The Political Voices of Women

Is John McCain a Pro-Choice Republican? Would you vote for him if he was? – by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at BlogHer)

There seems to be a lot of confusion over whether or not John McCain is pro-choice or pro-life. Why is that? Up until a few hours ago, I would have said I thought he was pro-choice. Maybe it has something to do with Republicans For Choice supporting John McCain?

Our first choice, Rudy Giuliani, did not win. He ran a campaign with a risky strategy and it didn’t work. But our number two choice did win…John McCain. McCain came in second in a survey of our membership.

While he is personally “pro life” he has time and again reached out and worked with people across the spectrum. We know we can work with him to create common ground that will allow moderates and conservatives to come together to rebuild the GOP.

But apparently, there is quite a bit of evidence that he is pro-life. What do you think? Is John McCain a pro-choice Republican? Do Republicans just want Democrats to think McCain is pro-choice? Or, is he attempting to play both sides of the issue? Nooooo, politicians never do that. So then, why does there seem to be a perception that John McCain is pro-choice?

Let’s take a look at some of the evidence that supports the fact that John McCain is Pro-life, and why he would be bad for the pro-choice movement.

The REAL John McCain is not the “moderate maverick” the pundits like to swoon over. The REAL McCain has spent the last 25 years amassing one of the worst anti-choice voting records in Congress.

If elected president, he has pledged to be the anti-choice movement’s most faithful ally, carrying their water and enacting their dangerous agenda: “If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement.” [Statement by Sen. McCain read by Sen. Sam Brownback at the March for Life in Washington, DC, January 22, 2008.]

On March 27, Elizabeth Shipp, Political Director of NARAL Pro-Choice America, answered member questions about John McCain.

See transcript from NARAL Pro Choice America Choice Chat

This is from a post by Emily Douglas at RealTime – Pro-Choice Group Endorses McCain…

Despite being a vocal opponent of legal abortion, McCain has never cosponsored or supported legislation that would lessen the need for abortion, like a bill expanding access to contraception. As NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan wrote on Bush v. Choice this morning, John McCain is not the “moderate maverick” the media makes him out to be. All the way back to 1987, McCain has never received higher than a 10 percent approval rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America.

“Most Americans don’t know that John McCain is extremely anti-choice,” Keenan wrote in a letter to supporters this morning. Indeed, McCain has bucked the party line on touchy issues like immigration and campaign finance reform. But on choice, he has been consistent — consistently opposed. A spokesperson for NARAL Pro-Choice America added, “We clearly categorize John McCain as anti-choice based on his 25 years of voting against women’s health and privacy. McCain has gone even further than Bush in calling for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Describing McCain as anything but anti-choice is quite a stretch.”

So, what do you think? Is John McCain a pro-choice Republican? Or, is he a card-carrying pro-life conservative? If elected, would he be a threat to the pro-life movement? Or, would he be a threat to the pro-choice movement? Does his position on women’s reproductive rights affect whether or not your would vote for him?

Also See:

Why I’m Pro-Life by Shannon at BlogHer

and

Why I’m Pro-Choice by Marie Niles at BlogHer

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

This is from a press release by the National Organization for Women.

NOW PAC Applauds Clinton’s Triumph in Key States

Hillary Rodham Clinton won rousing victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island on Tuesday, proving once again that not only is she a fighter, but also that she can win key battleground states the Democrats need in November.

In Ohio, where NOW PAC leaders and activists worked around the clock to get out the vote, Clinton scored a decisive win. Clearly, the Democratic voters of this nation are not ready for the primary season to be over, despite what the media say.

Clinton has been through fire and emerged stronger with each challenge. She can take anything her opponents and the press can dish out, and give it back double. The Democrats need her and the country needs her.

Clinton is a national leader of the highest order, with the strength and determination and experience to deliver real change to our country. She has been a leader on women’s rights and civil rights for over 30 years. Clinton is an unparalleled champion for women’s reproductive rights, justice and health, which is why the NOW PAC endorsed her a year ago this month.

Make no mistake, Clinton is the strongest candidate to win in November, and to set our country right. It will take someone with her economic depth and foreign policy experience to beat John McCain. And we know she can start to deliver on her first day in office — from getting our troops out of Iraq, to fixing the shattered economy and the mortgage crisis, to winning health care that covers every single person in this country.

