2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBefore you slam Planned Parenthood, try reading why they endorsed Hillary.
Wouldn't it be more fair to consider their reasons before you announce you're cutting off their support?
I, for one, think it was brave and inspiring for Hillary to testify in front of Congress on how abortions are an essential part of women's healthcare, knowing that the less controversial choice for an aspiring President would have been not to testify.
Like Bernie.
And while you're at it, you can watch Hillary testify -- and blow some Rethug minds apart.
http://plannedparenthoodaction.org/elections/candidates/president/hillary-clinton/
She introduced 8 pieces of legislation with the purpose of expanding and protecting access to reproductive health care no other candidate has introduced any.
She's the most outspoken and frequent supporter of Planned Parenthood and the only candidate to speak up for Planned Parenthood at the debates.
She's the only candidate who has testified before a Congressional committee on how abortion is an essential part of reproductive health care.
Our Nations Best Presidential Candidate for Reproductive Rights, Hands Down
Theres no question: Hillary Clinton holds the strongest record on reproductive rights of all presidential contenders in not just this election, but in American history. She doesnt just support womens health she has been a proactive leader on expanding access to womens health care. In fact, no other 2016 candidate has shown such strong, lifelong commitment to the issues Planned Parenthood Action Fund cares about.
We live in an era where access to birth control, abortion, and services at Planned Parenthood are under unprecedented attack. With so much at stake, we cant afford to have a president who continues these attacks or who wont stand strong and fight against them, no matter what.
We need Hillary Clinton, womens health champion, in the White House.
randys1
(16,286 posts)pnwmom
(108,995 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)pnwmom
(108,995 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)mhatrw
(10,786 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)is twirling that the hoi poloi that support PP are pissed. They don't even understand what they do, they do it so much. I don't want to hear a 'reason'. the true one is clear. I give you the endorsement and you employ my kid. I already have the real reason.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)tblue37
(65,488 posts)you would need to spend about 1$10,000 to make you Smile contributions amount to about $50. I buy a lot of books, but I know that those paltry pennies are not doing much, so I also write a check to the Humane Society as well.
Why Amazon Is Smiling and Charities May Be Losing
{SNIP}
That's a problem because it heavily skews and distorts the consumer's decision making process at charity's expense. Social exchange theory, which has underpinnings in economics, psychology, sociology and philanthropy, proposes that in any transaction there is an exchange between two parties and parties will only enter into that transaction or exchange if the reward outweighs the cost. In the charity world these come into play around what charities can offer back to the donor in exchange for their gift which, absent some nominal "perks," is in the form a tax receipt and a good feeling or "warm glow".
And it's a pretty good feeling at that. Some studies that look at brain activity when people are giving, show similar pleasure circuit patterns to when we eat chocolate, have orgasms or do drugs. Sex, drugs and... philanthropy? Doesn't quite have that same ring to it.
But it's those positive feelings that programs like AmazonSmile are now tapping into as people can buy products, feel good about giving to charity and move on with their lives when in reality only 0.5 percent of their purchase is being given to their cause. So if you wanted to give $50 to a charity you'd have to spend $10,000 through AmazonSmile. $10,000 to Amazon. $50 to charity. It's pretty clear who wins here and I'll give you a hint: It's not the charity {emphasis in original source}.
The problem in this exchange equation isn't necessarily in the reward to the customer, good on you Amazon, but rather in the cost to the consumer. As in there is none. Amazon even says so itself in their description of AmazonSmile:"AmazonSmile is a simple and automatic way for you to support your favorite charitable organization every time you shop, at no cost to you."
{SNIP}
Unfortunately, once people have "given" to a charity through Smile, they tend not to give again to that charity, even though their Smile contribution amounts to very, very little.
randys1
(16,286 posts)small
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Hillary has been strong on women's rights and will remain a strong supporter of women's choice and Planned Parenthood.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)pnwmom
(108,995 posts)demonstrated for the first time that raising the minimum wouldn't reduce jobs says that the research would only support a raise to $12 an hour. That's why that's the number Hillary is proposing. She didn't pull it out of a hat.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)all will be well
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)$7.25 to $15? That is what he is saying, reality say no.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Congress since 1991, we have been needing raises, got one, where is the rest.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)litlbilly
(2,227 posts)they are. mmm, I think they're bear tracks, no, the other says, I think they're dear tracks, in meantime, they both get run over by the train neither of them saw coming. Bottom line, missing the big picture. America is one messed up place, and not just because of republicans, the bluedogs in many cases are worse because they screw all of us with a nod and a smile while taking the big corporate bribes. You would accept anything even if it sucks for America. Don't give me the bullshit that $12 is ok, its not. I bet none of you Hillary followers have to live on that. Prove me wrong, go ahead.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Desperation Tactics as her campaign is sliding downhill...
earthside
(6,960 posts)I've always argued that Planned Parenthood is not interested in whether or not a woman who might utilize their services is a Republican, Democrat, Unaffiliated, Green, Socialist, Constitution Party, etc.
