Scott Swenson's blog

NARAL Endorses Obama, Anti-Choicers React

2008-05-14T15:01:51-04:00

Jill at Feministe points out that this is "going to ruffle some feathers" as today NARAL endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for President. The endorsement clearly comes from the National NARAL office and some state affiliates may have other thoughts to express.

In the press release, NARAL President Nancy Keenan explains,

"Sen. Obama has been a strong advocate for a woman's right to choose throughout his career in public office. He steadfastly supports and defends a woman's right to make the most personal, private decisions regarding her reproductive health without interference from government or politicians."

The endorsement seems to have caught Sen. Clinton by surprise according to TPM Election Central, who reports that campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said on a conference call, "surprised would be my response."

NARAL showed class by waiting until the nomination was clearly locked up, and leadership by moving its considerable weight to send signals that it is time to mend fences. There are many leading political women in Washington and around the country who have felt betrayed by Sen. Claire McCaskill, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Gov. Janet Napolitano, Sen. Amy Klobuchar and others who rose to prominence with the help of Sen. Clinton, Emily's List and the work of an entire generation of women in politics. That is understandable.

This NARAL endorsement need not be seen as further evidence of a betrayal of anyone or anything, but rather an opportunity to begin a process of coming together. It has been a good and hard fought campaign, waged by an extraordinary crop of candidates from the start, and ending with two of the most talented leaders of our time in Clinton and Obama.

Progressives can be proud of this moment, and the very clear embrace America is making of pro-choice values throughout this entire nominating process.

Updated 3:30 p.m.

The anti-choice Lifesite.com reacts to the NARAL endorsement:

The difference between Obama and McCain on abortion is stark.

McCain has a strongly pro-life voting record and has supported bills to ban partial-birth abortions, respect parental involvement regarding teenagers and prohibit tax-funded abortions in a variety of situations.

The Arizona senator has also repeatedly called for overturning Roe v. Wade, said he would appoint judges who won't legislate from the bench, and says he will keep the pro-life plank in the Republican Party platform.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have 100 percent pro-abortion voting records with the group and have pledged to only appoint federal judges who will keep unlimited legal abortions in place for another 35 years.

Obama has voted against preventing taxpayer funding of abortion and led efforts to defeat a bill in the Illinois legislature to provide appropriate medical care for newborns who survive failed abortions.

Those differences are so significant and will affect so many lives of women and unborn children that National Right to Life and pro-life groups in California and Wisconsin have already endorsed McCain.

For the reality of each candidate's record, not just the anti-choice rhetoric, here are Sen. Obama's and Sen. Clinton's responses to our questionnaire. Sen. McCain has yet to respond after many requests, but we did compile this information on the GOP candidates for President.

Updated 3:49 p.m.

Ellen Malcolm, founder and President of Emily's List said this,

“I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton - who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade - to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process. It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them.”

Looks like Jill was understating the ruffled feathers.

Updated 4:00 p.m.

NARAL Pro-Choice New York, Sen. Clinton's home state affiliate has issued a separate statement:

“This decision was made internally by NARAL Pro-Choice America, based in Washington D.C., and without the consultation of the NARAL state affiliates across the country,” NARAL Pro-Choice New York said in a statement this afternoon.

The New York chapter of the abortion rights group has been a staunch supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton, endorsing her in the 2000 and 2006 Senate races. “NARAL Pro-Choice New York will not be issuing an endorsement at this time,” the statement said.

"NARAL Pro-Choice New York believes that this endorsement in the Democratic primary is premature. We are fortunate to have two pro-choice candidates in Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. When a nominee is named, NARAL Pro-Choice New York will stand proudly with the pro-choice Democratic candidate in order to defeat anti-choice Republican candidate John McCain in November.”

Mississippi Special Third Win for Dems

2008-05-13T22:34:03-04:00

Congressman-elect Travis Childers (D-MS) became the third of three special elections swept by the Democrats. Childers won with a whopping 54 percent of the vote over Republican Greg Davis. The three seats were all in strongly Republican districts, including former GOP Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert's (R-IL), and two in the deep South, the other being in Louisiana. Each of the districts were won easily by President Bush and have been held by the GOP for decades.

Of note to the sexual and reproductive health community, the two seats in the South were won by anti-choice Democrats likely to join other reality based anti-choice Democrats to work on prevention and education issues, and will be supportive of contraception.

Matthew Hay Brown of The Swamp characterized the issue this way based on Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's comments about the wins by anti-choice Democrats:

House Democrats picked up an anti-abortion member over the weekend with the special election victory of Don Cazayoux, and could gain another if Travis Childers defeats Greg Davis in Mississippi next week. So does that mean the caucus, which has relied on the support of voters who favor legal abortion, is growing more conservative?

"This is not a party issue," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said this morning, when asked the question at his weekly meeting with the Capitol press corps. "We don't make that a party issue. We don't whip that issue. Members have to vote their conscience on that issue, and do."

Hoyer, himself a moderate Democrat from conservative Southern Maryland, listed the issues that unite the party as "the quality of life for real people, jobs, their health care, their education for their kids, and their national security and homeland security and security at home."

"That is why people are Democrats," Hoyer said. "And that is what distinguishes, I think, the Democratic Party from the Republican Party. The social issues are issues which people feel strongly about for one reason or another. But the issues that I think you will see pretty consistent Democratic unity on are issues affecting families every day."

