From Crooks and Liars…

Clearly, in all his debate prep, no one thought to coach McCain not to go to the third rail of the abortion issue. Boy, was that an oversight. Because not only did McCain go there, he jumped right on to it. In trying to paint Obama as being for the great Republican bugaboo of late term abortions (because, you know, there are so many women running around and deciding after being pregnant for six or more months that being pregnant is no longer convenient for them), Obama replied that he didn’t vote for the late term abortion ban because it had no provision for the health or life of the mother. And that’s when McCain proved how heartless and clueless he is: Again…just again, an example of the eloquence of Senator Obama, health (indicates air quotes) of the mother. You know that’s been stretched by the pro-abortion movement to mean almost anything. Really? Not a legitimate concern?

From Sarah Palin Lies…

We already knew McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, isn’t concerned about the health of mothers since she opposed a ban on abortions even in the case of rape or incest. Now we learn that McCain has contempt for women’s health issues as well and thinks concerns about their health is “extreme.” McCain can kiss the independent women’s vote good-bye after this doozy.

From Nancy Keenan…

McCain doesn’t understand a key principle that, for many women, is central to their choice of a candidate for president. The same woman who wants a president to address the difficulty of paying to put gas in the car while other bills pile up on the kitchen counter also wants a president who respects her ability to make the personal, private medical decisions that are best for her and her family. She doesn’t want a politician like McCain mocking protections for her health or voting against birth control. As the election enters its final phase, and these key voters hear from NARAL Pro-Choice America about the stark differences between John McCain and Barack Obama about a woman’s right to choose, women will choose the candidate who will stand with them. That candidate is Barack Obama.

From Equal Writes…

John McCain put women’s “health” in inverted commas during the debate last night, as though it’s a made-up phrase that represents some imaginary or laughable idea. Or alternatively, an idea that doesn’t matter very much and can be easily dismissed by a candidate who, say, had no idea that health insurance plans cover Viagra but not birth control. McCain labelled people who support the right to terminate a pregnancy when that pregnancy endangers the health of the mother “extreme” and “pro-abortion.”

From The Fertile Infertile…

In my last political post, I said I was deeply disturbed by McCain’s stance on women’s reproductive rights. Now, I’m going to say, if you are a woman of reproductive age or if you love a woman of reproductive age, you are playing with her life and health if you vote for McCain. McCain totally dismissed the fact that pregnancy ever threatens a woman’s life.

. . .

Hell, I wish we could completely ban late term abortion but I value the lives of the adult women involved more than I value their unborn babies. I am pro-choice but I am not pro-abortion. I will never presume to claim I know whats best for someone medically and that includes whether or not they should continue to carry a baby. I believe each and every woman should be able to decide what to do with their own body. With this one ignorant statement, John McCain has alienated many people who feel the way I do.

(If you would like to be a guest blogger on this site, please join our community)

Barack Obama has just had a particularly good week with the ladies. In fact, it was a noticeably big week for women’s endorsements for the Obama campaign. Can you say “gender gap?” I knew you could. In a week that saw Republican VEEP candidate Sarah Palin’s approval rating drop precipitously, these activities aimed at women voters well timed.

First, a group of women’s organizations — those few that have PACs and thus can endorse without jeopardizing their precious non-profit status — endorsed the junior senator from Illinois. Prominently featured was the still-not-as-happy-as-they-could-be NOW, who joined their shero Hillary Clinton in saying “no way, no how, no McCain.” Other groups included the Feminist Majority with the ever colorful Ellie Smeal, the Business & Professional Women/USA, the National Congress of Black Women, and the National Association of Social Workers. Watch portions of the press event here:

But the real coup de grace in my mind was this week’s Obama endorsement from Lilly Ledbetter. The plaintiff of Ledbetter v. Goodyear fame headlined the Democratic National Convention in Denver, and on September 18 made it official — she’s for Obama, in a big way. Ledbetter made the announcement at a series of events in the critical state of Virginia, and was treated like a rock star by adoring crowds. The New York Times has referred to Ledbetter as “the Democrats secret weapon,” and they may be right.