This endorsement blows up that moral/political high ground.
I know many moderate Republican women who have been supportive of PP.
This venture into partisan politics jeopardizes a lot.
It's a mistake.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)their clown car this year and Hillary, are probably giving Hillary serious consideration.
earthside
(6,960 posts)The damage is done.
Planned Parenthood is now a political organization.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)by endorsing someone who has been in their corner time and time again? (no disrespect to Bernie)
they've endorsed Democrats in election after election.
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)exists those in the Democratic Party still who believe they can somehow win over Republican voters (especially when the potential candidate is named Clinton).
You'll have as much luck with that as you'd have convincing the majority of Black Americans that they should vote Republican.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)no other conclusion is reasonable
pennylane100
(3,425 posts)The battle cry of the organization is to ensure that women have the right to choose. Yet their concern for all the Bernie supporters, female and male, to choose the candidate they want to represent them has just been taken from them. I hope the backlash from this action is strong.
I will now donate only to the Bernie campaign until the primaries. I do not want to subsidize any other candidate so I will only give to my candidate and I hope there are many like minded members of DU that will do the same.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)They have a completely separate branch for their political work.
dsc
(52,166 posts)Have you criticized any organization for having endorsed Bernie? If so, can you please link the post.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Overlook future complaining a on PP.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)cheer a Clinton endorsement. I doesn't make it a smart move politically.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)They endorsed Sanders but since they did not, it was stupid, no don't think it was.
kath
(10,565 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)That is the point. Would you like to go to the doctor and bring politics into your appointment. I think not.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)MY God!
Go back and read it again.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Endorsing in a primary where everyone supports them is stupid.
pennylane100
(3,425 posts)should not support any particular candidate until they win their primary. That would apply to Hillary as well. When an organization gets a large part of its support and funding from all democrats, they should honor the wishes of the party members and only support the winning candidate.
dsc
(52,166 posts)no environmental group should endorse, no group should endorse. I sure as hell don't recall you, or any Bernie supporter getting upset when then nurses endorsed Bernie (for the record I didn't either).
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I, for one, was also angry at the unions when it was only leadership making the call.
Plus PP is not like a union that represents workers - it is a service organization.
peace13
(11,076 posts)I am completely opposed to this organization endorsing a political candidate, especially in a primary election. PP serves people regardless of political affiliation. This will backfire and PP will be sniffing around for donations. Ugly is the word.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I think it takes away from their purpose which is to support access to health care for BOTH women and men. I used Planned Parenthood's services when I was in my 20's and still to this day I benefit from having had that access.
While endorsing Democrats is great, you would have thought maybe they'd wait until there was a nominee or at least to the point where a particular person was leading by a large margin in the primaries. As of yet there have been no primaries, yet Planned Parenthood still decided to do that. Certainly if PP had endorsed Barack Obama in late March of 2008 before the PA primary, we know that the Clinton supporters would have been up in arms and screaming that they were trying to push Clinton out of the race.
To say Hillary Clinton is the best and only advocate for women on the D side is a outright lie.
Planned Parenthood should be focusing solely on keeping clinics open, retaining their funding and fighting back the right-wing smears against them.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)This is a matter of life and death for organizations like theirs. They didn't take this action frivolously. They're fighting for planned parenthood.
oasis
(49,409 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)In fact polls have come out that have shown that Sanders can beat them too. Again, if PP had endorsed someone else whether it had been Sanders or O'Malley I'm sure you would see it differently. Of course we'll never know now.
The endorsement was driven by who the Clinton's were buddy buddy with and as with all her endorsements were probably sealed the day she announced. It's more just more of anointing her the nominee instead of actually electing her.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)This is serious business, not some silly competition over which clique gets to have the table by the window.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)There are NO differences in policy between HRC and Sanders on women's issues, except the financial ones. Clinton will sell her fellow women down the river on trade and jobs, two very important issues for women.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I've tried to refrain from the "nya, nya your candidate's going to lose" type of post, but I'm starting to understand the urge.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Are they going to start checking your political preferences when you walk through the door? Are they going to stand in the voting booth to make sure you check Clinton's name?
Of course not. It's ludicrous to claim it impacts any political choice.