I am proud and privileged to travel around the country speaking in support of Senator Clinton. Everywhere I go, I meet voters who are energized and inspired to be a part of this historic campaign. They are thrilled that Clinton will break through the ultimate glass ceiling if she is elected the first woman president of the United States; but more than that, they believe that Clinton has the solutions our nation needs at this critical moment.

Millions more voters await the opportunity to cast their ballots, eager to have their voices heard. Key state primaries like Pennsylvania are coming up next month, and NOW PAC looks forward to helping get out the vote and securing a victory for Hillary Clinton and for women everywhere.

GUEST POST: This is a guest post from No Blood for Hubris.

Hillary – A Sharp Wonkette

So I watched MTV’s presidential candidate thingie last night, and listened carefully to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Having done so, I determined that Hillary = a sharp Wonkette.

Barack Obama was Prince Charming (not that there’s anything wrong with that) — well-spoken, but he was not the equal of Wonkette. Style not substance.

Hillary Clinton was a sharp Wonkette, not only well-spoken, but with all facts at her fingertips, and her plans set out in impressive uber-wonk detail.

I’m looking for someone who knows what he or she is talking about, someone who has actually done his or her homework, having been treated to 7 years of torture via a left-behind class-clown braindead frat-boy. A sharp Wonkette will bring back competence.

Read more »

I found this from a post at Tennessee Guerilla Women.

The following feminists strongly endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton : Martha Burk, Gloria Feldt, Cecelia Fire Thunder, Lulu Flores, Kim Gandy, Ellen Malcolm, Irene Natividad, Ellie Smeal, Gloria Steinem and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

We know Hillary will appoint Supreme Court justices who honor a woman’s right to privacy because she not only voted against John Roberts and Sam Alito but also spoke on the Senate floor about the threat they pose to privacy rights and Roe v. Wade in opposing their confirmations.

This post was originally from Huffington Post 

This is from a post at Tennessee Guerilla Women.

We have been here so very many times. Men know best, always the men should be in charge. Progressive men thrived off the support of feminists during the Second Wave and then supported every cause except feminism. They did the same in the 19th century. Yeah, it feels like betrayal, again. The New York National Organization for Women (NOW) slams Ted Kennedy as yet another betrayer who has jumped on the traditional women and children last bandwagon:

“Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

READ FULL POST at Tennessee Guerilla Women

This is from a post by Debs at The Burning Times.

The first time I read this article it was through my fingers as I had my hands over my face and probably a look of complete horror/disbelief on my face.  It was like one of those cringe-worthy moments in The Office, when David Brent is making some terrible faux pas and you’re just thinking “stop talking you’re making it worse shut up!” – except that this is deadly serious.

“A 20-year-old law student has become a cause celebre in the anti-abortion movement for her efforts to have the state Constitution define fertilized eggs as people — a tactic spreading nationwide in bids to neutralize the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

The measure spearheaded by Kristi Burton would give fertilized eggs state protections of inalienable rights, justice and due process, and she needs 76,000 signatures to get it on the state ballot next November.

Similar efforts are under way in Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi and Oregon.”

READ FULL POST

This is from an article by Kim Gandy of NOW.

It’s not often that I agree with conservative columnist George F. Will, who called the term “value voters” an “aggressively annoying new phrase in America’s political lexicon.” He could have been channeling my thoughts when he said in a 2006 Washington Post piece: “This phrase diminishes our understanding of politics. It is…arrogant on the part of social conservatives and insulting to everyone else because it implies that only social conservatives vote to advance their values.” Yet in a CNN news report on Nov. 28, the terms “Christian conservatives” and “values voter” were treated as interchangeable.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

Women Political Bloggers: Are You On The List? If not…go here to have your political blog added.

I am pleased to announce that our list of women blogging on politics, has today reached over 300. When I started the list only a few weeks ago I had 100 blogs, and now thanks to so much participation by other women bloggers, we now have 316 women political bloggers on the list.

