Ended up posting this someplace today.

This is my obligatory reminder to the internet that I am an angry feminist madwoman who believes that the person who has the final legitimate say on whether a pregnancy continues is the person who is pregnant.

Why people need to stop telling me that life begins at conception because that's when babby gets soul.

Being pro-life is a position I understand completely. It's a personal choice for many women that they would never get an abortion and can't understand how anybody else could. These women should not ever be forced to get abortions, which is why pro-choicers (and I think that doing a lot of activism for Planned Parenthood, I can speak with some authority on what pro-choicers tend to argue for) disapprove of compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion. A woman whose personal convictions are strongly against abortion should never be forced to get one, because that is what informed consent is all about. That is what bodily autonomy is all about.

When it verges over into anti-choice territory, though, things start getting dodgy. When we start arguing that a pregnant woman is not morally mature enough to be trusted with the decision of whether to stay pregnant? Dodgy.

Furthermore, as far as the whole "life begins at conception" thing, that's not a scientific or medically-founded point. How do I know this?

Obstetricians define a pregnancy as starting at implantation (which is the point when the zygote sticks to the inside wall of the uterus). They do this because this is the point at which the woman's body acknowledges that it is pregnant and that it needs to start adjusting.

This isn't a political stance on their part so that they can help Planned Parenthood get women their whore pills. This is a medical judgement based on when a woman's body begins to behave "pregnant." The pregnancy doesn't start at fertilization, because in many cases the zygote will fail to implant and the woman won't even know that the egg she's flushing with this period was fertilized. Spiritual life as you define it begins at fertilization, but the pregnancy doesn't start until implantation.

I suspect that the medical argument isn't your primary point, though, so I'll address the theological angle.

I am always sort of puzzled by the whole allegedly-Biblical view that life begins at conception. I've been giving it some thought based on what I remember from the Bible study I did in college and looked some stuff up and wanted to bring what I pulled together.

RE: Life beginning at conception. Yes, I realize that it is Catholic dogma that this is the case. The Catholic Church also only admitted about forty years ago that the Earth revolves around the sun. Are we really going to use them as a science authority? I mean, I guess you can. I won't be. But this isn't even a scriptural or Biblically-founded point they are making. That stuff is NOT in the Bible.

So what's actually in the Bible? When does a human acquire a soul? Well, let's ask when Adam was alive. When God breathed life into him.

Genesis 2:7 “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

This is why, for a very long time historically, a woman's fetus was not considered an autonomous human being until it took its first breath. It's only when science gave us a view into what actually happens in the uterus that Christian churches had to start figuring out when this thing became a human with a soul.

At no point does any secular governing body have any call making law based on who has a soul and who doesn't. I certainly hope that in this thread we can agree on that much. However, for those Biblical literalists who care more about getting on Santa's Nice List than they do about what godless obstetricians say, I refer you back to Genesis. A fetus is a baby when it takes its first breath. Even Adam wasn't human before that.

Surprise surprise, Bible-thumping anti-choicers need to lern2Bible before pulling out their half-understood regurgitated dogma. Unless you're a Roman Catholic, your own Iron Age obstetrics manual (harr harr) points out that breath is life. Even the word "spirit" in Hebrew means "breath."

“There is a spirit [Hebrew, ruach, breath] in man: and the inspiration [breathing in] of the Almighty gives them understanding. ... The spirit [Hebrew, ruach, breath] of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty has given me life.” -Job 32:8 and 33:4.

So seriously, to the "life at conception cuz YHWH said so" regurgitating fundies: go get some formal Bible education and then come back and tell me what it says.

It's probably obvious that the Biblical view doesn't actually hold any water with me. I prefer to use obstetrics texts that were written after the advent of modern medicine. However, I know there are a lot of people who do care about what the Bible says about what we are, who we are, and how we should live. I also know that many such people haven't had opportunity to actually sit down and do formal study of this book that rules their lives, and have to simply believe what church authorities and their parents tell them is true.