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)groups heavily and offering them some sort of incentive to endorse her. I think she's getting that desperate.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)oasis
(49,409 posts)is Hillary Clinton".
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)the election of the first woman ever as President?
Or more gratifying to their grandmothers and great-grandmothers.
When my own grandmother was born, women didn't even have the vote. But we've had it a century now, and Hillary is extremely qualified.
oasis
(49,409 posts)is certain to be an inspiration to millions of girls and young women worldwide.
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)going for her at the moment, and it's a crying shame that some people are willing to accept any woman just because she's a woman.
If Black people were looking at it that way right now, most of us would probably be supporting Ben Carson.
I'm all for a female president, but let's choose one with morals at least.
oasis
(49,409 posts)candidate they choose. Suppose you give us a reason or two on why we should switch to whoever you believe is the better candidate.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)But she isn't.
Just because you hate Hillary doesn't mean many progressives don't have a lot of reasons to like her.
ontheissues.org, based on her voting record, rates her as "hard core liberal," along with Bernie. He's just a tad to the left of her, and she's left of Joe Biden based on his Senate record.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)So at the moment I do not care if the next president is a man or a woman.
The stakes are much too high for that.
My concern is beating the fucking republicans, and in my view Bernie Sanders has a much better chance of doing just that.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)oasis
(49,409 posts)litlbilly
(2,227 posts)youre dreaming about
oasis
(49,409 posts)pnwmom
(108,995 posts)the data doesn't support raising it to the same level. Above $12 in low cost areas, there is too much of a risk it will lead to more unemployment.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)is supported by research, not pipe dreams.
The Princeton researcher who first conducted the research that demonstrated that raising the minimum does not reduce jobs, says that his research is only applicable to wages equivalent to $12. (in today's dollars.) Above that, the research does not support it. There is a real risk that raising the minimum all over the country to $15 could raise unemployment -- which is not the intention.
In high cost areas like Seattle, the $15 dollar level is supported by the cost of living. It isn't in small rural towns all over the country.
Historic NY
(37,453 posts)uponit7771
(90,364 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)Hope Clinton paid pretty for the endorsement because PP just sold out many contributors. They're going to need it!
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)The smart people have already moved on from Hillary and endorsement won't matter as we have decided to think for ourselves. Hillary's policies just harm too many people.
ronnykmarshall
(35,356 posts)An enumy of The People!
How DARE they not read the online polls of BU and endorse BERNIE?????????
blackspade
(10,056 posts)This was a politically foolish endorsement.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)But, thanks to poor political calculus on the part of the Clinton Campaign for releasing the info early, that damage done has robbed PP of at least a moment to explain their thinking in their own words.
Fuck, this was so short sighted....
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)to spite our face, actually it is worse, it jeopardizes the loves of women that are too poor to get what they need to , in some cases, stay alive.
That being said, this was a foolish move because it makes PP an arm of Hillary Clinton, which means it clouds an issue that should be nothing more than medical science.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)not ceasing to support their primary purpose. Nevertheless, this was a stupid, stupid move.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)and the fact that Debbie made a comment about how Millennials do not understand the importance of keeping Roe Vs. Wade just doubles down on the stupid. DWS is giving the impression that only a certain group of democrats understands the issues, and that Clinton is the only one who can help them. Say what you will about Bernie, but he is not anti-choice, so those who vote for him are NOT going to be anti choice, unlike, sadly, many democrats. I remember when Dennis Kucinich was the arch liberal except for Pro choice.
This move is DWS trying to co opt this issue, because, let's face it, it is one issue Hillary has spoken about and not flipped flopped. However, the issue of abortion needed to become a matter of science and medicine, NOT politics, and especially not one where elections are involved. If they keep slapping Millennial faces too much, then DWS and HRC will wonder how come they have no traction.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Even if it were Bernie. It will only make the Republicans hate them more than ever.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:25 AM - Edit history (1)
that any endorsement, especially at this point, wasn't a stupid move.
Or a move that was just explained to me downthread...
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative
mike_c
(36,281 posts)...but that doesn't diminish my support for Planned Parenthood. I'll make my own electoral choices and continue to support PP.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)She had gone beyond what most pro-choice people have argued for.
quickesst
(6,283 posts)... that it doesn't matter what reasons are given that pp endorsed Hillary Clinton. It doesn't matter that endorsing Hillary Clinton will help Planned Parenthood. It doesn't matter that Planned Parenthood has a strong voice championing their cause. They just don't really give a fuck about Planned Parenthood's guaranteed demise under a republican regime. That's just how too many Bernie Sanders supporters roll. For them, Planned Parenthood's work for women's health and it's downfall is a small price to pay if it keeps Hillary out of the White House. We know exactly where they stand, and we know what the main focus of their efforts are. It's undeniable.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)"endorsing Hillary Clinton will help Planned Parenthood."
