NARAL’s endorsement of Obama causes “uproar”
I wrote in February that pro-aborts were raucously split in support of Clinton vs. Obama for president.
Ideologues like NOW (feminists 1st, abortion zealots 2nd) support Clinton. Hillary is a woman, and the presidency is their grail.
Pragmatics (abortion zeal and greed tied for 1st) support Obama. They expect him to do more to help the industry through government handouts, laws, and presidentially-overseen agencies.
So the NARAL board’s May 14 announcement to endorse Obama is no surprise. The abortion industry funds NARAL. It’s no dummy.
And the protest by feminist groups like EMILY’s List is no surprise, nor defections of pocket NARAL affiliates, particularly NY, likely headed by rabid feminists.
Reported the New York Times, today…
The decision by a major abortion-rights group to endorse Senator Barack Obama has created an uproar among some of its affiliates and other abortion-rights advocates. Many said that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton had as good a record on reproductive rights as Mr. Obama and that there was no need to take sides in the Democratic primary….
Clinton supporters in the blogosphere said they perceived it as a badly timed gratuitous slap at Mrs. Clinton as she grapples with the likely end of her quest for the presidency….
In making the Naral announcement, Nancy Keenan, the president, said Mr. Obama, who leads in the delegate count and could claim the nomination as early as Tuesday, was the more viable candidate. Ms. Keenan said it was important to make the announcement now because Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, who opposes abortion rights, was getting a “free ride.”…
Elizabeth Shipp, political director of Naral… said there was a feeling that endorsing Mr. Obama at a high-profile juncture might help Naral shed its image as an organization for white women only….
Very interesting last line, a distancing from NOW.
NARAL has been trying to generate a swarm against McCain for some time in its email alerts, apparently to no avail. See a couple examples below. NARAL must finally have become exasperated that the clock is ticking and pro-aborts have yet to really begin hammering him.
This from the NYT’s article is another indicator the abortion industry thinks Obama will be its sugar daddy:
… Obama… collected four more superdelegates on Thursday, including Representative Henry Waxman of California….
Waxman is the industry’s go-to guy to push increased government funding of comprehensive sex ed and to terrorize pregnancy care centers.
[HT: LifeNews.com]
NARAL email alert March 31…
NARAL email alert April 18…
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
At the end of the day, whoever get the democratic nomination, the pro-choicers will flock to him/her. All this endorsement frenzy will calm down come election day.
That’s what I’m thnking, but I hope to be proven wrong.
I’m thinking they’ll try to put on a united face, but the damage being done to their relationships right now will last a long, long time.
“Waxman is the industry’s go to guy to push government funding of …TERRORISM OF PREGNANCY CARE CENTERS”?????
What in the world are you talking about?
What evidence is there to support such a ridiculous statement?
Yes, that should be “terrorizing.” Will change
Bystander 958 am
Waxman:
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-releases/2008/pr04232008_ab-only_hearing.html
http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Henry_Waxman.htm
and just for balance, NRLC: http://www.nrlc.org/news_and_views/April07/nv040207part1.html
Jill,
You are accusing a United States Senator and/or the Unted States government of “terrorizing” and/or funding the “terrorizing” of pregnancy care centers. You repeated those allegations after being challenged.
These charges are extremely serious. if true they would merit criminal investigation, and if false constitute defamation per se.
Again, what factual basis do you have to make these extremely serious allegations?
He’s a congressman, not senator.
You’re hyperexaggerating; not surprised.
Definition of “terrorize”:
1. To fill or overpower with terror; terrify.
2. To coerce by intimidation or fear.
See Andy’s links, above. Waxman is using congressional hearings and trumped up studies to intimidate, isolate, and shut down pregnancy care centers.
Andy, 10:40
Plese point out in those articles where it states that Waxman “terrorized” and committed a criminal act against a pregnancy care center?
In the world of normal people, criticism is not “terrorism”. Criticism is a protected constitutional right. Terrorism is a criminal act.
Are you so far off the deep end you can’t distinguish between the two?
Bystander, you need to quit standing by and get out there and do something. Help look for people in the rubble in China or something.
Just kidding, but chill!
OK, I get it.
Certainly it is more reasonable to accuse a United States Congressman of being a “terrorist” than a Unitd States Senator of being a “terrorist”. After all, there are more Congressmen than Senators, and there are bound to be more “terrorists” among them.
And calling Congressman Waxman a “terrorist” is reasonable and notmal, not “hyperexaggerating”.
In the world of anti-choice extremists, anyone who disagrees with you is a criminal and a “terrorist” and should be so treated.
