Why Women's Orgs Must Become Non-Partisan

[IndianaGreen]

Why Women's Orgs Must Become Non-Partisan

Amy Siskind
President and Co-Founder of The New Agenda
Posted: November 8, 2009 02:29 PM

After yet another evening of being thrown under the bus, it is high time that women's organizations drastically change their approach!

Women in the Democratic Party have been taken for granted and have lost their bargaining power as a result. Ladies, this is business, plain and simple, and what it comes down to this: We can no longer work with only one political party: that is "speaking." Women's organizations must learn to "negotiate" and establish dialogues with all political parties. Party exclusivity is why women's organizations are failing in their missions to protect their members and their members' interests. Women's organizations must become non-partisan immediately.

Last night, our Congress, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi primarily and President Obama secondarily, approved a health care bill that does not include funding for abortion. What did they gain for this concession? Nothing. Still, 39 blue dog Democrats voted against the bill. There is no better indication of how little bargaining power organizations such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood currently have thanks to their efforts with one party.

The organizations and religious groups that are against abortion have amply made their case with the Democratic leaders. The DNC Chair is anti-choice. Half our country does not know whether President Obama is pro-choice.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-siskind/why-womens-orgs-must-beco_b_349970.html&cp

[greennina]

1. Associating with people that hate us is not the solution.

Why suggest we pander to racists and sexist morons?

[IndianaGreen]

3. NARAL and Planned Parenthood: Ineffectiveness Anti-Choice Democrats Can Rely On

NARAL and Planned Parenthood: Ineffectiveness Anti-Choice Democrats Can Rely On

Jane Hamsher.Founder, FireDogLake.com
Posted: November 7, 2009 03:10 PM

Democrats in Congress have just proudly signed a deal with the Catholic bishops which allows a bunch of old men who have spent the better part of the last century avoiding their own sexual issues to dictate access to abortion services in the House health care bill.

No tax dollars were going to go to pay for abortions, mind you, but now insurance companies that participate in the exchange can't even cover them, thanks to Democrat Bart Stupak. FDL's Jon Walker explains how it works:

If the insurance companies offering plans on the exchange are not allowed to turn down any costumers, it means no basic insurance plan on the exchange could cover abortion. There would be no way to prevent that at least one of the plan’s costumer would be be using affordability tax credits to help purchase the plan. So the effect is no plan sold on the exchange could offer abortion coverage as part of its basic package.

But this isn't news. On July 1, Stupak wrote a letter signed by 19 Democrats saying they would do just what they're doing right now -- holding the bill hostage. And what did NARAL and Planned Parenthood do? Well, they released a lot of statements echoing the President's contention that the bill contained no abortion funding. But that was never Stupak's objection.

The floor of the House is now filled with ostensibly pro-choice Democrats like Rosa DeLauro and Anna Eshoo who don't seem to have noticed there's a problem here (Eshoo was probabaly too busy selling breast cancer survivors out to PhRMA). Honorary veal pen President Jan Schakowsky says, and I kid you not, "this is a great day for women."

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/naral-and-planned-parenth_b_349596.html&cp

[Hello_Kitty]

2. PP and NARAL are non-partisan.

The president of our local PP is a Republican.

[Igel]

5. She misspoke. Or, rather, was not precise in her terms.

"Partisan" has a clear denotation, and all kinds of groups and churches and think-tanks are non-partisan according to that denotation.

On the other hand, it also has a clear connotation, and most of those groups and churches and think-tanks are very partisan according to that connotation.

The House healthcare bill, the stimulus package in late winter '09, TARP, the Patriot Act, Gitmo, the Iraq War, the Afghanistan war, whether or not Zelaya should be reinstated as Honduran president--all non-partisan. They're issues, and since they're not party members they can't be partisan. Push for or against gay marriage, abortion rights, single-payer insurance, bombing Tehran, etc., etc.--doesn't affect your IRS status one whit. In fact, it often happens that almost all of an organization's members vote (D) or (R). But still the official stance is one of non-partisanship, even if it's for tax purposes.

When a referendum item, a bill, an issue, or a non-partisan candidate (even) toes a party line, when the support comes nearly entirely from one party, when that topic or candidate essentially advances a party's agenda or platform, there's a sense in which it's partisan. That sense is essentially "in a series of wrangles in which the two major political parties are consistently at odds, being primarily on the side of one party."

[Igel]

4. "What did they gain for this concession?"

220-215.

Silly question. It could only be meant rhetorically--but even then, it's a silly question.

They lost on an issue. The issue can be revisited. But given current public opinion, democrats wouldn't approve the bill that Siskind would want. Now, she and affine groups may be able to negotiate with Democrats and get them to approve the bill, but that's a different matter.