National Organization for Women (NOW): In Stupak deal, "President Obama Breaks Faith with Women"

[Ean Juan]

for immediate release (3-21-2010):
The National Organization for Women is incensed that President Barack Obama agreed today to issue an executive order designed to appease a handful of anti-choice Democrats who have held up health care reform in an effort to restrict women's access to abortion. Through this order, the president has announced he will lend the weight of his office and the entire executive branch to the anti-abortion measures included in the Senate bill, which the House is now prepared to pass.

President Obama campaigned as a pro-choice president, but his actions today suggest that his commitment to reproductive health care is shaky at best. Contrary to language in the draft of the executive order and repeated assertions in the news, the Hyde Amendment is not settled law -- it is an illegitimate tack-on to an annual must-pass appropriations bill. NOW has a longstanding objection to Hyde and, in fact, was looking forward to working with this president and Congress to bring an end to these restrictions. We see now that we have our work cut out for us far beyond what we ever anticipated. The message we have received today is that it is acceptable to negotiate health care on the backs of women, and we couldn't disagree more.

http://www.now.org/press/03-10/03-21a.html

[Bicoastal]

1. Mea Culpa.

[Ean Juan]

3. NOW endorses Obama-Biden (September 16, 2008)

http://www.now.org/press/09-08/09-16.html

[Bicoastal]

9. Am I wrong about this? If I am, I'll delete it...

...but although they didn't endorse McCain-Palin, they were staunch defenders of Caribou Barbie throughout the Fall.

[blondeatlast]

10. They called out blatantly sexist attacks on her, true, but that was anything but

an endorsement.

Huge difference.

[Luminous Animal]

11. Yes, you are wrong.

They defended Palin's daughter against Letterman's sexist attack just as they defended Chelsea, when she was 13, against Rush's sexist attack. That is what an honest advocacy group does.

[Ean Juan]

12. Perhaps you can point out specifically how what was it that they defended

With a link or two, maybe.

[Radical Activist]

47. And how many months was that after Obama's nomination was wrapped up?

[jonathon]

4. Come again? They didn't support Palin as VP.

[MisterP]

39. "if you're not with us, you're aginst us!"

someone doesn't like the President's policies? they want the party to fail!

someone pays attention to a bill's contents? they can't appreciate the glorious win!

the appearance of winning is all that matters: anyone thinking otherwise is a "leftbagger"--even though the centrists all sound like Beckerheads ("don't listen to what the BIBLE says about your Commie-Nazi church!). in their worldview, leftists and rightists are closer to each other--though the traditional left-right line shows that the center is closer to the right than the left is to the right (duh), and "centrist" really means "American majority consensus." that's why the 60-70% of Americans wanting strong public option and against mandates are "the left of the left" (though recently they're just making up numbers). it's why they can blame Nader and Kucinich instead of the Dems who voted for Bush/conservative policies scores of times over 9 years.

[tallahasseedem]

6. Exactly.

I will not support an organization that supported Palin. Period.

[Luminous Animal]

7. I suggest you back that up.

[CBR]

2. Not with this woman. nt

[dana_b]

5. NOW is right

I'm tired of of our reproductive choices being used as bargaining tools.

[left coaster]

8. Hear, hear! nt

[robinblue]

13. women as bargaining tools is not new--but it is 2010 with a Dem President...

:puke:

[Karmadillo]

15. The New Boss would like you to bring him a cup of coffee.

nt

[robinblue]

24. :-(

[katandmoon]

28. Yup, after he gets from shooting hoops with the guys at the office.

[riderinthestorm]

14. K & R. It's just really depressing to see DUers so quick to throw women's rights

in the toilet for a "win". And being accused of "never" wanting HCR if we don't support THIS deeply flawed bill, with it's new anti-woman coda issued by our very own Democratic prez.

[Not Me]

17. Why are you surprised?

GLBT's could have called this one. As a gay man, abortion is not really something that affects me personally, but I'd fight equally hard for all women to have this choice, and view it as vital health care.