Jill, you make Jeremiah Wright look reasonable.
I will now check out of Crazy Town for the weekend. Good luck on hunting down “terrorists”.
“A new study released by Rep. Henry A. Waxman finds that federally funded pregnancy resource centers often mislead pregnant teens about the medical risks of abortion, telling investigators who posed as pregnant 17-year-olds that abortion leads to breast cancer, infertility, and mental illness.”
Same misleading claims are made here.
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com
http://www.bcpinstitute.org/BCPI_Breast-Cancer-bklt_Ed3.pdf
http://stopabortionbreastcancer.org/criteria_causal_a_bc.htm
http://concernedparentsreport.com/Abstracts/Abortion%20not%20the%20Answer/TheBreastPhysiologyandBreastCancerLink.htm
Laura, as a reminder, you’re banned.
If you need some entertainment that will last you until November, go read all of the 3,300 (and counting) comments regarding the NARAL endorsement over at its Blog for Choice. My favorite:
Shame on you, NARAL, for selling out to the left wing of the Democratic party.
So Clinton is a right-winger on abortion? What was Obama’s NARAL rating — 110% to her 100%?
My second favorite comment came in response to NARAL’s follow-up post, in which it responded to the overwhelmingly negative reaction by stating that “we honor ALL these feelings and opinions”:
We “honor” these feelings and opinions. What on earth does that mean?”
It’s funny how pro-choicers have no problem understanding what abortion advocates mean when they claim to “honor and respect” the views of pro-lifers. It’s code for “get lost.”
Bystander you are a hoot and a half.
1) There isn’t a true medical link from abortion to breast cancer. Quacker cancer associations often seem to cite lifestyle differences when making that assumption, but there is no medical proof. None. Serious medical associations say no, and I believe them over like The Northwest Central New Jersey Council on Melanoma or whatever.
2) Waxman is my hero. His research on the failures and, most importantly, logical and medical discrepancies of abstinence only education made sense, while Santorum’s rebuttal that stuttered and stuttered until saying “comprehensive sex-ed says dental dam instead of rubber damn omg end it now!” was a joke. And Waxman sort of looks like my dad!
It is heartening to see that the abortion industry is concerned about McCain’s prospects. Come November it could be that McCain will win despite the talk about the wounded Republican brand. Things like NARAL’s endorsement and the California Supreme Court’s decision on gay “marriage” will definitely hurt Barack’s attempts to gain inroads into the evangelical’s strong Republican base, something he has been trying to do since way back when, starting with a visit to Rick Warren’s church.
That NARAL has now backed Obama says as much about the political calculus behind the timing of the announcement as it does about Obama’s record–from the standpoint of supporting abortion Barack Obama is a dream candidate.
Perhaps someone else here recalls Hillary wavering on abortion for a split second a couple of years ago. She said something to the effect that there might be some accomodation for pro-lifers in the Democratic party. Heresy! Barack Obama would never countenance such a thought. Perhaps Hill’s moment of weakness has come back to haunt her.
Barack just needs to get these “sweeteies” to get in line behind his candidacy. lol
On another message board I used to frequent (don’t post there much anymore, need to check to see if its active) there was a woman who posted that had adopted the baby of a girl who was raped. This girl when she was 20 weeks pregnant was told that the baby was NOT Developed yet! They also said things like no one would want a “Rapist’s baby” or “a bi-racial” baby. The young girl also had been given an STD that if it had not been treated, and had she had the abortion – she would have been sterile.
At least Crisis Pregnancy Centers let women see their ultrasounds, often have donated supplies for those who choose to parent (such as formula, car seats, baby clothes, blankets, etc), parenting classes, etc. And they give accurate fetal development information like heart beat at 22 days and brain waves at 40 days.
Lesforlife, the four web sites you linked to are well-known right-to-life propaganda sites designed to scare women out of having abortions. They are NOT reliable sources of medical information. (Neither is Jill Stanek.)
Induced abortion does not increase the risk of subsequent breast cancer. This is considered a well-established fact in the medical community. Don’t take my word for it–go research the relevent findings of the AMA, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Office of the Surgeon General, and I think the medical division of the National Academy of Sciences may also have issued an opinion. You can also look up the mainstream INTERNATIONAL medical organizations. Or just ask your doctor. This is largely because of the Melbye study, which examined the medical histories of 1.5 MILLION women (the entire female population of Denmark–it’s great what you can do research-wise in a country with socialized medicine). This study is much bigger (therefore more meaningful, more convincing) than any other study so far or expected in the near future.