How?
quickesst
(6,283 posts)... Speak for herself.
"I'll take on Republicans or anyone who tries to interfere with women's health. Proud to have @PPact's support in this important election." -H
Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) January 7, 2016
Serious question. Why would they not endorse her?
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)And why do so in a Democratic primary where we can assume everyone supports them?
Granted, I'm unlikely to take it out on them in a tangible way, but I am angry and I do think it was a stupid move. And I did express that to them.
Edited to add - oh, you mean help them with *Hillary*. But of course. That only means much if she's elected, though....
(I generally don't stoop to snark, but the more I think about this endorsement, the angrier it makes me.)
Ah, so. Just had it explained to me downthread.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative
Well, maybe they don't need *my* money. Hope it holds if Hillary's not nominated/elected.
(As I said, the more I think about this, the angrier it makes me.)
quickesst
(6,283 posts).... and this is not directed to you personally, I believe you know as well as I do that it would have been Hillary's supporters suffering the slings and arrows of the more outspoken among Bernie's supporters. This time, it just happened to go Hillarys way. I believe that when everything is said and done, Planned Parenthood will be fine as long as there is a Democrat in the White House. Because of the work they do , this is one organization that should be funded by our government . It is well deserved. Their biggest threat will come from the right. That's why I am among those who will vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is. And it's okay to be angry at times. It is only disheartening when that anger turns vicious.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)What things would have been like here if PP had endorsed Bernie.
Fortunately, I have that group hidden and am banned, so I would only have seen what made Greatest (I'm disappointed that's not hidden) and wouldn't have been able to wade in and get myself in trouble.
(I completely agree with the rest of your post as well.)
quickesst
(6,283 posts)... SusanCalvin. Right back at you.
Gothmog
(145,567 posts)I love the video on your post and the video the link
Tennis Magnet
(38 posts)in the PRIMARIES. They had no reason to endorse this early. You can thank the CGI's tentacles for those.
Should have waited in the GE to endorse.
Just a humble opinion.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I'm still saying I won't take it out on them money-wise, but I am very, very angry.
What, please, is a CGI?
On edit - nevermind and ah, so.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)to represent the Dems in the general. And that person, in their educated opinion, is Hillary.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)oasis
(49,409 posts)to choose the Democrat most likely to win the White House. That would be Hillary.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Any Democratic candidate would support them. Why chance making the rank-and-file (like me) very, very angry?
oasis
(49,409 posts)Planned Parenthood has been under GOP attack for months. They will need the presidential bully pulpit going forward. They can't afford to roll the dice on Bernie and risk having Cruz or Trump become president.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)But they *are* rolling the dice on Hillary. She is not guaranteed the nomination, no matter how much PP and DWS get behind her and push.
ismnotwasm
(42,014 posts)And sent them an immediate donation to make up for the temper tantrums I've been reading about.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)that HRC is a stronger candidate against the Rethugs, despite what Bernie supporters have convinced themselves.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Did they think the possible help to HRC would outweigh the backlash? Or was the backlash a total surprise to them?
Well, I'm not privy to the contents of their brains, and I'm about done with this topic, myself.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)PP serves women of all races, religions and political parties. This announcement is certainly divisive. If I'm for or against Clinton is not the issue here. I would be disgusted either way.
peace13
(11,076 posts)What I also don't have to do is reach for my wallet when they call me. I hope they have arranged for financing with Clinton because I will not be doing it in the near future!
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)PP brought the politics into the mix. They will have to work this out on their own!
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I can't believe Ann would approve.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)progressoid
(49,999 posts)That's weird since much of the legislation "she introduced" was co-sponsored by Bernie Sanders.
-Sanders co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act
-Sanders co-sponsored for emergency contraception for rape victims
-Sanders co-sponsored providing emergency contraception at military facilities
-Sanders co-sponsored Women's Health Protection Act
-Sanders co-sponsored protecting the reproductive rights of women
-Sanders co-sponsored ensuring access to and funding for contraception
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Abortion.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)an equal partner in writing it? I'm asking -- I don't know.
progressoid
(49,999 posts)34 co-sponsors including Hillary and Bernie
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00021:@@@P
Could only find two she sponsored.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN03945:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02916:
May be more out there, but I gotta sleep.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Bernie.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Because of you criticise anyone who is in the tank for some quid-pro-quo Clinton Third Way stuff, you are sexist!