DNC, OFA Abandon Women In Healthcare Action Alert

by: Natasha Chart

Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 19:30


Nancy Keenan, head of the national NARAL group (and most obedient of the obedient losers) was apparently personally promised before the health care battle by the Obama administration that they would look after the organization's constituency interests in the health care bill and preserve the status quo.  In return, NARAL was asked to stand down its activism.

They did. So with all their colleagues, they got caught with their pants down when a floor vote on the Stupak amendment was imminent.

Today, I got a press release from the DNC, and their Organizing For America project, on their plan to drum up more support for the health care reform bill: targeting Republicans.

It says nothing about women's healthcare. Nothing. Like it isn't even at issue. OFA is still watching NARAL's back, women's backs, as well as they always have.

OFA is crowing about the 500,000 phone calls they've prompted on the health care issue. Were any of them centered around preserving reproductive health care when it mattered? Ha! As Femlaw says at the link, "The idea is to build organizational capacity, so when really critical moments in the campaign happened, OFA could deliver huge numbers."

Targeting Republicans is critical. Encouraging Democrats to stand together for women's health and rights, not critical.

Whee, Joseph Cao voted for the House bill! Too bad it contains the worst blow to women's rights in a generation, while Obama and his pet DNC's reactions continue to be tepid.

The DNC's women's page has, at this time, nothing on it about reproductive care issues. It's latest post is a brief endorsement of the health reform bill from the League of Women Voters, which also says nothing about the odious Stupak language, nothing about the lack of contraception and basic ob-gyn checkups.

(Psst - Did you know that women are supposed to not only get a yearly physical through their family doctor, but have a separate ob-gyn well woman checkup every year from puberty onwards? That's where they check for cervical cancer, look for signs of domestic or sexual abuse, etc. You know, little stuff, but we're supposed to get it checked. Well, neither Obama, nor Congress, nor the DNC seems to know that nor cares. Medical care that all adult women are supposed to get every year won't be going in the required benefits package and there has been no organizing around it.)

The WhiteHouse.gov homepage says nothing about any of this right now. Their women's page says only this:

(More in the extended entry)

Natasha Chart :: DNC, OFA Abandon Women In Healthcare Action Alert
President Obama has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and believes in preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade. At the same time, he respects those who disagree with him. The President believes we must all come together to help reduce unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion.

Total disjoint from reality. Our champion couldn't even spare a Tweet for women's health last Saturday. Here, let me fix that statement for you:

President Obama has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice on the campaign trail when he needed women to vote for him. At the same time, he respects those who disapprove of reproductive health care even more. The President believes we must all come together to help reduce unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion, which is why he'd like women's health advocates to stop insisting that there's a need for abortion. Because there isn't a women's America and a men's America, there's just the United States of America. And men don't get pregnant unintentionally or need abortions, so we should stop dividing the country over this narrow, silly issue.

I hate our stupid politics.  Friends are proud of each other and they stand up for one another. I've said it before and I'll say it again; in politics, a secret friend might as well be an imaginary friend. Particularly for women.

Not only are women raised to always think of others first, whenever there's something to be sacrificed women are always the first ones asked to be good sports and give something up for the good of the team. It plays out again and again. For women, secret friends are really just the people most likely to ask for an uncompensated and costly favor.

And indeed, if the Obama administration is a friend to NARAL, or any other reproductive justice group, it would be hard to tell. National NARAL secured no promises from Obama, received no press conference for their endorsement in the primary, and as far as anyone can tell, didn't even have him fill out an issue questionnaire with which to mollify their enraged constituent base.

I hope the money, support and access groups like national NARAL got from Obama was worth the epic betrayal women are facing now at the hands of our alleged allies. Maybe they'll use all those resources to negotiate a better deal for us. Or, you know, they could just keep gawping at how lucky they are that they get meetings at the White House.