It’s true that there are studies that report a WEAK link, but these studies are all small, (therefore noisy), the correlations they report between abortion and subsequent breast cancer are WEAK (consistant with statistical noise) and they are more or less matched by other, equally small studies which report a weak PROTECTIVE effect (that abortion PREVENTS subsequent breast cancer.) To see such studies, read the references cited in the introduction and discussion sections of the Melbye study (the full text of which is online and can easily be googled.)
Someone posted: “A new study released by Rep. Henry A. Waxman finds that federally funded pregnancy resource centers often mislead pregnant teens about the medical risks of abortion, telling investigators who posed as pregnant 17-year-olds that abortion leads to breast cancer, infertility, and mental illness.”
Jill, would you agree that IF in fact CPCs are found to be misleading their councilees with false medical “information” that they ought to be (at least) de-funded?
Someone posted: “A new study released by Rep. Henry A. Waxman finds that federally funded pregnancy resource centers often mislead pregnant teens about the medical risks of abortion, telling investigators who posed as pregnant 17-year-olds that abortion leads to breast cancer, infertility, and mental illness.”
Jill, would you agree that IF in fact CPCs are found to be misleading their councilees with false medical “information” that they ought to be (at least) de-funded?
Posted by: SoMG at May 17, 2008 4:26 PM
Where is the documentation of this misinformation?
I have heard this but haven’t seen it.
A 17 year old who aborts and doesn’t have a baby till she is 25 has a lifetime breast cancer risk twice that of a 17 year old who gives birth. That is a medical fact. That doesn’t mean that abortion causes cancer. It means full term pregnancy protects against breast cancer. Since she is already pregnant she loses the protective effect of the pregnancy if she aborts.
According to the UN one in 10 Russian women is sterile due to multiple abortions.
According to the state of California in an assessment of all women who received Medicaid benefits over a ten year period, (more than a million women), those who had abortions had a 600% higher incidence of suicide than those who gave birth. That doesn’t tell whether they had problems before the abortion or if the abortion contributed, but it certainly begs the question.
The fact is there is a higher incidence of breast cancer, infertility and mental illness among those who have had abortions. Isn’t it reasonable to mention the association?
Elizabeth Shipp, political director of Naral… said there was a feeling that endorsing Mr. Obama at a high-profile juncture might help Naral shed its image as an organization for white women only….
Does this mean that NARAL is also for black men?
NARAL could be saving them 18 years of child support payments many times over.
“Thanks to all of you at Planned Parenthood for all the work that you are doing for women all across the country and for families all across the country
“Thanks to all of you at Planned Parenthood for all the work that you are doing for women all across the country and for families all across the country
SoMG wrote:
“Lesforlife, the four web sites you linked to are well-known right-to-life propaganda sites designed to scare women out of having abortions. They are NOT reliable sources of medical information. (Neither is Jill Stanek.)”
This comment proves my assertion re: SoMG’s purpose on this board. Please completely ignore the entire post containing SoMGs above quote @ 4:21pm. He is being intellectually dishonest again.
Someone posted: “A new study released by Rep. Henry A. Waxman finds that federally funded pregnancy resource centers often mislead pregnant teens about the medical risks of abortion, telling investigators who posed as pregnant 17-year-olds that abortion leads to breast cancer, infertility, and mental illness.”
SoMG: Jill, would you agree that IF in fact CPCs are found to be misleading their councilees with false medical “information” that they ought to be (at least) de-funded?
That’s what bugs me – that they have an agenda – and the individuals involved may mislead pregnant women/girls.
That’s what bugs me – that they have an agenda – and the individuals involved may mislead pregnant women/girls.
Posted by: Doug at May 20, 2008 8:12 PM
Oh please Doug, do you know how silly you sound? That’s a bunch of PC propaganda. Why don’t you go incognito and put them to the test. Please let us know what happens.:)
Then go to PP and tell them you want an abortion. Let us know if they give you a refund when they find out you aren’t a girl. Ha ha.
Janet, it’s not silly to realize that the agenda is pushed, at times to the point of misleading people.
EMILY’s List has learned to laugh
The pro-abortion women’s PAC EMILY’s List has learned through experience how to put on a happy face in the aftermath of huge losses. In 2002 17 of EMILY’s 21 endorsed candidates lost in the national election. In 2004 10 of…
Breaking news: Michelle Obama and “whitey”
Democrat strategist Bob Beckel, known to underplay problems within his Party but still somewhat of a straight shooter, just mentioned on Fox & Friends he is worried about a rumor he’s heard about Michelle Obama – a bomb Republicans…