic - especially on January 22nd, when they turned up in DC for their annual march.  The idea was to keep it open so patients could get in for their appointments - most of whom were there for check-ups, advice re birth control or cancer screenings etc.  So we'd act as escorts or legal observers.  We'd ring the door to the clinic to keep the anti's from gaining control of the entrance and shutting it down.  It got kind of comical at times really - we'd set up a ring and then the anti's would set one up in front of us.  Then we'd block them off so more anti's couldn't get in to add to their ranks.  Layer of us - layer of them - layer of us and so on...  to the point where it looked like a rainbow.