Take a look at this ad featuring Ledbetter, below, just released this past week — she’s a humble grandmother from Alabama who packs a punch, and women nationwide are cheering her on. Why? Because her experiences are so familiar, so universal to us all, and she’s speaking up and trying to change things for future generations — despite the fact that her own case is closed. Now, the Democratic Senate needs to do the right thing by Ledbetter’s vocal support and national advocacy and pass the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The House has already passed this critical bill that would right the Supreme Court’s FUBAR handling of the Ledbetter case. However, the legislation is currently stuck in a defacto Senate filibuster on the more pompous, ponderous side of the Hill. But if we can get more Dems elected to the Senate — and inch our way closer to that magic number of 60 — I predict the Ledbetter bill will be one of the first bills signed by an Obama Administration.

The Democratic women of Congress also had a press conference cheering on Obama this week, touting an earlier equal pay ad put out by the Obama campaign (below). Pay equity champion Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) is especially worth a listen at this particular dog and pony show, although the women members also talk about critical issues such as health care and retirement security.

The Democrats have finally gotten religion on the pay equity issue — and about time, too. I’m sure the fact that the issue is a vote driver for women helps a lot — but that touch of cynicism aside, the Democratic party is the only party that is collectively and actively working to improve women’s economic equity — that, in fact, recognizes the problem of pay equity at all. That, my friends, is just one of a million reasons why Obama’s the better candidate for women and their families.

Community member Slim, from no fish, no nuts – sent me the following email…

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt has proposed a new rule that will limit the rights of women to receive medically accurate information and treatment. The alleged goal of the rule is to protect the rights of “conscience” of health care workers, volunteers, and trainees. The result would be limited access to birth control and abortion for women all over the country – regardless of state law.

Here is what you can do…

The ACLU has a letter you can send.

Planned Parenthood has a letter you can send.

NARAL has a letter you can send.

It will take you less than five minutes to click through and sign all three.

I urge you to sign and send every one of them – and pass every one of them along to every single family member and friend you know.

We have 19 days. After 19 days this regulation goes into effect and every single health care worker in the United States will be able to refuse any woman health care based on their own personal moral views.

Thank you.

Friends,

This post has been extremely difficult to write and even harder to publish. In fact, after having completed, proof-read, previewed and seemingly saved the entire post, it totally disappeared from Blogger when I tried to publish it. That certainly makes you wonder.
I am not writing this article in an attempt to change your views on abortion. I am writing this with the hope that it will be food for thought if you are tempted to judge a person’s faith by their political views on this issue.

Abortion has been one of the most politically divisive issues in US politics over the past 30 years. Persons on all sides of the political issue have, more often than not, manipulated the truth to advance their cause. And some, on the far political right of the evangelical community, have tried to use a person’s views on abortion as a litmus test of faith.

Prior to the 2004 US Presidential election, “ the Roman Catholic bishop of Colorado Springs issued a pastoral letter saying that American Catholics should not receive communion if they vote for politicians who defy church teaching by supporting abortion rights, same-sex marriage, euthanasia or stem-cell research. “

As the New York Times reported Bishop Michael J. Sheridan stated:

”Anyone who professes the Catholic faith with his lips while at the same time publicly supporting legislation or candidates that defy God’s law makes a mockery of that faith and belies his identity as a Catholic,

The article further states: “In a telephone interview, the bishop said: ‘I’m not making a political statement. I’m making a statement about church teaching.’ “

Well, whatever the Bishop might have meant, his comments were perceived as a political statement. His actions, without a doubt, had a political impact that was not lost on Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, and their ilk. And, for the record, I don’t agree with his “statement about church teaching”.

Where do I stand on the issue of abortion, both as a matter of faith and politically?

I am a Christian, pro-life and opposed to overturning Roe V. Wade. A contradiction — not in my mind or in my heart.

Science and the dictionary define life as:

The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. http://www.bartleby.com/61/80/L0158000.html

According to Wikipedia:

An embryo (from Greek: ἔμβρυον, plural ἔμβρυα, lit. “that which grows,” from en- “in” + bryein “to swell, be full”) is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development, from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching, or germination.

And the Christian Bible says the following about conception:

Oh yes, you shaped me first inside, then out; you formed me in my mother’s womb. I thank you, High God—you’re breathtaking! Body and soul, I am marvelously made! I worship in adoration—what a creation! You know me inside and out, you know every bone in my body; You know exactly how I was made, bit by bit, how I was sculpted from nothing into something. Like an open book, you watched me grow from conception to birth; all the stages of my life were spread out before you, The days of my life all prepared before I’d even lived one day. — The Message (MSG)Psalm 139:12-14 (in Context) Psalm 139 (Whole Chapter)

Based on these definitions, I believe that at the instant of conception, the embryo is a life. Therefore, an abortion ends a life – a life which had immeasurable potential and inherent value.