So yeah. If you want to decide how to live based on what the Bible says, I'm gonna think you're a little nuts, but at least find out what's in the book before you start making decisions and constricting the decisions of others and make sure that it's really telling you what you've been TOLD it tells you.

now witness the POWER of this FULLY ARMED and OPERATIONAL feminist

Had to get up really early to be at the state house this morning, but it was worth it. I was testifying against a bill in a committee hearing to defund Planned Parenthood in Indiana, and I got to be the first of the opposition to speak (right after the lady from Right to Life, sitting there with her mouth all pinched up tightly as a cat's asshole).

I'm pretty proud of how I did, and I think I helped. One of the Planned Parenthood lobbyists asked me to email her my testimony so that they could use it as an example of How It Is Done (eeeeee!) and so I thought I'd relay it to y'all as well.

My name is [my name], here on behalf of Planned Parenthood, mostly because of how much I owe of my own health and success to Planned Parenthood. I'm the first woman in my family to get a college degree. My parents were supportive, but we're a military family and as you're all aware, people don't enlist for the money.

My parents were proud, but when it came to the financial end of a $120,000 education, that was entirely up to me. I had no money left over for doctors. I literally endorsed my paychecks and physically handed them over to Butler University.

It would have been easy to sacrifice my health for the sake of being the first woman to finish, but thanks to Planned Parenthood it wasn't necessary. They clearly don't believe young women should have to choose between an education and basic preventative care, and Planned Parenthood are the people doing something about it.

I'll be 25 in a month and I've only had one routine pelvic that wasn't provided at reduced cost by Planned Parenthood. For years, that made Planned Parenthood the only place I could afford to get checkups. I had one shot to get a degree, and I was willing to put everything else second.

I still did do it. My late great-grandmother, who was a young woman during the Depression, got to see our family, after almost eighty years, produce a woman with a college degree. We're talking about a woman for whom birth control pills might as well have been magic. I wasn't stopped by poverty. I wasn't stopped by the looming threat of pregnancy derailing this dream for yet another generation.

If not for Planned Parenthood, I might have been. I see in this legislation a clear statement that women in my position should have to choose between our health and our education, that I should have had to choose: either I can have doctors or knowledge but not both.

It's 2011... and we can give women better options than that. Planned Parenthood are the people offering better options.

Reliable access to preventative care and birth control were the difference between the women in my family for the past eighty years and this woman now. When you're asking yourself whether you approve of Planned Parenthood's impact on this state, you are asking yourself about me.

Do you approve of Planned Parenthood's impact on my life? Or don't you?

Because Planned Parenthood gives women access to a legal procedure that some people may wish you could keep them from having, are you really going to let my success story be one of the last?

This bill has to go, and by saying so here today I hope to repay in small part the debt I owe to this organization. I'm proud to give this act of testifying and my tax dollars for Planned Parenthood and the patients who need them. Thank you for your time.

There's a chance the bill will indeed fail, because the Democrats on this committee are people I pretty much trust not to be horrible shits. I also don't think it'll pass because they try this every damn year. However, both the House and Senate in Indiana are controlled by Republicans, so there's no saying for certain what fuckery they'll get up to.

I'm going back tomorrow, and this time the mister is coming with me. I mentioned offhand to the Planned Parenthood people that he's a pharmacist, and they told me the House added a bill regulating a RU-486 in a particular very stupid way to the committee schedule at the last minute. I got an emphatic Facebook message from the Planned Parenthood lobbyist ("CALL ME" and her phone number. "Right now?" "YES."). She wants him to be available to read a statement on the bill written by one of his former professors and answer questions if the representatives have them.

The Planned Parenthood lobbyist who alerted me to all this told him that we're her new favorite couple. We're my favorite couple, too. The couple that cockpunches the patriarchy together stays together, yeah?

Anti-Choicers Plan Annual Protest

You can help.

Found this via bifemmefatale, and here's what she posted.

from http://community.livejournal.com/fundiepharma/9856.html

40 Days of Life - Anti Choice Campaign set for September 23 - November 1
The 40 Days for Life Campaign takes place every year. Anti-choice protesters organize outside women's health clinics for silent protests, prayer vigils, etc. Take a look. If your local clinic is on there, why not call or send them an e-mail to give them a heads-up. They may not know they're being targeted. You could also show up to counterprotest, sign up at the clinic to be trained as a volunteer patient escort, or if you want to be really sneaky, you could sign up for blocks of protest time on the anti-choice group's site so they think they will have people there when they won't.