I would like to take this time to thank some of the many bloggers who have helped grow and promote The Political Voices of Women. Now, in no particular order…

• Today, Dee from Conservatism With Heart not only promoted the blog and our list, but used her post to send me over 25 links of blogs that were not yet on the list…Single-handedly bringing our list to over 300. Thank you Dee. Dee also posts at Grizzly Groundswell.

• Earlier in the week I was honored to be mentioned in an article at The Huffington Post…How cool is that? I did a post about it here, and this is the link to the article by Carol Jenkins.

• Jill Miller of Writes Like She Talks, did a very kind post supporting the list here. Thanks Jill.

• Faye Anderson of Anderson@Large, not only did a nice post promoting the list, but she was also my very first guest blogger at The Political Voices of Women. Thanks Faye.

• And since Faye’s guest post, I have also been lucky enough to have many other women contribute as guest bloggers…

Robin Gerber did a guest post here.

Sue from Nailing Jello to the Wall has done two guest posts…here and here.

Olivia Morgan from Women For Obama did a guest post here.

Sarah at One Mom’s View did a guest post here.

Heather Johnson from Moms4Mitt did a guest post here.

and our most recent guest post is by Julie at Moms Speak Up, and that post is here. Julie also promoted the site here. Thanks Julie.

Thank you to all of these wonderful women blogging on politics.

• Yankee Cowgirl also did a post promoting our list.

• Jenn from Ft. Hard Knox just did a very nice post here.

• Sandy from Around Des Moines just posted about the site, and she also joined our new community and even put a post up there too. Thanks so much Sandy.

• Deborah from Girl With Pen mentioned the site here.

• Amy from Georgia Women Vote did a nice post here.

• Mixter’s Mix, Modern English, sairy, Pondering Penguin, Mauigirl’s Meanderings, and opit, all have The Political Voices of Women in it’s blogroll. Thanks.

Thanks to all of these women (and the one man “opit“), for helping to make The Political Voices of Women the “go to” place for women bloggers, and people who want to know what they’re thinking.

I’m sure that I’ve missed many (and for that I’m sorry), so if you have done a post or added me to your blogroll please leave me a link in comments…And the next time I do a thank-you post, I will be sure to include you.

*I hope you will also consider joining our Political Voices of Women Community.

This is a guest post from Julie Pippert at Moms Speak Up. Thank you Julie for participating as a guest blogger, and for your contribution to The Political Voices of Women.

On December 5, 2007, Mike Stobbe, AP Medical Writer, wrote an article that reported a 3% increase in the teen birth rate—the first increase in 14 years.

For some reason, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were surprised.

I’m not.

I fully expect that the teen birth rate, and rate of STDs, will be on the rise. I attribute this to the absolute failure of the only sexual education program taught in schools: abstinence-only.

As I stated in my post, “Abstinence only sex education is risky and ineffective,” the abstinence only program—which received $168 billion in funding in 2005, and has only received more funding since—uses an approach to education and discipline that any parent knows is likely to have a high failure rate: Don’t Do It Because I Said So.

In fact, I cited three reasons why I believe the abstinence-only programs are a failure:

1. Mixed messages about group think
2. One size does not fit all
3. The irony in the negative

But don’t take my word for it:

* In 2005 a study funded by the Texas Department of Health concluded that, “Abstinence-only sex education programs have had “little impact” on Texas teenagers’ behavior.” (Source: Medical News Today, “Abstinence-Only Sex Education Programs Have Little Effect on Texas Teenagers’ Behavior, Study Says,” February 2, 2005.)

* A national study funded by Congress, tracked the abstinence only program beginning in 1997, and concluded the same thing as Texas: “. . .abstinence-only sex education does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom.” (Source: The Washington post, “Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs,” by Laura Sessions Stepp; Saturday, April 14, 2007; Page A02.)

These conclusions are intriguing since states contributed matching funds to the federal abstinence only program, and funding has continued to increase despite the multiple studies—some state-funded and some privately-funded—that all conclude the abstinence-only programs are ineffective.

Arthur Caplan, Ph.D.—director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania—said in his article, “Blind faith on sex-ed approach puts kids at risk”

Actually, you cannot expect abstinence-only sex ed to be protective, effective or in any way useful at all. Ever. Period. Enough already. It’s time to pull the plug on abstinence-only sex education. There are too many lives at stake to put up with a reproductive-health policy that is willing to kill and disable our kids out of an allegiance to a blind faith in something that does not work.

