Does Obama support a woman's right to choose?

Or does he support a woman's right to be PRESENT?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But still fun to read. You may want to read his scores, if it is not too hard for you.

I you want to protect womens's rights, elect a woman!

Some of the staunchest proponents of a woman's right to choose are catholic men. Ted Kennedy ring a bell? Pat Leahy? Try again.

But I suspect you already new that.

Educate yourself. Those "present" votes were part of a strategy divised BY Planned Parenthood to protect more vulnerable legislators from having to vote on them, and risk harming their political careers.

Seriously. You need to read more. This was resolved weeks ago. You're way behind.

Than why is he so holier-than-thou on "political" votes made by Edwards and Clinton?

"Planned Parenthood suggests you can best further the cause of abortion rights by voting present here" and selling out the entire country on a war vote so you can posture yourself as "strong on terror."

Excellent post.

who often doesn't show up to vote on Senate resolutions --

had shown up to vote in favor of every single bill to fund the Iraq debacle.

I suppose someone at his website must have gotten it wrong when he said he wants to prolong the Iraq occupation past 2013.

Are you suggesting pro-choice legislators should not be protected?

Or are you just going to turn this into an "Aha! He made a political manuever" issue and make yourself look like a complete ass in the process?

I think planned parenthood is mistaken.

He only votes present because he has a technical problem with the way a bill he supports is written, not for political cover-my-ass not-wanting-to-make-a-stand reasons. He explained that last night.

He voted "present" at the request of Planned Parenthood to stand up to harmful legislation planted by Republicans in order to trap vulnerable pro-choice legislators.

This was a stand.

Are you really that dense?

Perhaps he was just oversimplifying, but he definitely did NOT portray those votes as "making a stand" during the debates.

Personally, I prefer my legislators take a stand against anti-women legislation without being afraid to say "I am prochoice" but whatever.

Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it’s never been more important to protect a woman’s right to choose. Last year, the Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, and in doing so undermined an important principle of Roe v. Wade: that we must always protect women’s health. With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election.

Throughout my career, I’ve been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Moreover, I believe in and have supported common-sense solutions like increasing access to affordable birth control to help prevent unintended pregnancies. In the Illinois state Senate, when Congress failed to require insurance plans to cover FDA-approved contraceptives, I made sure those contraceptives were covered for women in Illinois.

In the U.S. Senate, I've worked with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) on a bill that would make birth control more affordable for low-income and college women, and introduced the Senate version of Representative Hilda Solis’ bill to reduce unintended pregnancies in communities of color.

As President, I will improve access to affordable health care and work to ensure that our teens are getting the information and services they need to stay safe and healthy.

But we also know that Roe v. Wade is about more than a woman’s right to choose; it’s about equality. It’s about whether our daughters are going to have the same opportunities as our sons. And so to truly honor that decision, we need to update the social contract so that women can free themselves, and their children, from violent relationships; so that a mom can stay home with a sick child without getting a pink slip; so that she can go to work knowing that there’s affordable, quality childcare for her children; and so that the American dream is within reach for every family in this country.

http://women.barackobama.com/page/content/WFOhome

You call that flawless? His record on choice is by far the worst of the three major candidates. Only Kucinich is worse among the remaining field.

Three female candidates were running for the Senate seat in IL against Obama, and that's why IL NOW attacked him.

They enthusiastically endorsed Lisa Madigan, a fellow present voter on the PP strategy, in her race for Attorney General two years earlier.

Obamites try to make it sound as if there is.

Reproductive freedom is just one their many issues. The get called to task by Planned Parenthood and NARAL on occasion.

AS I mentioned, IL NOW did not mind Lisa Madigan's present votes on the very same bills. Two of these groups have maintained a consistent position, one changed their mind with the gender of the candidate.

NARAL and Planned Parenthood don't give bonus points for anything. 100% is 100%.

There is no reason to doubt them on choice; there are reasons to doubt Obama. That gives the edge to Hillary and Edwards.

I'll tell my friend who works for them. She'll be very disappointed you don't approve of the work she does.

I can't look at that link because I've got people on ignore over there, but this moderate judge quote comes from his book, and I'm familiar with the part.

Obama points out Bush's nominations of strict constructionist, extreme RW judges, and how the filibuster is the only real defense left. The filibuster remains relevant today, he theorizes, as it encourages the appointment of more moderate judges, as opposed to wingnuts.

Obama was referring to BUSH'S NOMINEES as too extreme, and how it would be wiser for him to appoint more moderate judges or face a filibuster.

As a woman, they scare the shit out of me, we do not need more of the same.

I prefer to believe them over you.

He did this at the request of Planned Parenthood.

How is that so hard to understand?

you're welcome