IL folks, there are a lot of targets in the Chicago area.

http://www.40daysforlife.com/location.cfm

I'm in Indianapolis, and they're targeting Georgetown Rd's Planned Parenthood. I'm going to give them a call tomorrow to make sure they know what's up, but if any of you can actually go give them a hand... I'm sure it will mean the world to them to know that the community supports them.

I want to be your sledgehammer. Why don't you call my name?

Went to the nationwide Prop 8 protest in Indianapolis. There were a few dozen people there (I think) out in the windy cold, but a friend who went with us bought a big carton of bagels at Einstein Bros. to share, and someone else hit a Dunkin Donuts to contribute coffee.

I'd never been to a protest before, so I wasn't sure what to expect. Everyone was really nice, and some people had brought their kids (so we all kinda ended up keeping an eye on them as they ran around and tried to get away with crap when their parents couldn't see). My favorite part was the cars driving by honking for us and waving out their windows. That made me smile every single time.

There was one lone counter-protester most of the time. He had a sign that said "Jesus Saves" on one side, and "Say no to sodomy" on the other. Now and again people would join him and shake Bibles in the air, but mostly he was alone. The going theory was that someone might have paid one of Indy's homeless to switch signs, because it's hard to think of anyone else willingly standing all alone on a streetcorner being ignored.

The greatest comment came from one of the guys standing near me. He gestured to the "say no to sodomy" sign and quipped, "Say no to sodomy? Well, yeah. I mean, sometimes we all do, like, 'no, I have to go to work.'" Everyone was nice to the poor bastard, though. When we walked by him we made sure to toss him a kind word so that he didn't have any room to rail about the nasty nasty gays and their nasty hetero backers.

It was a good day, even if I was still a little tired and chilled later. It was definitely worth it, and I'm glad we could go.

In other news, some links to stuff I've been reading:

A collection of semi-random science stories. This blogger puts one of these up each Sunday, but this one was particularly cool.

Obama already affecting Iraq policy.

Obama to Explore New Approach in Afghanistan War.

Bush is trying to do it again. He needs to seriously stop trying to redefine various birth control methods as abortion. Will you guys go sign on again? We did it once, and we evidently need to do it again.

SC Catholic Priest: Obama Voters Should Not Take Communion because they have cooperated "with intrinsic evil."

Obama gives up his Senate seat early.

The United States' merc outfit is in some trouble now for shipping automatic weapons to Iraq without proper permits.

I know you shouldn't vote with your fears, but...

I'm citing this through PZ Myers' blog because he asks a very very important question.

What word is missing in this story?

I'm sure everyone has already heard about the plot to murder Obama and many others:

Two white supremacists allegedly plotted to go on a national killing spree, shooting and decapitating black people and ultimately targeting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, federal authorities said Monday.

In all, the two men whom officials described as neo-Nazi skinheads planned to kill 88 people - 14 by beheading, according to documents unsealed in U.S. District Court in Jackson, Tenn.

It's a horrible and sordid story of idiots with guns, but in scanning the various news sources, there is a curious but obvious word missing — a word that normally our media and government fling about with unscrupulous abandon.

That word is "terrorism".

Doesn't it strike you as peculiar that white homegrown right-wing fascist killers are somehow exempt from being called what they are — terrorists?

Think this is just an omission? That violent conservatives are vilified like they deserve? What about abortion clinic bombers? I would call them domestic terrorists, wouldn't you? So would Steve Benen.

I was curious about the dictionary definition of the word: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." Sounds about right.

Given this, we have an organized group of activists who feel justified killing American physicians and bombing hundreds of doctors' offices on U.S. soil because they don't like a legal, medical procedure. "I don't know if you're gonna use the word 'terrorist' there." Why, pray tell, not? And does John McCain, who sat silently during the exchange, agree with this?

Actually, he might. ThinkProgress noted a couple of weeks ago that McCain has "repeatedly voted against protecting Americans from domestic terrorists carrying out violence at abortion clinics."