Full text of the DNC press release (sans the sample constituent letter) follows:

Washington, DC - Following passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act in the U.S. House of Representatives on Saturday, Organizing for America (OFA), a project of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), announced today that its volunteers would be called on to drop by the offices of the 32 House Republicans who voted against reform and represent districts won by President Obama in 2008.  OFA volunteers are being asked to drop by these offices beginning as early as tomorrow through the middle of next week to remind these members that voters in their districts voted for change last year and urge them to reconsider their position when the House votes again on a final bill later this year.  The office visits are being organized online through an email sent to OFA supporters in the 32 Congressional Districts from OFA Director Mitch Stewart.  The email can be found at the bottom of this release.  

Volunteers and supporters of health insurance reform in these districts will join together in a show of support by visiting member offices to ensure Representatives know their constituents support President Obama's plan for reform that would achieve three goals; provide more security and stability to people who have insurance; provide more quality, affordable options to those who don't; and lower the cost of care for American families, businesses, and government.

"Just one year ago, Americans in these congressional districts voted to send President Obama to the White House and these Republican Representatives to Congress. The message was clear in these districts: Americans want change, and they expect their Representatives to work with President Obama and reach across the aisle to help deliver it," said OFA Director Mitch Stewart.  

"Last weekend's vote on health reform offered a clear choice to these members: Stand with your constituents and support a bill which draws upon ideas from both parties to guarantee Americans secure, affordable health coverage, or stand with the insurance companies and right wing pundits to put politics above doing the right thing.  Unfortunately, these Representatives made the wrong choice."

Organizing for America, a grassroots project of the Democratic National Committee, is committed to supporting President Obama's agenda for change. Over 2 million people have taken action as part of OFA's health reform campaign. Since June 6, OFA has held 20,000 events in all 50 states and every congressional district encouraging support for President Obama's health insurance reform plan. On October 20, OFA helped to generate more than 315,000 calls to Congress in a single day, more than three times the initial goal.

The full list of congressional districts and members can be found below;

Reps. Dan Lungren (CA-3), Elton Gallegly (CA-24), Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (CA-25), David Dreier (CA-26), Ken Calvert (CA-44), Mary Bono Mack (CA-45), John Campbell (CA-48), Brian P. Bilbray (CA-50), Michael N. Castle (DE-AL), C.W. Bill Young (FL-10), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18), Peter Roskam (IL-6), Mark Steven Kirk (IL-10), Judy Biggert (IL-13), Donald Manzullo (IL-16), Tom Latham (IA-4), Dave Camp (MI-4), Fred Upton (MI-6), Mike Rogers (MI-8), Thaddeus McCotter (MI-11), Erik Paulsen (MN-3), Lee Terry (NE-2), Frank A. LoBiondo (NJ-2), Leonard Lance (NJ-7), Pat Tiberi (OH-12), Jim Gerlach (PA-6), Charlie Dent (PA-15), J. Randy Forbes (VA-4), Frank R. Wolf (VA-10), Dave Reichert (WA-8), Paul D. Ryan (WI-1), Tom Petri (WI-6).


Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Welcome under the bus with us gays (4.00 / 13)


Well, if I'm going to have to be under a bus ... (4.00 / 1)
y'all are good company.

[ Parent ]
It's getting awful crowded (4.00 / 3)
under here.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Thank you for staying on this... (4.00 / 3)
...very very very important story.  

National Nurses United (AFL-CIO) is America's RN union, representing 150,000+ nurses from all 50 states.

I'm just going to wing it here (0.00 / 0)
What does the press release have to do with your post, which is an eloquent and accurate statement on the non-existent status of women's reproductive health issues in this health care reform debate?

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905


Explained here (4.00 / 5)
It says nothing about women's healthcare. Nothing. Like it isn't even at issue. OFA is still watching NARAL's back, women's backs, as well as they always have.

It's that there are Democrats who are screwing us on this issue, while the OFA tells us to train our attention on Republicans while it ignores reproductive rights.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel


[ Parent ]
They Paint The Problem As an 'Unsupportive Republicans' Issue (4.00 / 8)
When in fact they can't get the Dems' shit together.  There is no Republican filibuster, only a filibuster Dems are complicit in.  Ditto to the destruction of fundamental women's civil rights.  It absolves them of responsibility for taking care of one of their core constituencies.  Which is convenient when you're responsible for throwing a core constituency under the bus.

