Post by Moses on Feb 16, 2005 23:59:26 GMT -5
DON'T DONATE MONEY to the DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has actively recruited at least two abortion opponents to run for the Senate in 2006. And perhaps most symbolically, the party is seeking to enlist Robert P. Casey Jr., Pennsylvania's treasurer, to challenge Senator Rick Santorum, a stalwart foe of abortion rights.
Mr. Casey is the son of former Gov. Bob Casey, a hero to abortion opponents inside and outside the Democratic Party. After trying unsuccessfully to have the party's 1992 platform state that Democrats did not support "abortion on demand," Governor Casey denounced the party for refusing to let him speak at its convention in New York on behalf of other Democrats who shared his views.
In contrast, the younger Mr. Casey said that Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the party's senatorial campaign committee, had encouraged him to run as an opponent of abortion rights.
"He was very welcoming and very candid about the party's need to speak for a broad section of Americans," Mr. Casey said in an interview.
But Mr. Schumer's overture has roiled party loyalists who remain unyielding in their support for abortion rights, exposing a deepening rift in the party. Abortion rights groups that are major financial donors to Democratic campaigns say they may fight Mr. Casey in a primary with a candidate who shares their beliefs.
Karen White, political director of Emily's List, a group that raises money for female candidates who support abortion rights, said the group was "very excited" about possibly backing an abortion rights supporter, Barbara Hafer, a former Pennsylvania treasurer.
Emily's List and other groups have also sounded alarms about the direction the party leadership is taking over all. During the search for a national Democratic chairman, Ms. White posted a rallying cry on the group's Web site: "We fought like mad to beat back the Republicans. Little did we know that we would have just as much to fear from some within the Democratic Party who seem to be using choice as a scapegoat for our top-of-the-ticket losses."
Emily's List is circulating a study it commissioned by the pollster Mark Mellman stating that abortion "was not a factor in voters' decision-making" in the November elections.
Ann Stone, president of Republicans for Choice, an abortion rights group, said her organization's members had not been re-examining their positions, as their Democratic counterparts have. Ms. Stone added a cautionary note that cut across each party's support base.
"The Democrats have to be very careful about this because they could end up undercutting themselves with the donor base," Ms. Stone said. "The pro-choice donors in both parties tend to be the more wealthy."
Mr. Schumer, for his part, said abortion rights groups should worry about Republicans, not Democrats, if they want to preserve Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. "What we find is that even the most pro-choice Republican senators just vote down the line for judges that are chomping at the bit to overturn Roe," he said.
Another large abortion rights group, Naral Pro-Choice, is reversing course, saying it will drop its opposition to the proposed Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, a bill that would require doctors to offer anesthetic for the fetuses of women seeking abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice, said the organization was saving its ammunition to fight judicial nominees who might overturn Roe v. Wade. "We are standing strong in the next Supreme Court battle," Ms. Keenan said.
There are "bigger issues to fight," she added, "to draw attention to the broader issue of reproductive health." For example, in this week's edition of the conservative Weekly Standard, Naral placed an advertisement asking abortion rights groups to "please, help us prevent abortions" by increasing access to birth control.
But Carol Tobias, political director for the National Right to Life Foundation, dismissed the invitation as an effort "to get the pro-life movement into a debate over birth control," on which her organization takes no position. Ms. Tobias called the Democrats' talk "pulling the wool over the eyes of voters."
Still, Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, a champion of abortion opponents and the sponsor of the fetal-pain bill, said he was watching the Democrats' steps with great interest. "Just the language that allows for the Democrats to open up and even encourage people to run for office as a pro-life candidate is an enormously positive development for me," Mr. Brownback said, adding that Naral's decision not to oppose his fetal-pain bill made him much more optimistic about its passage.
But abortion rights advocates warn of a bigger revolt within the party if its members start compromising on new abortion restrictions like parental notification laws or the fetal-pain bill. Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood, said some of her allies were saying that "to the degree that the Democrats move away from choice, that could be the real birth of a third-party movement."
But Ms. Pearl added, "When the day is done, I don't believe they will backslide," in part because of the importance of abortion rights advocates to the party's base of activists and contributors.
In a New York Times poll last month, 36 percent of respondents said abortions should be generally available, 35 percent said the procedure should be available but under stricter limits, and 26 percent said abortions should not be permitted.
The financial balance sheet is much more one-sided. Single-issue abortion rights groups gave over $1.4 million in the 2004 elections to candidates for national office, more than twice as much as the total from groups opposed to abortion rights, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In addition, Emily's List raised $34 million for female candidates who support abortion rights, according to the center. By comparison, the National Right to Life Committee, the largest donor opposed to abortion rights, raised about $1.7 million.
Senator Reid said that he welcomed the new "emphasis on recognizing the diversity of the party." He added, "We have had a lot of pro-life Democrats, but the pro-choice folk haven't reached out to them and haven't protected them."
