by Jerome Armstrong, Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 09:50:40 AM EST
Not unexpectedly, when you let a socially conservative Senator like Ben Nelson drive the language of the bill, NOW comes out against:
We call on all senators who consider themselves friends of women's rights to reject the Manager's Amendment, and if it remains, to defeat this cruelly over-compromised legislation," O'Neill added.
Also, the NRLC has come out against the bill removing Stupak:
The manager's amendment is light years removed from the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that was approved by the House of Representatives on November 8 by a bipartisan vote of 240-194. The new abortion language solves none of the fundamental abortion-related problems with the Senate bill, and it actually creates some new abortion-related problems.
NRLC will score the upcoming roll call votes on cloture on the Reid manager's amendment, and on the underlying bill, as votes in favor of legislation to allow the federal government to subsidize private insurance plans that cover abortion on demand, to oversee multi-state plans that cover elective abortions, and to empower federal officials to mandate that private health plans cover abortions even if they do not accept subsidized enrollees, among other problems.
In addition, if the final bill produced by a House-Senate conference committee does not contain the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, NRLC will score the House and Senate votes on the conference report as votes to allow federal mandates and subsidies for coverage of elective abortion. Unless the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is included in the final bill, and the new pro-abortion provisions dropped, a significant number of House members who voted for H.R. 3962 will not vote to pass the final legislation.
Piss on the left, piss off the right, and the center approves? No, they are just appalled by the process.
Stupak too: "unacceptable." Hypothetically though, he just is adding his name to the list of those getting rolled by Ben Nelson on behalf of the WH.
by nikkid, Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:02:13 PM EST
A Woman Was Beheaded in New York by her Husband!
Shine a light on this story which is being overlooked by the media, but is being circulated as a press release by New York's NOW Chapter:
by kosnomore, Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:15:28 AM EST
The dictionaries define attack as, variously,
1. to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.
2. to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.
3. to blame or abuse violently or bitterly.
4. to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly: He attacked his opponent's statement.
by ragekage, Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:23:58 PM EST
Crossposted at The Motley Moose
I suppose it had to happen eventually. All the interest groups that think they had a hand in Obama's win, no matter how significant, are lining up to get the post-election handouts- and aren't going to be subtle about going after 'em. I mean, I expect it from people like Karl Rove, who today credited himself with Obama's win. But NOW- the National Organization for Women? Really?
by Todd Beeton, Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 04:34:27 PM EDT
Ah the law of unintended consequences. Kim Gandy, President of NOW on NPR this morning announced that NOW would be endorsing Barack Obama for president and made it really clear why:
The 500,000-strong women's movement, which "very, very rarely endorses in a general election", broke with its tradition of neutrality after "the addition of Sarah Palin gave us a new sense of urgency," said Gandy.
"She is being portrayed as a supporter of women's rights ... as a feminist when in fact her positions on so many of the issues are really anathema to ours," Gandy said. [...]
"The idea that she opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest -- those kinds of positions are completely out of step with American women and once they find out about those positions, they get a little less excited about a woman running for vice president," Gandy said.
NOW's press release lists off those issues and for each one explains why the Obama-Biden ticket is far more on the side of women than the McCain-Palin ticket would ever be:
On pay equity. Sen. Obama is a co-sponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation to end wage discrimination against women.
On reproductive rights. Sen. Obama is a co-sponsor of the Prevention First Act, to strengthen access to contraception and reproductive health care, and prevent unwanted pregnancies. He strongly supports Roe v. Wade and will oppose any efforts to overturn it.
On violence against women. Sen. Obama supports the continued reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act -- of which Sen. Joe Biden is the chief sponsor -- as well as the Security and Financial Empowerment (SAFE) Act, which is legislation to provide legal, medical and financial support to victims of domestic violence.
On the Supreme Court. Sen. Obama opposed the nominations of George Bush's extreme right-wing nominees to the Supreme Court, who have consistently ruled against women's rights,
For more than a decade, Barack Obama has said "yes" to women's rights, while John McCain has consistently said "no."
Kudos to NOW for getting off the fence for this monumental election and -- credit where credit is due -- thanks to John McCain for helping push them.