They do this on EVERYTHING because this narrative hides the fact that too many Democrats are too corrupt (I am crying inside thinking about the Baucus effect on energy/climate legislation) for them to pass 'change' legislation.  But whose arm does Obama/Rahm twist on health care?  Rockefeller's.

Figuring out how to be a progressive college graduate transplant to Ohio:  http://citizenobie.wordpress.com/


[ Parent ]
it's just an anti-Republican effort (4.00 / 2)
It's not the beginning or the end of the world. Everyone realizes it is silly when OFA/DNC blasts out anti-Lobiondo (NJ2) and anti-Lance (NJ7) efforts while being silent on Democrat Adler (NJ3). And that's because OFA is effectively DNC.  OpenLeft et al. will have to pressure Democrat publicly, the DNC won't do it.

And that's why I think Natasha is right to complain about NARAL, because they should be independent.  

 

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


[ Parent ]
You don't understand... (4.00 / 4)
We should be HAPPY.

Mike Lux tells us so.

Kucinich and Massa are misguided.  This will all go away if you just close your eyes and clap hard enough.


You see- (4.00 / 2)
The cool thing about elections is that you can pick a side, and then you have one goal you are focused around that is simple and clear-cut: if your candidate wins, you are happy, and if they lose you are not (unless you are one of those folks who are into "moral victories" where you lose but feel good about the effort anyway. I am not one of those people). Legislative fights, especially on the big complicated messy issues like health care, are not like that at all. Progressive minded people who all share the same values, or at least many of them, can come to starkly different judgments on whether a bill is good or bad, worth passing or not, a victory or defeat. And beyond the policy compromises, the process itself is an utterly confusing mess, leading people to vastly different judgments about whether certain tactics were the right ones or not.

All of this complication leads to a lot of anger and a lot of angst. That's natural and it's okay- these issue debates are worth getting passionate about. For example, while I am more sympathetic to Pelosi when she had to make a choice re health care dying vs. having to accept the Stupak amendment in this round (knowing that she could very likely kill it in conference committee), I am very glad that grassroots people are so mad about this, because we have to kill this terrible amendment and the grassroots anger helps us do that. The legislative process is such a mess, and the tactical decisions you have to make are complicated, that getting angry at each other is natural and healthy.

What I hope can happen, though, is that we can stay long-term allies in the process. I am upset at Kucinich and Massa right now for voting no on the bill Saturday night, but I still admire them as strong progressives and am glad they are out there fighting for progressive policies. I strongly disagree with those of you who don't think this bill is good enough to move forward on, and know many of you think I'm wrong for continuing to support it, but I hope as progressives most of us can agree to disagree and not question each other's motives. People in movements throughout history have always had strong disagreements with each other over specific tactics, or what compromises to make when, but also kept working together for the common goal. All of us have to figure out whether given bills do more good than harm, are a step forward or not, and on the complicated bills, those are tough calls. For me, getting everyone covered, ending insurance abuses on pre-existing conditions/recissions/lifetime caps, and getting a public option off the ground that can be strengthened over time is worth the considerable imperfections in this bill. And understanding that if we lose on this bill, it will make the Democrats fearful of ever trying to take on health care or any big issue again for a long, long time, makes it even more important to get this done. If we get a decent bill, we can build on it over time, and we give some confidence to the Democrats that something big can get done.

Mike Lux


[ Parent ]
what I love about your including the quote (4.00 / 1)
Is that it directly contradicts the three summary points you said it made.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Really? (4.00 / 2)
What are those?

Stupak Doesn't Plan On Folding, A Lesson In Appeasement
By: Jon Walker Thursday November 12, 2009 12:25 pm

Or perhaps you are in denial about Lux's repeated call out of Kucinich and Massa.

I strongly disagree.

This bill is as total sellout.  A 20% Corporate Welfare Tax.  No Mandate for Treatment.  Repeal of Roe v. Wade.

Worse than nothing.

A mere "cover your ass" for Obama and sell out Democrats.


[ Parent ]
But it does cover (4.00 / 3)
Faith Healing and Viagra.