Like the Louisiana Race, the National Republican Campaign Committee attempted to portray Childers as a liberal and tie him to Barack Obama. Countificus at Daily KOS described those efforts earlier this week:

Davis with his back against the wall and with the help of the NRCC unveiled this race-baiting attack ad on Childers linking him to Obama and ultimately Rev. Wright. Their debate is not an intellectual level of Rev Wright, but a call to the worst in man. Whatever your choice for Democratic nominee, this has to repulse you. The ad is nothing if not a direct call to the past demons of Mississippi to rise again and knock down righteousness.

Toobin Looks at a McCain Court

2008-05-12T17:04:02-04:00

Geraldine Ferraro may think it's "too late to worry" about the make-up of the Supreme Court and petty things like individual rights and liberties, but noted Supreme Court expert and author Jeffrey Toobin disagrees. Rachel Sklar gets the scoop in an interview with Toobin on HuffPo today. The short interview is well worth the read, but here's the crux:

Let's say McCain is elected, and bench turnover ensues. How long would it take, in your expert opinion, for Roe to be overturned? I mean, surely there are people planning for this!

I don't think the current Court will overturn Roe. Since Kennedy wrote much of Casey in 1992, I don't think he will simply walk away from it. But it will not take long if there is another Republican appointee. A state will pass a total abortion ban, and it will be challenged. That case will maybe take a year to get to the Court — which will, I think, uphold such a law.

Memo to Fox News Analyst Geraldine Ferraro, the Supreme Court matters now more than ever.

Bill Donohue: The Bully's TV Pulpit

2008-05-12T08:11:00-04:00

In an election year in which three presidential candidates force voters to deal with real bigotry, in the forms of misogyny, racism and ageism, Americans are looking within their hearts, facing generational fears, seeking a less divisive way to discuss issues on which we disagree. More often than not, mainstream media is no help -- over-simplifying issues, over-emphasizing demographics, or worse, stoking the flames of hate with talking heads that shed no light but bring plenty of heat, contributing to division not healing. Old ways die hard.

Bill Donohue, of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, is one such all heat, no light cable television guest. Donohue claims to protect Catholics from anti-Catholic bigotry. In reality, he manufactures controversies, bullies political opponents, and insults people with a world view different from his. This "defender of religious and civil rights" routinely defames Jews, Muslims, gays, and women -- all in the name of Jesus, and believing that he is protecting American values.

In a 43-page report released Monday, The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights: Neither Religious, Nor Civil, Catholics for Choice documents a pattern of media and political manipulation by Donohue, his organization, and his supporters. His base of support comes from the most politicized leaders of the Catholic hierarchy, including Cardinal Egan, and a board that reads like a Who's Who of partisan Republican politics (L. Brent Bozell III, Alan Keyes, Kate O'Beirne, Linda Chavez, Kenneth Whitehead, Lawrence Kudlow, Thomas Monaghan, William Simon, Jr.). Far from protecting Catholics from bigotry, Donohue plays the victim card to advance a narrow, socially conservative, hierarchical and patriarchal political view.

"Bill Donohue is a punk and a bully," says Jon O'Brien, President of Catholics for Choice. "His style is more suited to being in the ring of the World Wrestling Federation than a television studio. Donohue is hiding a political and social agenda that has nothing to do with anti-defamation, and nothing to do with Catholicism."

The report details the history of the Catholic League, its manipulative tactics, alleged successes, and exaggerated membership.

The pattern that emerges from the study demonstrates that Donohue:

Manufactures controversy
Attempts to intimidate enemies
Bullies the opposition
Complains "early and often"
Attacks popular culture
Attempts to silence the loyal opposition

With numerous and detailed examples reaching back more than a decade, the report demonstrates Donohue's success at creating controversy around films like Priest and television shows like Nothing Sacred, which simply wrestled with common social issues within Catholic settings, threatening advertisers by taking out full-page ads promising boycotts. His most recent media manipulation was over the very serious threat to Christianity posed by a Chocolate Jesus.

But Donohue has different standards for how hard he fights when it comes to his friends. Perhaps the only real anti-Catholic bigotry in recent memory, that Donohue could have genuinely used his bombast against, is the Rev. John Haggee, a supporter of Sen. John McCain. From the report:

Even when 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain was endorsed by Rev. John Hagee—a notorious anti-Catholic bigot—Donohue’s criticism was easily muted. Initially he condemned McCain’s embrace of Hagee, noting that the pastor’s descriptions of the Catholic church included phrases like “the Great Whore” an “apostate church,” the “anti-Christ” and a “false cult system.” But unlike his merciless attacks on Kerry and other Democratic candidates, Donohue simply called for McCain to “retract his embrace of Hagee.” After several days, McCain issued a pseudo-apology: “I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee’s, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics.” Donohue’s reaction?: “As far as the Catholic League is concerned, this case is closed.” This response is in marked contrast to his treatment of Democratic candidates.

No full page ads. No demands the media expose Rev. Hagee in weeks of looping cable coverage as they did Rev. Jeremiah Wright. No, when it came to someone calling Catholicism a "whore-religion," Bill Donohue was about as silent as it is possible for him to be. "There is no doubt that, if you look at the list of targets Donohue has chosen over the years, they play partisan favorites in many ways," O'Brien says. "This is no where close to being a Catholic anti-defamation league." As the report suggests, Catholic candidate John Kerry didn't get off so easliy in 2004 -- and all he did was express honest political views that differed from Donohue's.

