THIS IS JUST AS BAD AS STALIN"S GREAT PURGE!!!

Obama Was Present, But He Was Not There On Issues That Mattered to Illinois Women

In celebration of Women’s History Month, March 28, 2007, the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee, NOW PAC, announced its endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President (see article below).

Illinois NOW PAC supported the endorsement of Senator Clinton. “She is, after all, our native sister,” said Bonnie Grabenhofer, president of Illinois NOW. “We know from her record and in her heart she will be there for us.”

Senator Clinton has a long history of support for women's empowerment, and her public record is a testimony to her leadership on issues important to women in the U.S. and around the globe. She has eloquently articulated the need for full economic, political and social equality for women in every institution of society, taking action throughout her career — as a lawyer, community leader, First Lady, Senator and candidate for the presidency — to advance the civil and human rights of women and girls.

After looking at his record, Grabenhofer does not feel the same way about Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

During Senator Obama’s 2004 senate campaign, the Illinois NOW PAC did not recommend the endorsement of Obama for U.S. Senate because he refused to stand up for a woman’s right to choose and repeatedly voted ‘present’ on important legislation.

As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted ‘present’ on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills. In each case, the right vote was clear, but Senator Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions.

“When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass,” said Grabenhofer. “He wasn’t there for us then and we don’t expect him to be now.”

http://www.illinoisnow.org/

UPDATE:
As Karen notes in her post, the Clinton campaign responded with a call of their own in which they highlighted Obama's trend of "present" votes, while acknowledging that it was part of a Planned Parenthood strategy.

“Pam Sutherland was not lying,” said Gaye Bruhn, who headed up Illinois NOW at the time of the votes. “We did differ on that strategy. We talked about it. We still differ on it. And she knew that we lobbied against it.”

Ann Lewis, a Clinton campaign senior advisor said the issue is not just the seven abortion votes, but many of Obama’s 129 “present” votes that were disappointing to women. “Presidents don’t get to vote present,” Lewis said. The campaign pointed to Obama’s “present” votes on a bill that would’ve allowed victims of sexual assault the right to petition to have their records sealed, a measure that would’ve tightened parental fitness requirements for adoption and a bill that would’ve increased penalties for using a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school.

“When we think about electing a president, as women we need to think of someone who will stand up for these issues regardless of what it does to his or her electabiltiy,” Bruhn said.

I'm waiting for a response from the Obama campaign on these other votes, though one political strategist did, rightly, point out that the accusations seem to have migrated from pro-choice to a whole host of women’s issues.

I formerly worked for Planned Parenthood in Illinois. I had the honor of working with Senator Barack Obama during his tenure in the Illinois Senate. He was — and remains — adamant about his support for women’s health and access to reproductive healthcare services. His present votes on abortion-related bills were part of a broader pro-choice strategy designed to ultimately defeat bad and dangerous legislation that would have compromised the health and safety of Illinois women. As Planned Parenthood’s lobbyist in Illinois has said, Senator Obama was asked to facilitate a strategy designed to help provide cover for other Democrats. Specifically, Planned Parenthood turned to Senator Obama because of his strong record on reproductive rights. At the time, Republicans were trying to force Democrats from conservative districts to register politically controversial no votes. Senator Obama initially resisted the strategy, as he wanted to vote against the anti-abortion measures, but decided to work with our strategy to help defeat these anti-choice bills. It is important to note that a present vote on a bad bill is essentially the same as a “no” vote, as the bill needs “yes” votes to pass. However, it is difficult for Republicans to use “present” votes in their campaign literature against Democrats from moderate and conservative districts (also see December 20, 2007 NY Times article: “It’s Not Just ‘Ayes’ and ‘Nays’: Obama’s Votes in Illinois Echo”). This strategy is now being used against Senator Obama in the same way we planned for it to work in our favor then.

It is confounding to me that Senator Obama is being demeaned and attacked so vociferously on this. I came into this campaign season feeling relieved and thankful that our two main candidates support women’s health and reproductive freedom. I am now deeply disappointed that politics has led to deceitful misrepresentations of Senator Obama’s commitment and work in this area.

Senator Obama was a leader in the Illinois legislature, and has continued to demonstrate leadership in the U.S. Senate. He understands reproductive rights within a broader context of health and prevention. He promotes, both in words and in action, a public health agenda that includes (but is not limited to): prevention of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases; access to contraception; comprehensive sex education programs (which include information about abstinence as well as age-appropriate information about prevention and the availability of health services); and reducing disparities in health access for low income communities.

Again — based on my experience, I can personally say that Senator Obama comes to his positions and his work from very deep-seated principles about justice, opportunity, equality and freedom. He also is strategic about finding ways to accomplish goals. It is these principles combined with his strategic sensibilities, experiences and ability to bring people together that garnered my personal support for his candidacy.

As the political leader of the pro-choice movement, NARAL Pro-Choice America has researched the voting records, public comments, and actions of each of the candidates and shared the information we’ve documented with the more than one-million activists, supporters, and members our organization represents.

