In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Pro-Choice Organizations Endorse Lieberman

Jill

I have a lot of respect for Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America, but I have to ask: What the hell are you thinking?

Both groups have endorsed Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, before the Democratic primary. Both groups are apparently willing to ignore the fact that Joe isn’t exactly the most pro-choice candidate in the world, and that his opponent is much better on women’s and reproductive rights issues. Both groups are ignoring the fact that Lieberman supported Alito’s appointment to the Supreme Court — an appointment that will surely have a detrimental effect on gender equality and reproductive freedom for decades to come.

I’m really, really disappointed in NARAL and Planned Parenthood today. I realize they have to make political decisions, and perhaps they feel it’s in their best interest to support an incumbent who they think has a better chance at winning. But this should be about standing up for women, and backing the candidate who will do the most to support our rights and liberties. In the Connecticut race, Joe Lieberman is not that candidate.

At least NOW got it right.

Thanks to Matt for the links.

9 thoughts on Pro-Choice Organizations Endorse Lieberman

  2. I swear, this race is making the whole political establishment stupid. Pro-choice groups backing a pro-life candidate in a primary. Elected Democrats saying they will support a candidate who loses a primary and runs on his own ticket in November.

    What the hell happened to just supporting people who will work for what you believe in a proactive way or honoring the voters’ decision in elections?

  3. I wonder if they will continue to support him if he loses the primary and runs as an independent. It’s a bad move to support him now, but it will be an even worse one to support him then. It worries me to be living in Connecticut right now, but it does makes me feel like my vote is ever more relevant.

  4. If I had to throw a guess out there, it would be that the whole point of support is to try to avoid a three-way race with Lieberman running as an independent. The worry is probably that, if it does come down to a three-way race, the GOP candidate’s chances of winning incease substantially. And, I imagine that’s the result PP and NARAL most want to avoid.

    Not a rationale I agree with, but I can see the logic driving it.

  5. If organizations like this are going to put their support behind a candidate just because he’s an incumbent who might have the best chance of winning or because they want to avoid a three-way race, then what is the point of making an endorsement really? Does anyone believe in having principles anymore? It’s not a football match. I think Katha Pollitt is correct: “I was thinking about how timid and deferential and also Beltway-oriented so much of organized feminism is now. It seems to revolve around electoral politics…”

  7. This reminds me of the same blind party politics I used to see go on on the local level when I was an activist on women’s issues. This blindness to their root constituency’s interests in the name of political survival is disgusting.

    I’ve seen it often, hitching a ride on the back of the rhino with no plan to ditch when said beast decides to take a roll on its back.

  9. By the way, I went to NARAL’s site and they do have a ‘contact us’ form to fill out and send, for what its worth.

    Planned Parenthood has no such immediate contact page on its website, but administrative numbers for many of their main offices nationwide. I guess you’ll have to pen a letter or call to make your opinions heard, which I think is important.

Comments are currently closed.