From the report:

As John M. Swomley, a noted researcher on the religious right said, the Catholic League “redefines religious and civil rights as opposites to those normally understood as constitutional rights.” In other words, an individual’s freedom of speech or expression is trumped by Donohue’s right not to be offended by speech that challenges his brittle worldview.

The report continues:

... Donohue’s rhetoric insists that: a) non-Catholics have no right to participate in this debate and any non-Catholics who do so are inherently anti-Catholic (this despite the widespread influence that the Catholic church has in society at large on non-Catholics through its provision of education and health care, and vigorous lobbying of public officials on issues of concern to the church, such as abortion); and b) Catholics who engage in such debate are by definition “bad” Catholics who are out to destroy the church and therefore have no legitimate role in the debate.

Catholics for Choice hopes that the report will serve as a "wake up call" to the media, says O'Brien. He acknowledges that changes in news consumption habits and economic factors challenge mainstream media. But, says O'Brien, "they can at least control for quality. Most people want to leave a program knowing more at the end than when you sat down to watch, and with Donohue you always know less. Conservative talk radio and Fox News pioneered this type of interview as entertainment and too many producers followed their lead."

Donohue recently took aim at new media, targeting RH Reality Check's own Amanda Marcotte, author of It's a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments. Marcotte famously left the John Edwards for President campaign after Donohue criticized a blog post she'd written six months earlier on Pandagon, before being affiliated with the campaign.

"Bill Donohue conflated genuine critique of dogma in a political context with prejudice against believers, most of whom also disagree with that dogma," Marcotte said.

Marcotte learned of Donohue's attack when AP reporter Nedra Picker asked her to comment on a Catholic League press release. "Fifteen minutes after she asked for my comment, the story was on the wire, indicating she never had any intention of getting my side," says Marcotte. "I've since learned she has a reputation for brainlessly publishing right wing press releases as though they were facts. Frankly, I was impressed by how easy the character assassination was for Donohue, and how complicit mainstream media was."

"I'm an astute defender of religious liberty. It was clear to me that Donohue was offended by a critique of Catholic teachings, but it is morally bankrupt to equate that with anti-Catholic bigotry. I don't agree with everything in the Koran, but that doesn't mean I'm bigoted toward Muslims," Marcotte says.

Where was Donohue's outrage for the six months the post in question had been published? Why did he wait until Marcotte was affiliated with Sen. John Edwards campaign to raise the issue?

For Marcotte, and fellow blogger/Donohue target Melissa McEwan, Donohue's publicity stunt turned even uglier after the national media frenzy. Threats of sexual violence and death filled their email boxes, including two threats so serious they were turned over to the FBI. One Donohue devotee went so far as to pound violently on McEwan's front door for ten minutes.

These are the very real results of Bill Donohue's tactics. Not only does he inspire others to make threats, he also carries with him an aura of violence. The report explains that former Catholics for Choice President Frances Kissling "admitted that after a few run-ins with Donohue she didn’t want to appear with him because she felt threatened by him: 'He never physically threatened me, but I felt like I was in the presence of an abuser,' she said."

And Mark Silk, director of Trinity College’s Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life, told CFC, “He’s a thug. He reverts to bullying because he thinks that’s what the job entails.”

Donohue seems to drop even the pretense of anti-defamation concerns when he speaks of other religions. The report quotes Donohue:

“Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It’s not a secret, OK? And I’m not afraid to say it.” (Scarborough Country, Dec. 8, 2004)

“Now, in this country, we are civilized. We don’t appreciate it when somebody sticks it to you in the name of freedom of speech, sir. We condemn it. But over there, they take the uncivilized approach. And then they wonder why so many people don’t trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty, because they will abuse it.” (Scarborough Country, Feb. 9, 2006)

By no means does Bill Donohue, or the Catholic League, represent the views of most Catholics. "For most Catholics, this sort of extremist discourse has no relation to their life," O'Brien says. "Catholics are not jumping up and down because there is no need for anti-defamation as there once was. Catholics in good conscience ignore Donohue, just as in good conscience most use contraception, vote pro-choice, and get along with their neighbors of different faiths."

In the report, a priest says it best:

“As a Christian, a Catholic priest, I stand in opposition to any and all hateful speech used by anyone, especially when they do so in the name of Jesus. I do not believe that one can claim to be a disciple of Jesus and at the same time deride, mock, insult, or threaten violence against another person... One cannot proclaim the love of Jesus while cursing one’s neighbor…To continually use hateful, crude, violent language is indicative of what dwells within one’s heart. Mr. Donohue speaks only for himself and not the Catholic church.” —Father Jeff Gatlain (John Amato, “A Catholic priest stands tall against Bill Donohue,” Crooks and Liars.com, April 5, 2007).

As Americans consider the issues that matter most in this presidential campaign, and look within their hearts to confront and resolve bias they may find toward women, people of color, senior citizens, or people of differing beliefs, sexual orientations, economic or educational status, it is critical to discern real bigotry from fake. We must use this election to see through the political and media manipulation, including the sort Bill Donohue has built his career on, and that social conservatives have used to hijack our democracy.