[inna]

29. Thank you! and...

:yourock:

[AllyCat]

52. Thank you Not Me. I fight for you too.

What a loser this whole thing is. I hope we are wrong. I fear we are not.

[cilla4progress]

16. I guess like with the "unborn,"

subsets (sorry, I'm a woman, too) have to make their decision if they are going to hold up something for the general good for their own interests. Yes, it's offensive, but I can let it pass - esp. since it is of no actual impact beyond what already exists, as far as I can tell.

We had to know abortion wasn't going away. Sadly. It's just too tempting to fundamentalists to continue to get their hands into our uteri. It's really rather sick and twisted.

[bonnieS]

18. As a NOW member and former local President,

I am VERY VERY VERY proud.

And no, we never supported Palin.

[Solly Mack]

19. K&R

[spanone]

20. what did he give away?

[Omaha Steve]

21. Executive orders can be amended, canceled, changed, ....

At any time. I'm sure he pledged never, but that is a long time. Way past this November.

[WillyT]

23. Um Yeah... He Also Pledged To Support The EFCA Too...

In fact he co-sponsored a bill in 2008.

Ironic, eh???

:shrug:

[WillyT]

22. K & R !!!

:kick:

[in_cog_ni_to]

25. What the hell did they expect? Obama is MALE.

No man is going to protect the rights of women as they do the rights of men. EVER. And any woman who voted for BO instead of Hillary should have known better. I'm beyond the abortion age and having to worry about it, but for all the 20-30-40-something females who didn't vote for Hillary, you're about to get another lesson on how NOT to vote (how many lessons do you need? another 60 years worth?). Women have had to fight for every freakin' right we have and it was never handed over graciously by any man...trust me. If women don't stick together, things will never change and the MEN WILL continue to negotiate what we can and can't do with our bodies. Do any of you actually believe Hillary Clinton would have done this? Hell NO she wouldn't have.

But you all have HOPE, right? :eyes: I guess this is that "Change" you were all promised. I hope you're all happy.

[Matt Shapiro]

31. As a 35 year member of the National Organization FOR Women,

I find your sexist remarks offensive. Obama is not to be trusted on women's rights or any other issue not because of his gender, his race or any other physical characteristic. He is not to be trusted because he is a center-right political opportunist with a silver tongue.

You might be right about Hillary. You might not. Historically, she's been pretty consistent on choice (although not perfect). But she and Obama are very similar on most issues. If I had to choose between them in that primary, I would have reluctantly chosen Hillary. Luckily, there were much better candidates to support.

Finally -- and we probably agree on this -- NOW is absolutely right to criticize the pro-Hyde executive order, and the Nelson language in the bill, which effectively eliminates the right to choose for anyone buying insurance in the exchanges.

Aside from the disgusting dual check requirement for women paying the entire premium with no subsidy from the government, this bill allows any state to BAN abortion coverage altogether in the state's exchange, with no rape/incest/health exception required (actually worse than the Stupak language). Furthermore, it allows the nationwide plans, likely to be the lowest cost, to locate in any state. In my opinion, these nationwide plans will find state homes that regulate the least, and these are the same states that will likely ban abortion coverage. The net result will no abortion coverage in the least expensive nationwide plans, and perhaps no coverage at all because insurance companies won't want to deal with the dual check business.

The Senate Nelson language goes far beyond the Hyde Amendment. The supposedly pro-choice members of Congress who claim this language maintains the status quo with regard to Hyde are not telling the truth. No pro-choice legislator should vote for this. Unfortunately, they all will.

[riderinthestorm]

32. Thanks for your support. My husband is a 32 year member of NOW.

This issue is not just a "women's rights" issue, it's much bigger than that and encompasses privacy issues so I understand that men are as invested in this as women.

I also don't think Obama's decision is sexist - its corporatist. He wanted a "win" and was willing to throw women's rights away in order to get that win. Furthermore, his language is such that he leaves no wiggle room for organizations like NOW that may support health care reform but can't stomach Obama's really terrible language.