There's a striking disconnect here. Obama has denounced Ayers' crimes, and labeled Ayers' acts "terrorism." The Republican ticket, however, is reluctant to do the same when it comes to a different kind of domestic terrorism.

Palin isn't so sure.

Q: Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist, under this definition, governor?

PALIN: (Sigh). There’s no question that Bill Ayers via his own admittance was one who sought to destroy our U.S. Capitol and our Pentagon. That is a domestic terrorist. There’s no question there. Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that uh, it would be unacceptable. I don’t know if you’re going to use the word terrorist there.

Personally, I got my yearly pelvic (Really! Just a pelvic exam! They don't just do abortions!) at a Planned Parenthood because even having my expensive insurance scamplan still doesn't mean I can see a regular doctor. Planned Parenthood is the only place around here where I can have my health needs met. And yet McCain has voted more than once to limit the government's ability to punish abortion clinic bombers.

When you're thinking about who's going to keep this country safe, please keep this in mind. When you're thinking about who's going to protect you from terrorists... remember who the terrorists are. Even if the press doesn't call them that, you and I both know.

They're fascists. They're fanatics. They're violent. And they're in "real" America, probably voting for the man who'll protect them.

Vote for the man who'll protect you. Vote Obama next week. Next time I'm in Planned Parenthood having my medical needs met regardless of my impoverished state, I'll be glad you considered me.

Thank you in advance for your compassion and good sense.

The mystery of "values voters."

Proof that anti-choicers care more about children before they're born than afterward.

Last time we had protesters here in Issaquah, I didn’t really mind having them across the street. They didn’t approach our patients or yell hateful epithets like so many protesters do outside other clinics. They smiled and waved. Their signs were not ugly or hateful. Mostly, they chatted on cell phones, read or napped.

In all, I figure more than 1,000 hours were wasted -- roughly half–a-dozen people, there for eight hours a day, for 27 days. I can think of quite a few other ways that those hours could have been better spent.

· raising money to help low-income, single parents
· providing childcare for those who can’t afford it
· snuggling babies born addicted to drugs
· spending time with kids that don’t have a loving, caring adult in their lives
· foster parenting
· adopting a child with special needs
· lobbying for health insurance for everybody
· taking a group of kids outside to learn about the environment and get exercise
· being a reading buddy at a local elementary school
· mentoring at-risk kids

And that’s just off the top of my head.

It takes real commitment and diligence to sit on the sidewalk for 27 days, rain or shine. Think of all we could accomplish if their efforts went toward something we can all agree on -- healthy kids, families, women, and teens.

This really stuck in my head, because it connects to something that has bothered me for a long time.

How many people demanding that unwanted babies be put up for adoption have actually adopted kids? Or are they so caught up in their "children are like flowers, you can't have too many" mindset that they're popping out puppies of their own instead of taking the needy ones from the shelter? How many vocal anti-choicers do you know who have a half-dozen of their own kids, even if it means leaving orphaned or abandoned ones in the system? The next time they tell you they love kids remember this: they love their own. Everybody else's kids are everybody else's problem.

Here's my advice to those people, if they really want to practice what they preach (literally).

If you think that every child has a right to life, start demonstrating that you have some compassion for them after they're born. Start voting in ways that support motherhood and affirm the value of children. I suggest getting involved with MomsRising.org, an activist group dedicated to seeing that problems mothers and their kids face are solved.

Issues they care about:

· Ensuring paid maternity leave for women in America (just like evil socialist moms are given in Europe) so that women can support their kids instead of losing their jobs. In fact, why not paternity leave as well? Don't fathers have family responsibilities as well?

· Affordable childcare, so that families don't get caught in the "can't afford childcare because I don't have a job, can't get a job because I can't get childcare" cycle.

· Healthcare for kids is a priority for moms, so why shouldn't they do something about it? According to MomsRising, "Having a child is now the single best predictor that a woman will go bankrupt. In fact, this year, more children will live through their parents’ bankruptcy than their parents’ divorce. The causes for so much financial distress among parents are complex, but one fact stands out: Fully half of these families filed for bankruptcy in the wake of a medical problem." And no, "the market" doesn't fix that.

Are "family values" a big deal to you?