There is no reason to grant that "pro-life" and anti-gay rights Catholics are operating from a higher moral position. If the argument is that it's immoral to deny millions of people health care because of one moral objection, then the Catholics are behaving as immorally as the secularists. On the other hand, if refusing to compromise on a matter of fundamental principle is a moral position then both sides are equally moral. You decide. But either way, there's no distinction between the two sides. So everybody needs to stop the lectures about pro-choice women being self serving and immoral for threatening to withhold their votes if they believe their principles have been violated.

If pro-choice Democrats are going to be accused of "making the perfect be the enemy of the good" then so should the "pro-life" Democrats. And frankly, if anyone's going to be given extra points for morality I would at least give them to the people who have shown they feel some sense of moral dilemma rather than the wrecking crew who don't blink an eye at denying people health care merely because one of their dollars will touch a dollar that pays for insurance that might someday pay for an abortion. But then, I'm an immoral pro-choicer.



[ Parent ]
Brilliantly Orwellian, for the wrong team. $ocial Cla$$ i$ (0.00 / 0)
the root of this rot -

I made a ... YAWN ... vulgar and over the top comment

http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

about this on Sat. night.

Great diary - kind of interesting startergery from our DC Dems - SOS, different day.

Whine, Snivel, Sniff

++++++
The mean meanies are being MEAN!
Send the - snivel whine sniff - mean meanies a sternly wagged finger!
Give us money, snivel sniff sniff snivel.
++++++

Imagine if the pro-choice crowd had 5 or 10 Stupid-Paks?  Would we be relying on people who who are shocked that 13th century flat earthers were being 13th century flat earthers, AND, relying on people supposedly on our side who sell us out decade after decade?

In 1991? there was a state wide pro-choice initiative in Washington state to ... put some good choice protections in our state constitution blah blah blah. I was 1 of the token men at the headquarters, working a gazillion hours from sept to election day.  The headquarters was a joint operation of planned parenthood, naral, now ... and the initiative BARELY passed with about 4000 votes after lies and lies and lies from liars, and the typical Dukakisy-(future-Clintony-Ivy-Kerry-Gorey) wimpy pathetic campaign ...

in 1991 the liars campaign reminded me of 1980 when the christo-fascist RayGun wsa telling everyone he was going to use the government to completely screw over the powerless for the powerful ... (ooops! I got that backwards! how the f'k did I do that?)

On election night, as we're watching the results come in and we're watching our 1 time huge lead EVAPORATE, a prominant talbots kind of seattle-ite said to me, when I said that maybe we should have been tougher --- "we're not like them" ... um.  

In the abortion battle I don't have the affected parts, being a guy, BUT, in ALL our politics the influence of the affluent politic$ from the monied cla$$e$, $ocial cla$$e$ that can afford politic$ like a chardonnay $oiree - those politic$ co$t all of U$.  We're all paying for the chardonnay.

rmm.



It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way


Well, yeah, but... (4.00 / 5)
You gotta admit it's an inspiring, transformational, 11-dimensional kind of tepid.

Another great post, thanks!


they'll betray us and keep doing so as long as we let them (4.00 / 4)


Fucking veal pen. (4.00 / 1)


Montani semper liberi

It's becoming much clearer (4.00 / 4)
that the real agenda of the Democratic Party powers-that-be is not at all good for anyone left of center.
It's really starting to seem that, with Republicans in tatters and their core constituency moving ever rightward, the DLC is moving in for the kill. They appear to want to pick off disaffected fiscal conservatives from the Republican party and bring them into the Dem fold to form a "new base" for the party (read: corporatist) - while jettisoning progressives, gays, liberal women, etc. The Left is being disowned.

The DLC plan for a permanent Dem majority? Become pre-Nixon Republicans.


I'd quibble somewhat on the sexual abuse issue, given my ob gyn (4.00 / 1)
mom is always getting asked to testify in such cases. Per her, an ob gyn can't definitively say that a child/woman has been sexually abused unless it's happened very close to the time of examination. They can testify to the possibility, but they can't make definitive claims, given a child can potentially injure themselves by other means. Your larger point, of course,  remains, however. You aren't providing for women and girls health if you're not providing them with the means to access an ob gyn or midwife. This is an astonishingly anti-woman bill, and it's nothing short of spectacular how women's groups have managed to drop the advocacy ball.






Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search