[Matt Shapiro]

36. Agreed -- his decision was corporatist above all.

But being willing to throw women's rights away for the win is in itself also sexist. And that applies to every member who went along with that reasoning. The greater good is often an excuse for oppression.

And thanks to you, too, rider -- it sure is stormy out there.

[ncteechur]

26. Bullshit. All he did was to affirm the Hyde Amendment which is already the law.

[Not Me]

33. No , I call bullshit.

Abortion law should have been considered settled decades ago.
We should not even be having this discussion.

[harkadog]

54. Yes, all he did was affirm women's repression once again.

[JerseygirlCT]

67. +1

[katandmoon]

27. K&R for NOW.

[suffragette]

30. K& R for NOW

Welcome to DU, Ean Juan!

:hi:

[New Dawn]

34. Kick for truth.

[saltpoint]

35. I support NOW. They are wrong on this.

What do they make of the formidable women in the House and Senate who are supporting this legislation? Will they call for their heads? Arrange a firing squad? Fire bomb their homes?

[LeFleur1]

37. How Can NOW Be Wrong?

Why shouldn't a woman who needs an abortion in order to live and continue to be a mother to her other five children (for example) not be covered by this 'reform' bill? I am sick and tired of rights to health care being decided for women by people who are not qualified to decide that medical procedure.

For the President of the United States to stand before the Congress and say he supports health care except for women is unbelievable in this day and age. He wants Senators, Representatives, and himself to decide what care and decisions should be made for medical procedures for women. It is beyond bizarre. Thanks to NOW for, at the very least, reminding Obama of his campaign promises.
It's hard to watch them congratulate themselves when many women must pay for their own health care if it involves abortion. Will medical procedures for miscarriages be covered? Who decides medical care after a miscarriage is needed? Obama? There is NO REASON in the world to exclude women from coverage with federal funds. Do you think those hypocrites will excuse women from paying taxes.

[saltpoint]

38. The Speaker of the House, a woman, a strong woman, a capable woman,

an experienced and wise and tough-spirited woman, LED this legislation.

NOW has missed the boat on this one.

More power to Speaker Pelosi.

And to President Obama, whom most progressive women support in 2008 and support tonight.

Edited to add this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x238866

[readmoreoften]

42. Yeah, a woman who will never need an abortion and who can pay for her family members to get one.

Phyllis Schlafly is a woman too. So is Palin. So what?

[saltpoint]

44. I was aware -- really I was -- that the women you identify as

women are in fact women.

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, was the front-line soldier to pass this legislation.

NOW does not appear to have that fact in its grasp.

I'm sorry NOW does not have that fact in its grasp, but that does not change the fact that they are wrong on this one.

NOW also does not appear to grasp that many women in both chambers supported the bill.

That's not a personal interpretation; it is a statement of demonstrable fact.

"We have out work cut out for us," NOW indicates in the statement.

I'll say.

[sabrina 1]

45. The fact that some women in positions of power

are willing to throw away the rights of other women, many of whom have no power, doesn't change the fact that now many women feel betrayed by the party they thought represented them. That is also a fact.

And what makes you think that just because someone is a woman, they are not as capable as any man of betraying other women? We are not all alike. Some of us have principles.

Gays, women, liberals, all expendable. In fact a few of the 'new' democrats have come right out and said so. And that too is a fact.

So now, what gays and women and liberals have to decide is whether or not the Democratic Party represents them. Another fact. There are lots of facts and lots of decisions to be made as a result of what was revealed about this party during this process. So they 'won', great. But at the expense of people who have long supported them. We'll have to wait and see whether the 'win' was worth what they lost.

This current Democratic Party has shown us that they will toss anyone Republicans use to attack them, Van Jones, ACORN, eg, as quickly as they can. They wouldn't exactly win a medal for courage. Or, maybe I'm wrong, maybe this is how they really feel. Either way, as I said, this whole process has left a lot of people with a lot to think about in terms of actually represents their interests.

[saltpoint]

46. "Some of us have principles."

I don't think a case could be made that Nancy Pelosi does not have principles.

You can try to make it if you want.