Mainstream media must look beyond the easy, entertaining aspects of bombastic television guests like Donohue, when in fact real bigotry does exist, and help shape a national dialog that brings us together as Americans. Media should make the effort toward "quality control", as O'Brien suggested, and include genuine intellectual tension between differing philosophies which is important in our democracy.

"Genuinely smart people like George Weigle and Kate O'Beirne who are capable of vigorous intellectual debate, but with whom I disagree," O'Brien says, "have their credibility called into question by lending it to such an extremist organization that uses such vile tactics. People don't want screaming accusations and distortions." With Bill Donohue and the Catholic League, that's all you get.

RNC Uses Obama Abortion Votes in New Ad

2008-05-11T22:43:42-04:00

The Republican National Committee has released a new ad asking if they can ask several questions of Sen. Barack Obama, then intoning with cheering crowds chanting "Yes We Can." The first question in the :30 second spot for television is "Why did he vote 'present' 130 times avoiding decisions on abortion, crime and guns?" The votes in question were from his tenure in the Illinois State Legislature.

But the words "abortion, crime and guns" only appear in text on the screen, the voice over does not speak the words "abortion, crime or guns," only asks why he didn't vote yes or no.

On the 1:23 viral version on You Tube, the announcer uses the words "abortion, crime and guns," underscoring these hot button social conservative issues.

That viral version is intended for distribution online to rev up the social conservative base, while the television ad, which more moderates and independents will see, de-emphasizes controversial social issues, making it seem more like the question is about missing votes.

Dana Goldstein has a great piece on the "present" votes dealing with reproductive health issues here.

See the Obama, McCain and Clinton RH Questionnaires on our site, and all of our Election 2008 coverage.

And here is a flash of cyber-politics working in 2008, a mash-up of that same RNC ad with a variety of still shots set to a JFK speech from his 1960 campaign. This version uses the same title and search words to confuse viewers and get them to listen to a different message while on You Tube.

Anti-Choice Robo Calls Fail in Indiana

2008-05-06T16:18:10-04:00

National Right to Li-e made illegal robo-calls against Barack Obama in Indiana. Does that mean they support Hillary Clinton? According to one of my favorite purveyors of the circular logic that is the anti-choice blogosphere, Jill Stanek, the calls cite two issues and encourage voters to vote against Obama. One issue is the Freedom of Choice Act, of which Hillary Clinton is an original co-sponsor. Curious, isn't it, that NRLC would advocate for one pro-choice candidate over another.

As JedReport at DailyKos writes:

Given that there is no meaningful difference between Clinton and Obama on issues of reproductive freedom, the only reasonable explanation for these calls is that the group, National Right to Life, is trying to boost Clinton's performance in tomorrow's primary in the hopes of extending the Democratic nomination battle, thereby helping John McCain's candidacy.

Stanek also rails against Rep. Tim Romer, an anti-choice Democrat, for endorsing Obama. God forbid we actually have pro- and anti-choice people in Washington that might seek common ground. What on earth would Jill do if there was no misinformation to spin?

Updated 7:27 p.m.

BlueTexan at Firedoglake observes:

But what I find so baffling about these anti-choice fundies is that their slavish loyalty to the GOP has netted them absolutely nothing over the past 30 years. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. And yet they continue to kiss the rings of whatever Republican screams "I'm pro-life" and doesn't do anything about it.

Republicans have won 5 of the past 7 presidentials, controlled the House from 1994-2006, and controlled the entire federal government for most of the Bush years and yet, have failed to ban abortion, failed to ban gay marriage, and failed to ban gay abortions. And really, they didn't even try.

At what point do these fundies wake up and realize they're being used?

More importantly, at what point do politicians wake up and realize the fundies are a smoke and mirrors minority?

Updated 8:45 p.m.

MSNBC exit polls report that Republican efforts to wreak havoc in the Democratic primary in Indiana had no noticable impact. 52 percent of Republicans voting in the Democratic primary supported Clinton, 46 percent supported Obama, no significant impact. But when asked who could beat McCain, Republicans said Obama 58 percent, Clinton 37 percent.

It seems voters aren't buying what the far-right is selling these days, no matter how it's spun. Perhaps they should focus on rehabilitating their own anti-choice candidate and let the two pro-choice candidates settle their own affairs. Come to think of it, maybe they should adopt that same persepctive with women's health.

Updated 11:09 p.m.

Two speeches. Two amazing American speeches from two uniquely historic Americans. Both pro-choice, speaking to the issues that really matter to middle and lower income families. Problems largely created by anti-choice, anti-contraception politicians. More Americans are connecting the dots, and no number of robo-calls will change that fact.

Perhaps "Maverick" John McCain will have to reassess his strategy and pick a pro-choice running mate to reach from the far-right corner he's painted himself into, to find a sliver of the center that might still be available to him.

Welcome to RH Reality Check 3.0!

2008-05-05T05:39:00-04:00

As RH Reality Check celebrates two years of publication, we're pleased to give you, our loyal online community, the gift of an even more user-friendly web site, RH Reality Check 3.0! If you are a regular who wisely bookmarked us and starts each day on our front page, you've already seen the great new design that allows access to more content, diverse features and a cleaner, flash-ier look. If you haven't bookmarked us yet or don't visit our front page daily, this is a great time to set up your RSS Feed for our site or your favorite section, writers, podcasts, or comments. If you're reading this and still seeing the same web site you saw last week, clear your cache to get a fresh url from the internet.

