It does matter who votes and who we vote for, and never so profoundly as the 2008 elections when it comes to the future of reproductive rights and health.

As women who have spent our careers fighting to protect a woman's right to choose, we recognize that the next president will face serious challenges to safeguard the reproductive health of women. In our opinion, there is one candidate whose leadership on this issue is unparalleled: Hillary Clinton.

"Evangelicals haven't fallen in love with any candidate yet," said MSNBC's Lester Holt, analyzing the Republican presidential primaries. Tsk tsk.

They are dividing their votes fairly evenly three ways tonight between John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee. If I were Keith Olbermann, I might try to figure out who is worse, worser, and worst person in the race for reproductive rights. But it's such a toss-up that I'll pass on awarding that prize, so coveted by the fundamentalist hard right. . All three would overturn Roe v Wade faster than you can say "Supreme Court". But that's just the beginning of the damage each would do to women's most fundamental human rights to make their own childbearing decisions--including access to birth control--without government interference.

When I write that last phrase about government interference, I think about the late Senator Barry Goldwater--known as Mr. Conservative--would turn over in his grave. His wife Peggy was a founder of Planned Parenthood in Arizona and Barry was a staunch supporter of reproductive rights precisely because he believed such personal matters weren't the government's business. And he once said good Christians ought to kick Moral Majority founder Rev. Jerry Falwell in the ass. Republicans of Goldwater's stripe are rare as hen's teeth these days, thanks to an unholy alliance between the Republican party and the fundamentalists that was nurtured over a generation at the grassroots precinct level where control of the party mechanism begins. That's why those who think the fundamentalist right is losing steam need to think again.

Yes, everyone wants to fall in love with a candidate. But in the end, this is a group that does what all citizens in a democracy should do: the unromantic work of sustained participating in the political process. And if history is a predictor, they are likely to continue to do so in a much more disciplined way than the Democratic constituencies tend to do. So watch out. If you care about reproductive justice, be very afraid of any of these candidates. Batten down the hatches and be prepared to work very hard between now and November. Because when it comes to advancing the fundamentalist right’s goals, Tina Turner was right: love has very little to do with it.

For the last few days, the Internet has been buzzing with impassioned presidential endorsements by feminists, many of whom have been in or even leading the movement for decades and others who are the bright young voices of the present and the future. This extraordinary piece of cultural criticism by Robin Morgan is my personal favorite. Seems the women of America have found their voices concerning whom they do and don't support, thank you very much.

So where then does Andrew Sullivan (yes, the conservative -- though gay and HIV positive -- put those together with "conservative" for an amazing oxymoron) pundit get off in his thinly veiled misogynist attempt to instruct feminists on how to vote? Yes, the same Andrew Sullivan who acknowledged posting ads soliciting "bareback" sex and pled his right to privacy in such matters even while asserting that Roe v wade should be overturned. That Andrew Sullivan.

His punch line: One day, there will be a woman worth electing to the White House. But not this one. Fortunately, Echidne of the Snakes has written an outstanding analysis of Sullivan's warped attempt to retain his own gender's hegemony.

Here's an excerpt:

Because there is always something else that is more important than women. A war must be won before they can get the right to vote, or a depression must be fixed before women's concerns can be addressed, or a revolution must be finished first or an occupier must be vanquished, or something else equally important must take precedence. Women. Never. Come. First. I remember an interview with an Afghan man when the Taliban first came into power there. At first his daughters could go to school only in burqas and wearing gloves. Then they couldn't go to school at all. This educated man said that the time to worry about his daughters' education was to be later. First they needed to get the warring over. And so it goes. Always. In twenty years' time, when some future Andrew Sullivan gives you that very same excuse, remember this post.

Women have always tended to put others before themselves. But as those conflicting e-mails whizzing through cyberspace prove, women are thinking deeply about this election. Whatever reasons we might have for voting one way or another, let us not allow the Andrew Sullivans of the world to determine the worthiness of our decisions.

Our daughter Donna called this morning from Phoenix, excited to tell us her letter-to-the-editor of The Arizona Republic had been published. Incensed by pejorative e-mails circulated by a conservative friend about the religious and cultural implications of Barack Obama's middle name "Hussein," she'd decided to speak out against the racism. We congratulated her and then asked if she and her husband had voted yet. "We early voted. He was for Edwards. I voted for Hillary," she said. Then she paused. "But now I kind of wish I'd voted for Obama."

There ensued one of those intense family conversations going on in households across the country today, hashing out what each of us likes, dislikes, and worries about with each candidate, predictions about the various possible match-ups in the general election, and what the polls and pundits are saying.

I was struck by how the nuances of seemingly small events can trigger tidal waves of voter response; the wave of New Hampshire women voters moving to Hillary after she was attacked is a perfect example. Barack (I realize here that I should use either first or last names for both henceforth) is riding a wave right now. But who knows for sure whether the early votes for Hillary will garner her the numbers she needs in today's primary states? Who knows for sure whether Oprah's California swing a few days ago will lasso enough additional voters in that delegate-heavy state to hand its prize to Barack? Who knows for sure whether Mitt Romney's well-funded machine will best John McCain's staying power?

I don't know exactly how our family debate ended because I had to go to a Women's Media Center board meeting. As I arrived, Jane Fonda was describing how her children are much more engaged in these elections than she's ever seen them. "We're on different sides, but this is the first time they've been so active in politics, and I'm so glad," she said.

I'm a sappy patriot. I too am elated about the high level of engagement in these critically important elections. I celebrate the extraordinary amount of public and attention focused on them.

But I just hope that people's engagement lasts beyond these presidential primaries, which are not wholly democratic and not necessarily fully representative of voters' preferences. I hope it continues through the state and local primary elections and the general election in November. And then that they don't go back to using Jon Stewart's Comedy Central show as a surrogate for the hands-on work of making their voices heard by officials after they've been elected.

For an election isn't just one moment in time; it is a cycle that never ends. So we the people can never stop being involved in the process.

These are my thoughts at 3pm on Super Tuesday. Ask me again tomorrow. Meanwhile, I'll be weighing in on the people, the polls, the press, and the results from time to time here on RH Reality Check.

The elections will determine the future for all of us Roes. That's why a mortally wounded Roe v Wade's 35th anniversary requires the candidates to answer my questions in full.

One relationship between the U.S. and Mexico is seldom acknowledged: the movement of women across the border in both directions to obtain abortions.

Margaret Sanger's vivid, impassioned words resonate even today.

This week anti-choice extremist organization Operation Save America will descend upon the New Woman, All Women Healthcare Clinic; Gloria Feldt asks all of us to reflect on our role in the drama.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholding the federal abortion ban is based on a public relations campaign of biased and inaccurate language. As a result, women's health will suffer.