I don't think you'll succeed.

NOW is tone-deaf on this one, I'm afraid, and their timing is even worse.

Very poor politics by NOW. Very poor.

[sabrina 1]

51. Yes, well, I'm familiar with the

attitude of the 'new' Democrats towards women's issues. What is it they call them 'little pet issues' from the 'women's study set' or something to that effect.

I'm sure Nancy Pelosi has principles. They don't include holding war criminals accountable when there is 'more important work to be done'.

A Speaker of the House who is a Democrat should at least give the appearance of caring about such crimes. She's a politician. Being a woman doesn't mean she would be any different than any other politician. I never understood why people thought that would be the case.

As for timing, is there a right or wrong time to let your representatives know what you think of their actions? I'm not particularly fond of NOW but I don't see why they should not express their opinions. Whether it is poor politics or not depends on your priorities. I'm sure there are many who will agree with them and many who will not.

Poor politics imo, was the way the leadership of this administration and its supporters treated its base and good Democrats like Dennis Kucinich throughout this process. I'm sure you don't agree. But I lost a lot of respect for them and many people on this board for their Rovian attacks on people like Kucinich and wouldn't trust their judgement on anything from now on.

[saltpoint]

57. sabrina, you've dodged the heart of the matter here, as NOW has,

namely that many -- not few -- women in the U.S. Congress -- ALL of whom have principles and ALL of whom were elected by voters -- just passed, in the majority, the legislation NOW claims is unacceptable.

NOW's argument holds that in order for Nancy Pelosi to be an acceptable woman according to the "principles" cited, she would have to NOT be strong, political, capable, influential, and powerful. Which are some of the destiny traits NOW advocates, by the way. Either NOW wants equality in the political arena or they don't. If they don't, they should shut up. If they do, they have the landscape everybody else has, and it is most certainly not going to conform to their demands at any given moment. That's not how it works.

The floor of the House of Representatives has not seen a woman Speaker, ever before. It sees one now. NOW does not see the same woman History is seeing, in my opinion. NOW's statement is poorly timed, politically tone-deaf, and historically idiotic.

Dennis Kucinich. Are you actually raising him as an example of a victim? Dumb notion. He was anti-choice for decades until the decision to run for president in the primaries. I'm all for "principled" people who disagree with me but one NOW member's principles are not one Congressperson's principles. Sarah Palin no doubt thinks of herself as "principled," but I doubt the wolves she blows out of the woods from airplanes think so. They have principles of their own. If Palin was the liberal and Kucinich the conservative, would NOW endorse Palin despite her aerial slaughter? They did not endorse her because she is female, which is true and good, but there are Democratic women in the Congress who are principled souls and who are pro-choice and who voted for this legislation. There are non-NOW member women also with principles and who support this bill.

I'm pleased Kucinich is pro-choice these days. There is evolution in Kucinich as there was evolution in positions of Lincoln on slavery. That's one part of the public service landscape. Today's Republicans are not Lincoln Republicans. They're Reagan Republicans, or pseudo-Reagan Republicans, which is even worse. In our lifetimes political parties' tone and content can change many times. Sometimes the shifts are small; other times huge. Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson are considered too conservative for some folks on this site, myself included, but they are slobbering liberals compared to the Southern Democrats of the Eisenhower era.

A woman who is accomplished in the political arena as Pelosi should not have to NOT be accomplished, NOT be effective, NOT be tough and smart, and NOT be historically significant for NOW's objection to be resonant. NOW is a political organization, and only one, and not a very influential one. They could have been more involved than they were in this debate. They did not choose to participate at a level necessary to influence the outcome any more than they did, which is to say, they invested less and their dividend is smaller. There is no argument on this board that there issues are good ones. Many of us have been members since the days of Congresswoman Bella Abzug. No one was stopping NOW from being more high profile or more effective and present in this debate, but their voice was not heard; they were unable to prevail upon the decidedly political women in the Congress, or upon this White House.