I agree, and I think Democratic candidates do, as well. Or do they?

They seemed to change their mind from one season to the next.

In May, according to NPR, “Democratic Rep. John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, made it clear that Democrats do not intend to re-fund a $50 million grant program for abstinence-only sex education. Dingell says he considers the funded programs ‘a colossal failure.’”

“Democrats would still include money for abstinence teachings in schools, but would combine it with comprehensive sex-ed program* that would teach about birth control and other safe sex methods.” (Click here to read the full USA Today article.)

The abstinence-only grant was set to expire on June 30, 2007.

However, despite Democrat statements and the factual studies that revealed the fallibility and lack of efficacy of abstinence-only education, in June, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations voted to increase federal funding for community based abstinence-only education programs (CBAE) in this country by $27.8 million.

In November, the increase amount was officially set at $28 million for a grand total of $141 million. President Bush would like that amount increased to $204 million for 2008.

This brings the grand total of money spent on abstinence only education to over $1 billion dollars.

(Source: SIECUS press release.)

What happened to cutting funding? What happened to responsible sex education?

I don’t think we need to ask the Republicans how they’ll vote when it comes to funding abstinence-only programs in 2008. Despite facts, studies, evidence, and this new teen pregnancy rate increase, I feel fairly sure they’ll vote in favor of the increase.

This leaves us with the Democrats…how will they vote?

Here’s what I discovered:

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama both favor programs* that teach both abstinence and traditional/comprehensive sex education. Both have created programs to decrease teen pregnancy. Senator Obama’s was focused to minorities.

Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich, and Richardson also support the mixed program.*

Senator Dodd does not support abstinence-only programs and is vocal in his criticism of the Bush program.

Joe Biden has voted to fund abstinence-only education programs.

* The program, specifically, is the Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act. In short:

The Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act, sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Representatives Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Christopher Shays (R-CT), would provide federal money to support responsible sex education in schools. This education would include science-based, medically accurate, and age appropriate public health information about both abstinence and contraception.
(Source: Advocates for Youth.)

My question to the Democrats is this: despite stated support for the REAL Act and continued verbal support of funding decreases, funding continues to increase. If you were elected President, what would you do with the existing sex education programs?

Copyright 2007 Julie Pippert
Also blogging at:
Using My Words
Julie Pippert REVIEWS: Get a real opinion about BOOKS, MUSIC and MORE
Julie Pippert RECOMMENDS: A real opinion about HELPFUL and TIME-SAVING products
Moms Speak Up: Talking about the environment, dangerous imports, health care, food safety, media and marketing, education, politics and many other hot topics of concern.

image from

Teen Births Are On The Rise For The First Time In 14 Years — cross-posted at Women 4 Hope

The nation’s teen birth rate has risen for the first time in 14 years, according to a new government report.

The birth rate had been dropping since 1991. The decline had slowed in recent years, but government statisticians said Wednesday it jumped 3 percent from 2005 to 2006.

“It took us by surprise,” said Stephanie Ventura of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a co-author of the report. — see full article here

It seems to me that this latest report proves that abstinence-only programs are not working.

Ideology, not science, has been driving America’s response to the twin epidemics of teen pregnancy and STD/HIV infections. Funding for abstinence-only censorship programs is dramatically increasing. All told, abstinence-only programs have received over half a billion dollars in federal funds since 1997, and the Bush administration requested yet another sharp increase to $204 million for fiscal year 2007. By 2009, President Bush proposes that funding for abstinence-only programs reach $270 million.

This huge investment of taxpayer funds in abstinence-only programs conflicts with scientific and medical research: abstinence-only programs are not proven effective and may in fact result in riskier behavior by teenagers. Responsible sex education programs, on the other hand, have demonstrated positive results such as delayed initiation of sex, reduced frequency of sex, and increased contraceptive use. — read full article here

I would love to know how these programs have spent over half a billion dollars of taxpayer money teaching abstinence?

QUESTION FOR THE CANDIDATES:  I would like to know what the current presidential candidates will do to lower the rate of teen pregnancy in this country?