Back to Our Roots

When we launched in May 2006, RH Reality Check was a blog. With this redesign, we're taking one of the 2007 reader survey's favorites, our Real Time posts, and creating the Real Time Blog. You'll be able to see the most recent Real Time Blog posts -- short, newsy, sometimes even pithy -- on the front page, along with all the great feature stories, analysis, op-eds and essays from our growing list of writers. As with our entire front page, just click the section headline to see more content from the Real Time blog.

Free and Civil Speech

RH Reality Check has maintained an open commenting policy on some of the most personal and controversial issues of our time, often leading to less than civil speech from the anti-choice crowd who stop by for a dose of reality. We do this because most anti-choice sites loathe free speech, deny pluralism and control conversations by excluding views they don't agree with. We believe people looking for information on these issues should see the dialog and make up their own minds. With our new design enhancements, when our online community sees comments from anti-choice voices that go beyond differences of opinion into personal attacks or stigmatization of others, you can click on "report comment" to flag it for our attention. We'll continue to embrace free and civil speech liberally because we know when voters have the facts, progressive ideas win. So we may not delete everything you think we should, but by getting more feedback we will establish better community standards.

Sharing Progressive Ideas

RH Reality Check's mission is to promote progressive ideas about sexual and reproductive health and counter the unscientific, ideological misinformation that comes from the far-right echo chamber-er-er-er-er. Americans are taking it upon themselves to learn more about issues this
election cycle -- and RH Reality Check is making it easier for you to
share ideas and substantive information about these fundamental human
rights issues. Now you can take a more active role by sharing the content you love with your friends on social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace, Digg, Stumble Upon, and other networks. Just click the "Share this" icon at the top or bottom of each post and share or email your favorite posts in just two easy steps. Join our Facebook Fan Page and watch for information about our upcoming online book club conversations, or if you're involved in other social networking communities you think RH Reality Check should be part of, let us know. We welcome virtual volunteers committed to extending the reach of this important content.

Moving Progressive Ideas Farther, Faster

In addition to what we can do together with social networking sites, RH Reality Check is moving our content to many other publications, promoting the idea that all progressive publications should look closer at the fundamental human rights issues of sexual and reproductive health. Our content is routinely picked up by Salon and by Alternet's recently created Reproductive Justice and Gender section. Our partnerships with One World.net, the Media Consortium, our New Journalist Fellows program in collaboration with the Center for Independent Media all are working to increase online access to reality-based information. Soon we'll be announcing a new content partnership with Ms. Magazine, and featuring news content in collaboration with the National Partnership for Women and Families. Google recognizes RH Reality Check as a vetted source of news and analysis -- making all reality-based, comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information on our site more accessible. We are increasingly cited in mainstream media (or used by them without proper credit) and we've published op-eds based on our online content.

We're Honored

Being recognized as the Best Electronic Forum dealing with population issues in 2007, and as a Webby Honoree in the Political Blog category in 2008, makes us honored, and humbled by the challenge to keep improving. Many of the changes we're making are the result of our 2007 Readers Survey, which we took to heart. Thanks for taking the time to share your ideas for improving the site -- another survey will be coming this summer.

We're Easy

We're not that hard to work with either. We're getting interesting pitches (email emily@rhrealitycheck.org with your short pitch) from organizations, writers, thinkers, and submissions from diverse perspectives. Our small staff works hard to cover as many issues as possible, from unique perspectives, but our reality is that RH Reality Check is only as good as the online community who reads and contributes to it. Make us part of your media plan with advance copies (we honor embargoes), or by blogging from conferences, or reporting on field work you do at home or globally. We love video, have great podcast interviews each week, and are open to good, timely ideas. So if we're not covering something we should, let us know. Got a good idea, let us know. Think we got something wrong (or maybe right), let us know. We're easy, but in the most respectful and responsible way.

We're Growing

All this great content means nothing if it is only being read by people who agree with us already or if we're not growing. As mentioned above, we move content from RH Reality Check to many other locations and sites, so it is impossible to track how far and wide the content actually reaches. We do know that we have a steady and increasing audience routinely reading RH Reality Check as a primary source, growing by 360 percent in our first year of operation and 475 percent in our just completed second year. Our goal for 2008 is to double the size of our community by June, and to do that again (plus another 25 percent) by December, and we're on track to meet those goals.

We're Voting

Based on record breaking turnout, registration and participation in all aspects of this historic primary season, it seems everyone is caught up in the latest trend - voting! That makes the evidence-based, scientific, common-sense and reality-centered content of our expert writers more important than ever. Your role in using this content to educate and inform people to the dangers of continuing on purely ideological paths, at the local, state and federal level, is crucial. No election has ever been more important. Never has change been so palpable. Never have so many people been awake to the ways in which social conservatives have held our democracy hostage. Never have the threats to our rights, liberties and democracy been so clear. We won't endorse or promote candidates, but we will cover the issues important to reality-based policies on sexual and reproductive health, and like you and millions of other pro-reality voters, we will vote in numbers too big to ignore.

Thank you!

We love what we do, even on the challenging days, so thank you for working with us to continue building RH Reality Check, together!