Really?

Prove it.

McCain and Women

We all know McCain loves women. Well, as long as they're rich, beautiful, and willing to give him access to all that money they've got.

McCain's positions on women's health:

McCain opposed spending $100 million to prevent unintended and teen pregnancies.
In 2005, McCain voted NO to allocate $100 million to expand access to preventive health care services that reduce the numbers of unintended and teen pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions.

McCain opposed legislation requiring that abstinence-only programs be medically accurate and scientifically based.
McCain voted NO on legislation that would help reduce the number of teen pregnancies by providing funding for programs to teach comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education and other programs to prevent unintended teen pregnancies.

McCain opposed Title X, the nation's family planning program.
In 1990, McCain voted NO on legislation to extend the Title X federal family planning program, which provides low-income and uninsured women and families with health care services ranging from breast and cervical cancer screening to birth control.

McCain opposed requiring insurance coverage of prescription birth control.
In 2003, McCain voted NO on legislation to improve the availability of contraceptives for women and to require insurance coverage of prescription birth control.

McCain opposes comprehensive sex education.
In an interview aboard the "Straight Talk Express," McCain struggled to answer questions about comprehensive sex education and HIV prevention. He also stated that he supported "the president's policy" on sex education.

McCain unsure where he stands on government funding for contraception.
"Whether I support government funding for them or not, I don't know," McCain said about contraceptives.

McCain opposed repealing the "global gag rule."
In 2005, McCain voted NO on legislation to overturn the "global gag rule," which bars foreign nongovernmental organizations from receiving U.S. family planning assistance if the organization (using its own, non-U.S. funds) provides abortion services or information or advocates for pro-choice laws and policies in its own country.

McCain supports overturning Roe v. Wade.
In February 2007, the AP quoted McCain stating, 'I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned.

McCain says Roe v. Wade was a "bad decision."
In May 2007, during an appearance on Meet the Press, Sen. McCain reiterated his support for overturning Roe v. Wade, saying, "I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support a woman — the, the rights of the unborn." He went on to say, "My position has been consistently in my voting record, pro-life, and I continue to maintain that position and voting record."

McCain would have signed 2006 South Dakota abortion ban
In February 2006, the Hotline reported, "According to a spokesperson, McCain 'would have signed the legislation, but would also take the appropriate steps under state law -- in whatever state -- to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included.'" As the New York Times' Paul Krugman points out, "That attempt at qualification makes no sense: the South Dakota law has produced national shockwaves precisely because it prohibits abortions even for victims of rape or incest."

McCain touts "pro-life" credentials at conference of FRC Action, the political arm of the Family Research Council.
At a speech at the FRC Action Voter Values Summit in October 2007, Sen. McCain said, "I have been pro-life my entire public career. I believe I am the only major candidate in either party who can make that claim."

There is no reason for a woman to vote for McCain. Even if you're pro-life, consider this: McCain doesn't care enough about preventing abortion to do things that will actually prevent abortion. He doesn't care enough about women to help prevent breast cancer and cervical cancer for low-income people. In short: he doesn't care about you. And women overseas don't have it any different. The "global gag rule" tries to enforce the USA's irrational and broken women's health policies on the rest of the world.

Is that what you want, for us or for them?

It's not just women's choice issues, or women's health issues either. There's more.

McCain Voted To Cut, Eliminate, Restrict Health Insurance Coverage for Low Income Children and Pregnant Mothers At Least SIX Times. [SCR 27, Vote #76, 5/21/97; S 949, Vote #149, 6/27/97; HR 4810, Vote #204, 7/17/00; H.R. 976, Vote #307, 8/2/07; S 3, Vote #45, 3/11/03; H.R. 3963, Vote #401, 10/31/07]

Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget Resolution that would adjust education funding while still reducing the deficit by $5.4 billion. A YES vote would:

• Restore education program cuts slated for vocational education, adult education, GEAR UP, and TRIO.
• Increase the maximum Pell Grant scholarship to $4,500 immediately.
• Increases future math and science teacher student loan forgiveness to $23,000.
• Pay for the education funding by closing $10.8 billion in corporate tax loopholes.