So if I controlled the world and controlled people:

• all life would be valued,
• young men and women would be taught to value themselves,
• men and women would give more thought to the consequences of their actions,
• no woman would be raped,
• every child would be wanted from the moment of conception,
• there would be loving individuals willing to adopt every child who was not wanted by their birth parents,
• every child born would be loved, cared for, appreciated and given every opportunity to achieve their destiny and,
• there would be no abortions.

I am pro life.

However, I do not control the world or its people. No human does. Christianity teaches that God gave man-kind “free will” or freedom of choice. So while I may not agree with another woman’s choices, I do not think that her life should be in jeopardy, if she chooses abortion as an option.
The argument advanced by the religious right is that the unborn child is “innocent”. It is easy to view the child as “innocent” and the woman as “guilty” but is this what Christianity really teaches?

Does Christianity teach that we should have more compassion for the unborn child than the mother?

I certainly do not condone the practice of using abortion as a method of birth control but do I believe that I can legislate behavior or conscience. No I don’t.

So how do I believe Christianity views the woman who has had an abortion?

John 8:3-11 The Message (MSG)

The religion scholars and Pharisees led in a woman who had been caught in an act of adultery. They stood her in plain sight of everyone and said, “Teacher, this woman was caught red-handed in the act of adultery. Moses, in the Law, gives orders to stone such persons. What do you say?” They were trying to trap him into saying something incriminating so they could bring charges against him.

Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger in the dirt.

They kept at him, badgering him.

He straightened up and said, “The sinless one among you, go first: Throw the stone.”

Bending down again, he wrote some more in the dirt.

Hearing that, they walked away, one after another, beginning with the oldest. The woman was left alone. Jesus stood up and spoke to her. “Woman, where are they? Does no one condemn you?”

“No one, Master.”

“Neither do I,” said Jesus. “Go on your way. From now on, don’t sin.”

To me the only political argument left on the issue of abortion is whether it should be taxpayer funded, not whether it should be a legal option in every state.

Churches should continue to teach the tenant of their faith. Parents should continue to instill their values in their children. And people of faith should stop letting people with political agendas manipulate them.

Related posts:

Attempt to Hijack Christianity Failed

Bill Moyers Examines The Legacy of Karl Rove

Christianity, Politics & The Issues

 If you missed the Sarah Palin speech you can see it in full here.

[If you would like to be a guest blogger on The Political Voices of Women, just join our community, and start posting.]

It was the tweet heard around the world. Sarah Palin is John McCain’s pick for his running mate. Ah, sweet irony.

Palin is now the second woman to ever be chosen for the vice-presidential position on a major party ticket. This is a major milestone for women in this country. It was a generation ago, 1984, that Geraldine Ferraro was the running mate for Walter Mondale. The college students I work with on a daily basis weren’t even born then. Think about that.

That said, I think that Palin may be the best thing for feminism since Alice Paul went on a hunger strike. Stay with me…

It is obvious to many women that the decision to pick Palin is a direct ploy to woo still angry Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters. For some of those HRC supporters McCain is far too conservative for them to really vote for and the addition of a NRA-supporting, abstinence-only toting, polar bear-hating woman to the ticket isn’t going to sway them. Yet, the GOP is playing Palin as if she is the answer to disgruntled feminists.

In Palin’s address at McCain’s announcement that she would be his running mate she uses these key feminist phrases:

• “I’ve stood up to the old politics as usual, to the special interests, to the lobbyists, the Big Oil companies and the ‘good old boy’ network.” Feminists are often talking about how best to either dismantle the “good old boy” network or create one of our own to push, nurture, and mentor young women to powerful positions.

• “…it’s fitting that this trust has been given to me 88 years almost to the day after the women of America first gained the right to vote.” Reminding all women that in 88 years of women having the right to vote only two women have ever been a running mate on a major national ticket for the White House.

• “It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America. But it turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.” This plays right into the McCain ads that question why Obama didn’t choose Hillary for Veep. A sharp reminder of the sexism that Hillary supporters are still fuming about. It’s a thinly veiled message to women everywhere, “See, we’re not as sexist as those Democrats! We chose a woman!”

I have already heard from friends who say that mothers, grandmothers, and other women in their lives are saying things like “But she’s a woman, she can’t be sexist!” or “But she’s with Feminists for Life! I should vote for feminists right?” Never has it been more advantageous to call yourself a feminist in the political sphere.