Anti-Choice Dem Wins Special Election

2008-05-04T08:14:52-04:00

Democrat Don Cazayoux beat the far-right Republican Woody Jenkins, 49-46 percent, in Saturday’s special election in a heavily GOP district in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. President Bush carried the district with 59 percent of the vote in 2004; the GOP held this seat for 34 years. Cazayoux is anti-choice, which he says is a matter of faith on his web site. While the victory might be seen as a wash by some in the pro-choice community, it is more evidence that even in the most conservative parts of the country, voters have grown weary of the far-right and their misinformation and manipulations. Cazayoux was painted as "liberal" and tied to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Presidential frontrunner Barack Obama in ads, but still picked up a GOP seat, the second gain in two open seat contests for Democrats this cycle. As Jonathan Singer at MyDD points out,

This race was very much put forward by the chattering class as a referendum on Obama's coattails (which proved to be strong in the very Republican-leaning Illinois 14th congressional district earlier this year), and Obama's coattails passed the challenge. Simply put, the Republicans may have thought they had found a silver bullet in Obama and Wright (and Pelosi, too, for that matter), but they didn't.

The Far Right Preachers' Free Ride

2008-05-02T08:01:27-04:00

With so much talk about how religious figures are impacting the election, one wonders where the media has been for the past 30 years? Obama denounces an ego-maniacal minister, the Texas polygamy scandal involving teen girls in a fringe LDS sect may impact Mitt Romney's slim chance at the GOP veep-stakes, with the Rev. Wright story getting nearly a month of non-stop coverage. Finally someone in mainstream media asked about the impact of far-right wing nuts like the Reverends Robertson, Falwell and Hagee. E.J. Dionne was polite in saying, "Now the question is whether we will be just as tough on false prophets who happen to be white and right-wing." Can you imagine the hue and cry from "oppressed fundamentalists" if the media focused on all the exclusionary, hate-filled, anti-democratic and un-Christian things these and other far-right preachers have said and done? With truly "fair and balanced" reporting, we might actually understand the wisdom of our founding documents and why separation of church and state is, and always should be, a cherished American value.

Rest In Peace Rupert Walder

2008-05-01T16:17:28-04:00

Many people reading this will know Rupert Walder far better than I. Rupert and I were virtual colleagues, writing about global sexual and reproductive health issues on different continents in a new media world here on RH Reality Check. Our communication was limited to email, and reading his twice-monthly posts from the UK. Given the virtual nature of our connection and work, it is fitting that it was via Facebook, and a connection from Beth Fredrick, to Patricia Sears, to me, that the sad news was delivered.

Rupert Walder, 42, suffered a massive heart attack and died Tuesday evening. He is survived by his wife Michelle, to whom we send our deepest sympathy.

Rupert worked for nearly 20 years as an international advocate doing mostly communications and media work on sexual and reproductive health and rights, building partnerships and networks helping people connect and communicate their truth to policy makers.

His career was long on accomplishment, from work at the International Planned Parenthood Foundation to the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, and numerous consultancies, Rupert's work touched the lives of many. Working with the BBC and IPPF, Rupert managed the Sexwise Project, which used national radio broadcasts and national language resources to provide sex education and information to BBC World Service audiences and other target groups. Rupert also managed the IPPF and UNFPA Face-to-Face campaign raising advocacy and awareness for women's rights in 23 countries.

Rupert's work took him around the world, consulting on many projects with various international organizations, doing reports to help improve the lives of women in Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, and globally at international conferences in Beijing and Cairo. As a writer, editor, and reporter, Rupert's published work includes a number of reports, articles and journals on a range of topics on sexual and reproductive health.

According to those who knew him best, Rupert had an instant impact on people, touching them quickly, connecting deeply, making fast friends that enjoyed laughter and good times.

"Rupert helped me get my sea legs in Europe when Guttmacher was first starting to work there. We met having breakfast with Dilys Cossey at Parliament. It was a bit surreal, the setting, being with Dilys, a grande dame of the movement, and Rupert couldn't have been more generous," said Beth Fredrick of the International Women's Health Coalition.

When asked about Rupert as a friend, Fredrick roared with laughter, "Everyone has great stories about Rupert, but most won't get told publicly. Suffice it to say he threw great dinner parties."

"Rupert's sense of humor was so very dry, so very British," said Emily Douglas, who worked closely with Rupert at RH Reality Check. "He was both very frustrated by, and very dedicated to, sexual and reproductive health development work. Rupert was critical of the fact that the work wasn't pursued more urgently and in a less compromised way."

Over the past year Rupert wrote 24 pieces on RH Reality Check, all of them a tribute to his thinking and passion to make the world a better place. One personal favorite was Beware of Americans Bearing Gifts, a piece he told us in the opening line he didn't want to do, but in the end skewered the Bush Administration's go-it-alone approach to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), based on the reality of how the program is adversely impacting other global funders. Indeed, Rupert gave voice to many who are frustrated with far too many compromises and far too little urgency.

Wendy Thomas, CEO of the Migraine Trust in London where Rupert was the Communications Manager for the past year said, "I have known Rupert for 10 years. As well as being a friend, he was a great work colleague and had a wonderful facility for getting on with everyone. He had a wry sense of humor. He was impossibly well connected and always made me laugh. He and Michelle were very happy and whenever he said, 'My wife thinks I should ...' he had a smile on his face."