[Kennedy amendment relative to education funding; Bill S AMDT 177 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-68 on Mar 17, 2005 ] (ontheissues.org)

So... to the moms on my list. Is this the man you want in charge of your daughters' futures? Hasn't he done enough damage already?

According to PlannedParenthood, a lot of women don't know how much damage he's done, and will do. Check this out.

In battleground states, the situation is striking. The Planned Parenthood Action Fund recently polled 1,205 women in 16 likely battleground states, finding that

• Despite his extreme voting record, 51 percent of women voters in battleground states have no idea what John McCain's positions are on women's reproductive health issues.
• Forty-nine percent of women currently backing McCain express pro-choice views, and 46 percent of women supporting McCain over Obama/Clinton want to see Roe v. Wade upheld.
• In McCain-Obama/McCain-Clinton matchups, 36 percent and 38 percent, respectively, of pro-choice McCain supporters say they are less likely to vote for McCain when told that he opposes Roe v. Wade.

All you have to do is tell people. If women know what McCain really stands for, he'll lose an incredible amount of support. It doesn't matter if they saw him on The View. He does not care about women. You're not his problem, so don't be his constituency.

Obama's "Present" Votes on Choice

These were part of an email I received from NARAL Pro-Choice Network. They've just endorsed Obama, and are sending out some information to counter previous statements Clinton has made that he's not strong enough on choice. Admittedly this was an issue for me when I was first looking at voting records, so I felt like I should pass this on.

Chicago Tribune's Eric Zorn: "Disparagement Of Obama Votes Doesn't Hold Up." Under the headline, "Disparagement of Obama votes doesn't hold up," Eric Zorn wrote, "Obama's 'present' vote on that bill is one Hull is attacking him for in a flier decorated with rubber duckies. Sutherland just laughs. 'We also had [Democratic Senate leader] Emil Jones, [current Atty. Gen.] Lisa Madigan, Miguel del Valle, Rickey Hendon and other very strong pro-choice legislators voting `present' on that one,' she said. 'It was all done to pull "present" votes off the fence.' Obama confirmed Sutherland's account of the legislative strategy and said, 'No one was more active to beat back those bills than I was.' 'Criticizing Obama on the basis of "present" votes indicates you don't have a great understanding of the process,' said Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence." [Zorn column, Chicago Tribune, 3/19/04]

Pam Sutherland Confirmed: Planned Parenthood Says Obama's Present Votes On Choice Are "Leadership Votes." "'We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes,' Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC News. 'We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive'. They put these bills out all the time . . . because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats...Sutherland said Obama approached her in the late 1990s and worked with her and others in crafting the strategy of voting 'present.' She remembers meeting with Obama outside of the Illinois Senate chambers on the Democratic side of the aisle. She and Obama finished their conversation in his office. 'He came to me and said: 'My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,' said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. 'A present vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted.' [ABC, 7/17/07]

Miller: "Maybe Only A Few Members Of The Tribune Contracted Remember This Ploy, But I Do;" Planned Parenthood "Was Encouraging 'Present' Votes By Some Of Their More Loyal Members In Order To Encourage The Moderates To Vote That Way As Well" To Combat Republican Tactic Of Breaking Moderates Away From The Pro-Choice Movement. Rich Miller wrote, "Maybe only a few members the Tribune contacted remember this ploy, but I do. It was specifically designed by Planned Parenthood to counter Republican Senate President Pate Philip's barrage of hot-button abortion bills that he was continually trying to ram through the Senate in 2001 and 2002. The Tribune missed the point. Besides passing bills he supported, Pate's idea was to cause a controversy by splitting 'moderate' Democrats away from the abortion rights groups, thereby causing a rift on that side, and, more imporantly, to put some political targets on the hot seat. So, as they also did in the House a few years back, Planned Parenthood was encouraging 'Present' votes by some of their more loyal members in order to encourage the moderates to vote that way as well." [Capitol Fax Blog, 12/4/07]