READ FULL POST AT WORK IT MOM ISSUES

[If you would like to be a guest blogger on The Political Voices of Women, just join our community, and start posting.]

Like many others, I consider 17-year-old Bristol Palin’s pregnancy a personal family issue. I can see absolutely no reason to drag a child through the mud of a political campaign. However, there is a story here about whether or not abstinence-only sex education works. In Bristol’s case, it did not. It also has not worked for the children of several other people I know. While the abstinence-only approach is advocated by tunnel-visioned President Bush and the nation’s Christian conservatives, the failure to present a comprehensive sex-education approach to America’s youth is doing them a disservice. There was no need for Bristol to have to grow up sooner than her parents had ever planned, as Sarah Palin put it today.

I have an 11-year-old daughter, and I have already started my comprehensive sex-education program at home in the event that her middle school fails to do so. Yes, it starts with abstinence. It is my recommendation, not because the Bible says so, but because I think it’s important that my daughter understand the gravity of the situation. It’s not to be taken lightly. However, my daughter will also be taught about contraception.

This is a world where the fallout from teen sex is not just having a baby. It’s about sexually-transmitted diseases and AIDS. If we are not giving our children the benefit of the full spectrum of sexual education, then we are doing them a disservice and putting them at unnecessary risk. There’s a reason why the majority of Americans are against abstinence-only programs — it’s not the government’s job to dictate how sex education should be taught.

If Christians want to teach their children abstinence-only, then fine. They can keep their children out of any school sex education classes that might offer a comprehensive approach. That is their right. However, for conservative Christians to try to legislate morality and dictate to non-Christians how and what their children should be taught is an intrusive and unwelcome infringement of our rights.

And this is precisely what people like Sarah Palin, John McCain and the rest of the conservative Christians in America do not get: It is not up to you to dictate how or what we teach our children about such matters. If Bristol’s situation is a private family matter, so is how the rest of us heathen Americans choose to teach sex education to our children. The majority of us prefer a comprehensive sex education program taught at school, with parents providing the moral counseling as we see fit.

I wish Bristol only the best of luck and many years of happiness. However, this is precisely why selecting an ideologically-driven candidate like Sarah Palin is the wrong choice for America. As much as I dislike Joe Lieberman’s politics, I hardly think this kind of personal non-issue would become the focus of a campaign when so much else is at stake.

[If you would like to be a guest blogger on The Political Voices of Women, just join our community, and start posting.]

The pundits are coming out of the woodwork since Obama chose Joe Biden over Hillary Clinton (or any other woman) for vice president. Some, like the generally suspect Dick Morris, have suggested that McCain pick Kay Bailey Hutchison as his running mate in order to secure votes from the angry Hillary supporters. Women, don’t let the conservatives and the pundits dumb you down and defocus you from the task at hand. You know and I know that had Obama chosen Clinton, the pundits and conservatives would have had a bigger field day. There’s no polite way for me to say this, so I’ll just say it:

John McCain is no friend to women. There is no need to discuss Kay Bailey Hutchison’s position on women’s rights because it doesn’t matter one bit. What really matters is the position of the presidential candidate. Casting your vote for McCain rather than Obama, out of some twisted sense of loyalty to Hillary Clinton, makes absolutely no sense. For the record, Hillary Clinton feels that way too. If, however, you want to set women’s rights back a few decades then pappy McCain is your man and the Republican party is your ticket.

Now, I’d be a liar if I said that this isn’t a ‘gender election.’ It has been a gender election from the beginning because of Clinton’s candidacy and the malodorous treatment she received from the male-dominated news and broadcast media. However, for women the gender issue goes far deeper than that, and the election issues go deeper than the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or the state of the economy. That’s because the conservatives are very quietly waging a war against womens’ rights that is slithering just under the radar screen. Make no bones about it, John McCain wants it kept under the radar. He’s counting on it. However, in order for women to make an intelligent, informed decision, this is one war that must be exposed.

Let’s start with the here and now. Probably as his last great act of pandering to the right-wing Christian conservatives so intent on legislating morality (in their image and likeness, of course, because they are the chosen ones and everyone else is just dead wrong) George Bush has fired the first shot. Under a new rule instituted by the Bush administration, health care workers can refuse to provide a patient with information on abortion sources, contraception – even preventing or ending pregnancies – if they have a moral objection to such things. There’s no ambiguity here, when we say ‘health care workers’ we are talking about doctors, nurses, pharmacists and others. According to our imperial president, a person’s ideology comes before the health and welfare of female patients. Even worse, this ruling doesn’t require a Congressional vote; it could simply go into effect after a 30-day comment period.