Patricia Sears of NEKTI Consulting said, "The glory of Rupert Walder was in all the gifts he gave us as his colleagues and friends. He made us think better, act smarter, write better and enjoy what we did contributing to the worldwide effort for reproductive health & rights. He enriched us with his ribald humor and appreciation for recreation after a hard day's work; we enjoyed robust laughter over libations which was a great relief."

Sears added, "Rupert and I first started working together in 1997 in the run-up to Cairo+5 and he was my early morning phone call as we compared notes and planned on who and how we would bring in colleagues from around the world to tell their own stories in their words with their passion for solutions to the world stage and decision-makers. It was always intense, we were tested by all kinds of logistics and of course funding and accompanying politics; usually it all came to fruition with satisfying success. After 'moving on' from employees to consultants we constantly schemed on how to work together as partners. Alas, that was never realized; a great frustration. However, Rupert developed a refreshing voice as he contributed to RH Reality Check's blogs these past several months; it was great to 'see' him again there."

Anti-Choicers Complain About Hyperbole?

2008-04-30T12:24:20-04:00

I’m always amused when anti-choice bloggers scream about hyberbole and exaggeration, concepts they practically invented. Suzanne at Big Blue Wave doesn’t understand the nuance of Jill at Feministe and her comparison of anti-choice policies in the U.S. and China. Suzanne rails about liberal hyperbole and cites example after example of how pro-lifers have stood up against China’s one-child policy. That wasn’t the point, forced pregnancy is no different than limiting the number of children, both policies ignore the mother’s wishes, and both policies undermine democracy and pluralism. Sorry Suzanne, anti-choicers have more in common with China than you think.

Scalia's Charm Offensive

2008-04-28T08:07:03-04:00

Justice Antonin Scalia may have charmed the robes off his colleagues and 60 Minutes, but he was not truthful in explaining his position on abortion. He said,

You think there ought to be a right to abortion? No problem. The Constitution says nothing about it. Create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society. Pass a law.

In a freakishly identical sentence structure, in 2002 Scalia said this about individual freedom at the end-of-life,

"You want the right to die," Justice Scalia said, according to The Oregonian, the daily here. "The Constitution said nothing about it." When audience members pointed out that the voters had backed the law twice, he said: "That's right and that's fine. You don't hear me complaining about Oregon's law."

After saying those charming and ecouraging words, Scalia in 2006 was on the wrong side of a 6-3 decision when the Supreme Court upheld Oregon's Death with Dignity Law.

That undercuts his contention that his personal views have nothing to do with his rulings, thus making his claims of being an "originalist", of abhoring judicial activism, and his charm offensive, just plain offensive.

Pope Drops By My 'Hood

2008-04-17T12:02:02-04:00

One of the best parts of living in Washington, DC, is people come from all over to visit you. Today, three blocks away from my apartment, the Pope dropped by to say Mass for 48,000 or so Catholics happy to greet him. Being the intrepid reporter I am, I went out this morning to interview some of the protesters outside the festivities there to protest the Pope's views on women, birth control, reproductive health, the rights of all God's Christian children to be in communion (even the gay ones) and of course, the pedophile priest scandal which the Pope himself is talking about on this trip.

Thousands of people eagerly made their way to Nationals' Stadium on a warm sunlit morning, as vendors selling "Savior Seat" cushions, yellow and white papal flags, buttons, tee-shirts and pennants with the likeness of the Pope hawked their trinkets. More police were working these four square blocks on this one morning than most neighborhoods in Southeast DC see in one full year combined. Most of the cops looked like they were at a picnic, relaxed, laughing, sharing stories. The protests today were not causing them the same trouble as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund meetings or G-8.

It's worth noting that where the Pope is saying Mass, literally as I write this, many people used to dance until dawn in nightclubs that featured drag performers that would die for some of the outfits on display at the stadium today. The stadium just opened a few weeks ago, and before the city sold its soul to real estate developers and Major League Baseball, this neighborhood wasn't a place you'd find a Pope, or anywhere near this many police. The warehouses, night clubs, public housing, pimps and drug dealers that once called this neighborhood home have been replaced by a higher class of multi-millionaire hustlers. Nobody protested much when the city wanted to improve the neighborhood, but some complained about the corporate welfare used to build the stadium and lure the millionaires; tax dollars and police protection that was never invested into the housing, schools, helath care or people who lived here before.

I was still two blocks away from the stadium as I walked and I knew that all the best protesters would be right by the stadium, so I turned the corner to head that way, and then, stopped. To get closer than two blocks, not even inside, you needed a ticket. Seeing no protestors at my first vantage point, I walked another block, then another, then another around most of the allowable perimeter, and no where did I find anything but cheerful police thankful for a day of overtime pay, good weather and no protests.

No where did I find people with signs about the priest pedophile scandal. No women asking for the right to choose or gay people the right to be seen as children of God, to love and create families as they were created. No women campaigning to be priests. Just a few thousand Americans going about their day happy to greet their spiritual leader and spend a few hours together in contemplation of their spiritual lives, something deeply personal to each of us no matter our beliefs. The closest thing to protest was, you guessed it, people pushing "Defend Life" bumperstickers with an over the top aggressive zeal that seemed odd, even with the Pope in town, in the midst of such a relaxed and joyful morning. It was interesting how few of the faithful took the stickers, instead walking by, saying nothing, or no thank you.