Not uninterestingly, a group of nuns -- also women with principles -- opposed the Stupak manipulation. Many males also opposed it. This is an old argument. NOW has a right to be "incensed" at the outcome of this vote, but one might equally ask where they hell they were for the last year and a half. They were barely present, and demonstrably ineffective. It's a shame.

[bonnieS]

61. whether or not

you support this bill, saying that the abortion language has to be fine because Pelosi is a woman is just nuts (sorry). All women are not alike. Some are ambitious politicos who want to gain favor with the men they support--like the President. I know some of these women. They would sell me down the river for lunch with some male politician. Some women, on the other hand, are wise and righteous ad enduring, even if ridiculed and left standing outside the realms of power, like Susan B. Anthony.

Have you even SEEN the language of the Executive Order?

I can't believe some of the posts here, that are so sexist.

[saltpoint]

66. Sorry, bonnieS. A decidedly accomplished female human being is

the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and led this legislation through a rocky course to historical triumph.

Many other women, less famous and less accomplished, but women just the same and more power to 'em, also supported the bill.

People almost no one has heard of supported the bill, many of them well to the left of NOW.

I'm sorry to say so but you are missing the forest for a tree or two.

[bonnieS]

60. my niece had a miscarriage

The hospital told her that in order to receive insurance coverage she had to sign a document saying she had had an abortion procedure. She got hysterical.

I have been asking my Congressman what this means for women like my niece. No answer, of course.

[Luminous Animal]

49. Oh those crazy feminazis! What kind of holy terror will unleash?

I remember the last time they ran unchecked through the streets of the USA. Blood ran like rivers in the streets.

[saltpoint]

68. Not enough is unleashed as far as I'm concerned.

"It was in another lifetime / One of toil and blood
When darkness was a virtue / And the streets were filled with mud
I came in from the wilderness / A creature void of form
'Come in,' she said, 'I'll give ya / Shelter from the storm.' "

That's a Dylan lick, and a darned good one, summoning a time before ours. Before you or me or Pelosi or Stupak or Bella or Gloria or Betty or Rosa or Susan B.

Before Cher, even.

Limbaugh's assault on that ancient blood, on women generally, gives the rest of us reason to remember why it it holy in the first place.

[treestar]

40. They are as obsessed with this issue as any pro-lifer

It is NOT the ONLY issue in the world.

[sabrina 1]

41. Well, of course it's not, so why is it the one that

Democrats feel they can 'negotiate away'? Why not the Republican idea of Mandated Insurance eg?

For the record, I am personally pro-life, but pro Roe V Wade as other people's decisions are no my business. So, I'm sorry not to fit your profile. Democrats claim to be a big tent, but to make room for the latest infiltration of DLCers, it looks like they've had to push a few people out, and it looks like women and liberals were the first to go.

[readmoreoften]

43. It's not the only rights they negotiate away. They slit LGBT throats every opportunity they get.

They LOVE to show Republicans how willing they are to slit our throats, in fact. And you know what, many Democrats do too. It shows "bipartisanship."

[kenny blankenship]

50. We pretty much exist to be traded away in the first round, AFAICT

It's so routine that I'm beginning to doubt we will have exchange value anymore.

Tell you what I'll do, I'll slit the gays' throats for you if you give me this one point.

eh, you were going to slit them anyway. It wasn't even on my list of things to ask for. Throw in the women and we'll talk.

[LeFleur1]

62. Not the Only Issue?

You mean like civil rights is not the only issue, so elect someone who would do away with some of them? Torture is not the only issue so let's torture, invasion is not the only issue so let's invade?
criminal activity by the justice department is not the only issue so shut up and let them get away with criminal activity? Government spying on citizens is not the only issue, so be fine with it?
What are the issues you would go to the mat for if not for equal rights?

[Radical Activist]

48. Abortion is not the only womens health issue.

The ban on federal funding is stupid, but its also the status quo. Releasing multiple statements on choice without mentioning the vitally important advances in womens health care this bill represents suggests they're losing perspective.
Maybe this kind of thing is why people say NOW is out of touch with working class women.

[Jax]

53. k&r Where are Skinner and EarlG on THIS thread...