I have spoken informally to a few health care workers since learning about this regulation, some of whom I’ve known from my previous job, some of whom have treated my immediate and extended families in the past. In their minds, each and every one, health care workers should suspend their ideology in favor of what is right for the patient. That’s part of the job. In the case of doctors, the Hippocratic Oath and the promise to ‘do no harm’ comes first, not a provider’s personal ideology or religious conviction. While, on the face of it, the regulation seems simple enough – protecting health care workers against being fired or other forms of punishment for not performing or supporting procedures that they find abhorrent – the fact is that the regulation also allows the worker to refuse to refer the patient on. There is the slippery slope. It is at this point that you potentially put a woman’s health at risk. Now, let’s fast forward to John McCain.

Do you think that John McCain will reverse this regulation if elected? Are you kidding? He’s probably thankful that his predecessor got this one out of the way. I invite you to Senator McCain’s campaign web site and his page about overturning Roe v. Wade, where he reveals the steps he will take to accomplish this task if elected. There’s no chance in hell that John McCain is coming down on the side of women. He’s another in a long line of rich white guys who will be more than happy to tell women what’s best for them. Do you know what Slate is saying about us women? In an article posted Thursday, August 21, they say that John McCain is betting on us not paying attention to what he’s doing. If you still view McCain as candidate v2000, be advised that the software has been updated. McCain has learned the hard way that he needs the Christian conservative vote to win. That is his base. The Slate article postulates that women who find out McCain’s true position on abortion and reproductive rights tend to run away from his candidacy. The problem is that most women aren’t finding out about his position. It’s important to keep the war on women quiet, but McCain’s camp is also betting that women won’t go looking for information. That’s because McCain has a slippery slope of his own.

You see, not only does McCain need the Christian conservative vote, but he also needs the support of women to win the White House. A dilemma, no? The problem is that he has tried floating pro-choice names for his vice presidential nominees, with a very negative reaction from his ultra-conservative Republican base. In light of this, a pro-choice running mate is unlikely and I say it doesn’t really matter anyway. What matters is McCain’s very clear position. I urge all women, especially the angry Hillary supporters, to reconsider handing McCain their votes. While McCain has clearly shifted on this issue to gain the Christian conservative vote, perhaps it’s fair to speculate about his attitude toward women in general.

If John Edwards’ extramarital affair and his subsequent handling of it is seen as a reflection of his general attitude towards women, then I say we must look at all politicians in that light – including John McCain. After all, he is the presumptive GOP nominee for president. Here’s a candidate who has admitted to womanizing in his own books. (Apparently, if you boast about it right off the top, it’s more palatable.) While I often assume that most people know about how he got to be Mr. Cindy, perhaps some do not. Here’s a quick synopsis: McCain cheated on his first wife with Cindy. Then, he divorced his first wife, married the rich Cindy, and proceeded to launch his political career using her money. But there’s even a more recent, more telling event that may well reflect McCain’s true attitude toward women.

One of his recent campaign stops happened to be in Sturgis, South Dakota, at the Buffalo Chip Campground, site of a huge 10-day biker festival where the women are encouraged to bare as much skin as possible, and the women are only happy to comply. (You can’t say McCain doesn’t know where his appeal lies.) While standing on-stage with his perfectly coiffed wife, addressing a bunch of flag waving, beer-drinking bikers, he told the crowd that he had encouraged Cindy to participate in the nightly Miss Buffalo Chip bikini competition. He said, “I encouraged Cindy to compete. I told her with a little luck she could be the only woman ever to serve as first lady and Miss Buffalo Chip.” Perish the thought. This is the guy who is supposed to bring dignity back to the U.S. Presidency? It has been suggested that McCain may be much more at home in Sturgis than he is with the Christian conservatives. But either way, women are the losers in the equation.

The 2008 election is about so much more than exacting revenge out of some sense of misguided loyalty to one candidate. This election is not only critical for America, but also for American women. Returning America to the dark ages would be a disaster for both, and we are certainly headed there under McCain. I believe that Hillary Clinton would prefer a united Democratic party focused on beating John McCain, to a party that will defeat itself on so many fronts if its members misuse the ballot box to exact political revenge.

Writers Note: Barack Obama is fully pro-choice. For those concerned about Senator Biden, he has consistently supported a women’s right to choose. See NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan’s statement on Joe Biden here.