He acknowledged some complaints from abortion rights groups about the party's shifting rhetoric. "They have to keep their folks geared up, just like people who work for more highways," Mr. Reid said. "That is what they do, just like the pro-life groups."
www.nytimes.com/2005/02/16/politics/16abortion.html
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has actively recruited at least two abortion opponents to run for the Senate in 2006. And perhaps most symbolically, the party is seeking to enlist Robert P. Casey Jr., Pennsylvania's treasurer, to challenge Senator Rick Santorum, a stalwart foe of abortion rights.
Mr. Casey is the son of former Gov. Bob Casey, a hero to abortion opponents inside and outside the Democratic Party. After trying unsuccessfully to have the party's 1992 platform state that Democrats did not support "abortion on demand," Governor Casey denounced the party for refusing to let him speak at its convention in New York on behalf of other Democrats who shared his views.
In contrast, the younger Mr. Casey said that Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the party's senatorial campaign committee, had encouraged him to run as an opponent of abortion rights.
"He was very welcoming and very candid about the party's need to speak for a broad section of Americans," Mr. Casey said in an interview.
But Mr. Schumer's overture has roiled party loyalists who remain unyielding in their support for abortion rights, exposing a deepening rift in the party. Abortion rights groups that are major financial donors to Democratic campaigns say they may fight Mr. Casey in a primary with a candidate who shares their beliefs.
Karen White, political director of Emily's List, a group that raises money for female candidates who support abortion rights, said the group was "very excited" about possibly backing an abortion rights supporter, Barbara Hafer, a former Pennsylvania treasurer.
Emily's List and other groups have also sounded alarms about the direction the party leadership is taking over all. During the search for a national Democratic chairman, Ms. White posted a rallying cry on the group's Web site: "We fought like mad to beat back the Republicans. Little did we know that we would have just as much to fear from some within the Democratic Party who seem to be using choice as a scapegoat for our top-of-the-ticket losses."
Emily's List is circulating a study it commissioned by the pollster Mark Mellman stating that abortion "was not a factor in voters' decision-making" in the November elections.
Ann Stone, president of Republicans for Choice, an abortion rights group, said her organization's members had not been re-examining their positions, as their Democratic counterparts have. Ms. Stone added a cautionary note that cut across each party's support base.
"The Democrats have to be very careful about this because they could end up undercutting themselves with the donor base," Ms. Stone said. "The pro-choice donors in both parties tend to be the more wealthy."
Mr. Schumer, for his part, said abortion rights groups should worry about Republicans, not Democrats, if they want to preserve Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. "What we find is that even the most pro-choice Republican senators just vote down the line for judges that are chomping at the bit to overturn Roe," he said.
Another large abortion rights group, Naral Pro-Choice, is reversing course, saying it will drop its opposition to the proposed Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, a bill that would require doctors to offer anesthetic for the fetuses of women seeking abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice, said the organization was saving its ammunition to fight judicial nominees who might overturn Roe v. Wade. "We are standing strong in the next Supreme Court battle," Ms. Keenan said.
There are "bigger issues to fight," she added, "to draw attention to the broader issue of reproductive health." For example, in this week's edition of the conservative Weekly Standard, Naral placed an advertisement asking abortion rights groups to "please, help us prevent abortions" by increasing access to birth control.
But Carol Tobias, political director for the National Right to Life Foundation, dismissed the invitation as an effort "to get the pro-life movement into a debate over birth control," on which her organization takes no position. Ms. Tobias called the Democrats' talk "pulling the wool over the eyes of voters."
Still, Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, a champion of abortion opponents and the sponsor of the fetal-pain bill, said he was watching the Democrats' steps with great interest. "Just the language that allows for the Democrats to open up and even encourage people to run for office as a pro-life candidate is an enormously positive development for me," Mr. Brownback said, adding that Naral's decision not to oppose his fetal-pain bill made him much more optimistic about its passage.
But abortion rights advocates warn of a bigger revolt within the party if its members start compromising on new abortion restrictions like parental notification laws or the fetal-pain bill. Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood, said some of her allies were saying that "to the degree that the Democrats move away from choice, that could be the real birth of a third-party movement."
But Ms. Pearl added, "When the day is done, I don't believe they will backslide," in part because of the importance of abortion rights advocates to the party's base of activists and contributors.
In a New York Times poll last month, 36 percent of respondents said abortions should be generally available, 35 percent said the procedure should be available but under stricter limits, and 26 percent said abortions should not be permitted.
The financial balance sheet is much more one-sided. Single-issue abortion rights groups gave over $1.4 million in the 2004 elections to candidates for national office, more than twice as much as the total from groups opposed to abortion rights, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In addition, Emily's List raised $34 million for female candidates who support abortion rights, according to the center. By comparison, the National Right to Life Committee, the largest donor opposed to abortion rights, raised about $1.7 million.
Senator Reid said that he welcomed the new "emphasis on recognizing the diversity of the party." He added, "We have had a lot of pro-life Democrats, but the pro-choice folk haven't reached out to them and haven't protected them."
He acknowledged some complaints from abortion rights groups about the party's shifting rhetoric. "They have to keep their folks geared up, just like people who work for more highways," Mr. Reid said. "That is what they do, just like the pro-life groups."
www.nytimes.com/2005/02/16/politics/16abortion.html