Alyce

[BlueIris]

55. Agreed. Inexcusable.

Presidenting fail.

While I plan to remain a Democrat and can still see myself voting Democrat in local elections and maybe in congressional ones, it's hard for me to see myself voting for Obama again after this.

[saracat]

56. +1

[freddie mertz]

58. This is by far the worst aspect of the bill as it ended up being passed.

The Dem Party is now, almost officially, "antichoice."

Never thought it would come to that.

[DailyGrind51]

59. Say that to the next woman with breast cancer and no insurance!

Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, nothing changes that! Grow up NOW!

[LeFleur1]

63. We Were Mistaken

The congress played the right to choose card. They chose to give coverage (if she can afford it) to a woman with breast cancer, but not to a woman who will die without an abortion. And you think that's okay? This is why our country is such a mess. Once upon a time enough of us believed in equality to try to make it so. Not any more.

[mzmolly]

64. I believe life threatening

situations are covered.

[Matt Shapiro]

65. Life threatening situations are not covered in states that

choose to ban abortion coverage altogether in their exchange.

[bonnieS]

69. Altho i may be missing the forest for the trees

(I do not think so), as a woman who has had breast cancer, and thus has a pre-existing condition, let me tell you that I HAVE insurance, and they refused to pay for my treatment, and I still find this bill to be unacceptable. I have asked my Congressman again and again how much I will have to PAY to be covered including co-pays and premiums and deductibles, and HE HAS NO ANSWER. It does me no good if the price tag is too high for me to afford, there are no rate regulations in the bill, and, just as with whether or not miscarriages will be lumped in with abortions, no one knows the answer.

Women should not have to trade one right for another. Men in this bill are not having to trade their viagra for their prostate cancer treatments (although the seriousnes is obviously not comparable). NOW is totally right to focus on the issue that no one else, apparently, seems to care about much. It does NOT mean they are a one issue group and have not fought long and hard for all the other little things in our lives, like dare care. Right now, reproductive rights are on the verge of going--indeed have now gone--backward and SOMEONE has to call attention to it, so it is NOW. The Executive Order, whether reversible down the line or not, marks a cultural shift in allowing abortions to be seen as even more reprehensible than they were before, and thus solidifies the position of the anti-choicers immeasurably.

When I went to DC on Stop Stupak Day with NOW, we were counselled to also speak up for single payer, by the way.

[Egnever]

70. Thats just stupid

Obama saved this bill with that executive toothless order the alternative was to put much more draconian restrictions into the bill itself. He stopped that from happening by issuing an executive order that is unenforceable.

Now is acting like idiots once again, or perhaps they prefer the alternative which was much much worse for womans right to chose.

I am sick to death of people complaining over process and getting it completely wrong. So once again for the slow people at NOW Obama averted much worse language that would have been a real law by signing an executive order that is unenforceable. Apparently NOW would rather he had caved to stupack.

[Matt Shapiro]

71. NOW is not being stupid. You are using insult as a flawed means of argument.

NOW has certainly not suggested that it would have been better to have the even worse Stupak language. The point is that the combination of the horrible Nelson language and the executive order reinforcing it to the public means that millions of women will likely lose the right to choose for lack of insurance coverage and lack of ability to pay. Furthermore, this important move against the right to choose may just give the Supreme Court the excuse it wants to get rid of Roe.

You obviously feel that all of this is worth it to have this poor excuse for a health insurance "reform" law that is more of a giveaway to the health insurance industry and big Pharma than anything else. The Democratic establishment obviously agrees with you. They needed a win, and they think this will save them in the next Congressional election. Time will tell.

I disagree, and I'm glad NOW took a stand against this terrible attack on a woman's right to choose. In fact, I would have been disappointed had they not done so. NOW's purpose is to stand and fight for women's rights. The right of a woman to control her own body is perhaps the most paramount of these rights.

I, for one, will support NOW in its efforts to undo this damage and to repeal the Hyde Amendment. Every woman, regards of income, deserves the right to choose.

What will you do?