Then it struck me, in the midst of this glorious moment, how sad it is that the very same respect surrounding this event, evidenced by the somewhat surprising lack of protest, is not extended by the more radical elements within the Catholic Church to women, gays, and victims of priestly abuse.

Go to a women's clinic, for any reason including a pap smear or birth control, you get protested. Go to many a local pharmacy for contraception, and the all powerful pharmacist becomes a protest of one. Go to certain hospitals after being raped, looking for compassion in the form of emergency contraception, and your request will meet with protest. Try to take communion or serve as an openly gay person, as did Fr. Mychal Judge in the midst of disaster on Septemeber 11, 2001, before giving his life, and you'll be protested, or worse, completely rejected. If you're a woman, don't even try to be a priest, an entire patriarchy of protest is arrayed against you.

Nope, today in Washington there were no visible protests by progressives anywhere near the Mass at Nationals' Stadium as people entered, though there have been a scant few along the Pope-mobile's route througout the city. It's been tough though, the Pope's route on "public" streets in and around Catholic University required a ticket for several blocks just to watch him drive by. Most efforts seem to assure he'll see only cheering crowds, reinforcing his notion that everyone agrees with him. Today, pluralism and democracy (of sorts) flourished together within sight of U.S. Capitol Dome. Isn't it a shame all Americans don't enjoy the same level of respect, regardless of what they believe, how they worship, who they are, where they get health care services, or how they live their love?

No ticket? This is as close as you can get on public streets to the Papal Mass.

Get your programs, you can't tell the Pope's without a program.

We Are a Webby Honoree!

2008-04-09T09:48:00-04:00

Never in our wildest dreams did we imagine that RH Reality Check would stand in the company of political blogs from The New York Times, CNBC, The New Yorker, and CBS News.

Yet here we are – selected out of thousands of entries yesterday as an “Official Honoree” in the political blog category (alongside the media outlets above) for the prestigious 12th Annual Webby Awards! We also congratulate our co-honorees.

Out of more than the 10,000 entries submitted from over 60 countries and 50 states, fewer than 15% received this honor and were deemed an Official Honoree.
This is a tremendous honor and we’re thrilled to share it with you, our readers!

For us, the honor is particularly significant, as it distinguishes the high caliber writing of all of our contributors including our staff and freelance writers from around the world and our Leading Voices – respected leaders who write for us from the many and varied advocacy organizations in this country and around the world. These agencies include Advocates For Youth, SIECUS, The Guttmacher Institute, the International Women’s Health Coalition, PAI, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Choice USA, NARAL Pro-Choice America and more.

But the recognition is also meaningful because, as you can see from the list of co-honorees, RH Reality Check is the only media outlet that focuses solely on covering global reproductive and sexual health news and information.

We are honored to bring these issues into the broader political discourse and of course will continue to do so with your support and loyal readership.

Thank you for reading RH Reality Check and being a part of our community. We couldn’t do it without you!

Advocates Deliver the Keys to PEPFAR Success

2008-04-01T10:03:31-04:00

Advocates came by buses and vans from Philadelphia and New York to join colleagues in Washington demanding changes to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Organizations representing people from across the country and around the world joined together to deliver the keys to improving PEPFAR to Congress.

The advocates included people living with HIV, students, health care professionals, each carrying a large card board key with words like "treatment", "health care professionals", and "family planning" written on them, representing the power Congress has to "unlock the solution to the global AIDS crisis," according to a press release distributed at the rally.

"As the wealthiest country in the world, the United States has a deep responsibility to help fund HIV treatment for those in need," said Jose DeMarco, of the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP).

"PEPFAR still doesn't address the needs of women and girls, and that is where Congress needs to focus," said Chandra Crawford of Women of Color United. A colleague from the same organization, Christine Park, quickly added, "Women and girls in many parts of the world do not have the right to be abstinent, to negotiate sex. That is why women controlled contraceptives, such as the female condom, or prevention methods such as microbicides are so important."

Dr. Michael J. Ehlert, President of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA) rallied to focus on the importance of health care professionals. "The United States represents one-third of the global economy so we should pay for one-third of the health care professionals that are needed." Stephanie Jamison, the Global AIDS organizer for AMSA added, "The provisions dealing with health care professionals are the backbone of moving PEPFAR toward a sustainable model by ensuring trained professionals are on the ground. We're concerned that both the House and Senate version of PEPFAR are vague in this regard. We need to make sure that we're providing for 140,000 professionals, not 139,999 health care workers, and one doctor or nurse."

Another issue on the minds of rally participants was the anti-prostitution pledge that prevents US AID from going to organizations that refuse to denounce prostitution, making the provision of health services more difficult. According to Jamairous Nickerson who represented the Student Global AIDS Coaltion, from William Patterson University in New Jersey, "Sex workers need to feel safe. The anti-prostitution pledge needs to be removed so that services can more easily be provided, like health care and prevention. Because someone is a sex worker does not make them less of a human being."

The advocates' spirits were hopeful as they left their rally point, despite a gray drizzly day in DC, as they made the short walk to the Capitol and take their message directly to legislators. Sponsors included, African Services Committee, ACT UP Philadelphia, Advocates for Youth, American Medical Student Association, Americans for Informed Democracy, Center for Health and Gender Equity, Health GAP, Student Campaign for Child Survival, Student Global AIDS Campaign, and University Coalitions for Global Health.