Beginning in Iowa, continuing into New Hampshire, and now in South Carolina and the states voting in the February 5 contests, there has been an undercurrent of speculation and innuendo that calls into question Sen. Obama’s record on choice. This has the potential to divide the pro-choice community and create tension where none should exist. Today, for the sake of our issue and our movement, I am asking that these tactics stop.

As someone who spent nearly two decades as an elected official before coming to NARAL Pro-Choice America, I know that, in the heat of the campaign, charges and counter-charges are made in the honest belief that one candidate is somehow better than another. I get that.

Let me be clear: Here are the facts pro-choice voters need as they head to the polls, whether this weekend in South Carolina, on “Tsunami Tuesday” to vote for the Democratic Party’s nominee, or on November 4 when we all vote for the next president of the United States: Sens. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are fully pro-choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America endorsed all three candidates in their previous campaigns. All of the candidates have voted pro-choice; have publicly affirmed that they are pro-choice; and have taken actions that back up their pro-choice voting records and statements. All three candidates endorse the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify Roe and protect the right to choose for future generations. Sens. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama have steadfastly supported and defended a woman’s right to make the most personal, private decisions regarding her reproductive health without interference from government or politicians.

NARAL Pro-Choice America has not yet endorsed a candidate for president because there are such equally strong pro-choice contenders in the Democratic primary. We understand that other organizations have made different decisions; we respect that. But our collective long-term goal as a pro-choice movement must be to advance the cause.

This focus on nonexistent differences between the pro-choice candidates distracts from the real goal. We must focus our fight on defeating the anti-choice Republican candidates who have called for the overturn of Roe.

NARAL Pro-Choice America will continue to support pro-choice candidates and defend them all against attacks. We can only hope that in the future, we, as a unified pro-choice community, will be defending against anti-choice politicians, not one another.

In Iowa and New Hampshire the Clinton campaign asserted that Obama’s record on reproductive rights is not as strong as Senator Clinton’s. It began with a blast from Ellen Malcolm, president of EMILY’s List, which has effectively supported pro-choice women candidates in the past, but bungled this issue with an unfair attack on Obama’s record. Pointing to votes that Barack Obama cast on abortion-related bills while a member of the Illinois Senate, the Clinton campaign claimed that Obama lacked leadership and has a less than perfect record on reproductive justice.

What Malcolm failed to mention was that Obama cast these votes as part of a strategy employed by pro-choice leaders in Illinois. Organizations like Planned Parenthood and NARAL have made it clear to any reporter who asks that Obama’s present votes were part of a legislative strategy that they designed specifically to protect abortion rights. Further, Lorna Brett who was the President of Chicago NOW at the time of the votes has recently withdrawn her support for Senator Clinton and has become a supporter of Obama’s campaign saying, “Barack’s leadership on this issue went above and beyond the call of duty, and for anyone to intentionally mislead voters about that fact in the days before an election is simply sad. I am disgusted that this tactic is being used against a good man like Senator Obama.” The Obama campaign also released excerpts of letter that Malcolm sent to Obama in 2006 thanking him for speaking at an EMILY’s List event and complimenting him on how he energized their members.

There are two things are at issue here: substance and politics. On the substance, the record is clear. Barack Obama is 100% pro-choice — always has been, always will be. That’s why he made sure that FDA-approved contraceptives were covered by insurance plans for women in Illinois as a State Senator. That’s why Obama spoke out against South Dakota’s attempt to outlaw all abortions. And that’s why Obama has worked so hard to make sure that low-income and college women can access affordable birth.

In terms of politics, the truth is that the Clinton campaign took a gamble that may be having unintended consequences. It has caused division and opened debate within the pro-choice movement, which has enough on its hands protecting reproductive justice against those who would return us to the days when abortion was not legally available. And, most disturbingly, these attacks on a legislative strategy created by choice leaders may threaten the ability to implement such strategies in the future. If pro-choice legislators are going to be attacked by Democrats, what incentive do they have to carry out voting strategies crafted by choice leaders?

Pam Sutherland, president of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said Mr. Obama was one of the senators with a strong stand for abortion rights whom the organization approached about using the strategy. Ms. Sutherland said the Republicans were trying to force Democrats from conservative districts to register politically controversial no votes.

Ms. Sutherland said Mr. Obama had initially resisted the strategy because he wanted to vote against the anti-abortion measures.

“He said, ‘I’m opposed to this,’” she recalled.

But the organization argued that a present vote would be difficult for Republicans to use in campaign literature against Democrats from moderate and conservative districts who favored abortion rights.

Lisa Madigan, the Illinois attorney general who was in the Illinois Senate with Mr. Obama from 1998 through 2002, said she and Mr. Obama voted present on the anti-abortion bills.

“It’s just plain wrong to imply that voting present reflected a lack of leadership,” Ms. Madigan said. “In fact, it was the exact opposite.”