EMILY'S List Called Obama's Remarks "A Rousing Call To Arms, And A Touching Reminder Of Why We Are Doing Everything We Can To Make A Difference By Electing Pro-Choice Democratic Women." EMILY'S List Insider News reported, "It's difficult to pinpoint the highlights from this year's 15th annual Majority Council Conference on May 11 and 12, because there were so many!..This year's conference was held in conjunction with "Change," our Washington, D.C., luncheon with more than 1,100 members from the across the country. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama headlined the event. His remarks were a rousing call to arms, and a touching reminder of why we are doing everything we can to make a difference by electing pro-choice Democratic women." [EMILY'S List Email, Subject: Insider News - Taking control in 2006, 5/19/06]

OBAMA RECEIVED 100 PERCENT RATINGS FROM CHOICE ORGANIZATIONS

2006: Obama Received A 100 Percent Rating From Planned Parenthood In 2006. [Project Vote Smart]
2005: Obama Received A 100 Percent Rating From NARAL Pro-Choice America In 2005. [Project Vote Smart]
2003: Obama Received A 100 Percent Rating From Illinois Planned Parenthood Council In 2003. [Project Vote Smart]
2002: Obama Was Endorsed By The Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, There Were No Number Ratings Available. [Project Vote Smart]
2001: Obama Received A 100 Percent Rating From The Illinois Planned Parenthood Council In 2001. [Project Vote Smart]
97-98: Obama Received A 100 Percent Rating From The Illinois Planned Parenthood Council For 1997-1998. [Project Vote Smart]

In case you want more votes of confidence from people who definitely verifiably care about the right of a woman to control her own body, here are some statements made by Illinois pro-choice leaders.

Former Illinois Senator and current Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan: "When Barack and I served in the Senate, it was not uncommon for groups to adopt a legislative strategy of having like-minded lawmakers vote 'present' rather than yes or no. When it came to protecting a woman's right to choose, for example, Barack and I voted present as part of a strategy devised by pro-choice advocates. It's just plain wrong to imply that voting present reflected a lack of leadership. In fact, it was the exact opposite."

Lorna Brett, former president of Chicago NOW: "I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton and an EMILY's List donor, but this line of attack is unacceptable. While I was the president of Chicago National Organization for Women, Senator Obama worked closely with us, could not have been more supportive of a woman's right to choose, and there was no bigger champion in Illinois on our issues. What's important is that the candidates do not cannibalize each other on issues we all agree about because we need to win in November."

Steve Trombley, CEO & President, Planned Parenthood/Chicago Action: "During his years in the state legislature, Barack Obama was a strong and consistent supporter of women's reproductive rights. He worked hand-in-hand with Planned Parenthood in developing and executing strategies to make sure that women had access to reproductive health care. I also want to thank him for standing up with us in the effort to open the Aurora clinic and for his introduction of legislation guaranteeing access to low-cost birth control. Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area has proudly endorsed Barack throughout his entire political career."

"Barack has always supported a women's right to choose and has a 100% pro-choice rating from Planned Parenthood. Barack has always voted to support our strategy as we worked to defeat anti-choice legislation. That is why we have supported him in every previous election."

Pam Sutherland, President & CEO of Planned Parenthood Council: "The present votes Obama took at that time, along with many other pro-choice legislators, were 'no' votes to bad bills being used for political gain. We asked Senator Obama and other strong supporters of choice to vote present to encourage Senators facing tough re-elections to make the right choice by voting present, instead of caving to political pressure and voting for these bad bills. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama showed leadership, compassion and a true commitment to reproductive health care. The Republican Senate President at the time constantly used anti-abortion bills to pigeon-hole Democrats so that he could target them with misleading mailers during campaign season. It was a tactic that was about politics, not policy - and Obama didn't let them get away with it."

"Barack has a 100 percent pro-choice record. The present votes he cast were part of a legislative strategy that we designed specifically to protect abortion rights. Barack's leadership on this issue went above and beyond the call of duty, and for anyone to intentionally mislead voters about that fact in the days before an election is simply sad."

Libby Slappey, a former 13-year board member of Planned Parenthood of East Central Iowa: "Senator Obama is one of America's strongest and most loyal defenders of women's rights on issues of reproductive health care. I've contributed to EMILY's List in the past - but I never will again, because I'm so disappointed in their decision to launch these unfair, false attacks on behalf of Senator Clinton's campaign."