Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

EMILY's List President: Our Stand on Abortion Rights Is Unwavering

5 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
I enjoyed talking to Eleanor Clift last week about the future of EMILY's List -- not just electing more women, but growing our community of activists and supporters significantly -- doubling and doubling again, as I have pledged. I am confident that this growth will be fueled by our commitment to electing strongly pro-choice Democratic women.

But I am deeply concerned that the article suggested a change in our assessment of what it means to be pro-choice. Twenty-five years ago, Ellen Malcolm's visionary leadership established our organization as unwavering in our commitment to abortion rights -- and we do not waver on that commitment now.

An era of expanded access to birth control, new morning-after pills and other strategies to prevent unintended pregnancies allows women to have control of the most personal of their reproductive health care decisions. At the same time, aggressive attacks on women's right to abortion escalate. We must stand strong for women's access to the full spectrum of health care choices -- including abortion.

As a woman who grew up in the West, my pro-choice beliefs are at the core of my sense of independence and personal liberty -- why on earth would anyone want the government in their bedroom or their doctor's office?

All of us here at EMILY's List are committed to electing more pro-choice Democratic women because we trust women and because without reproductive rights women are denied basic equality. That's why we were leaders in the fight to stop Stupak. That's why we're so proud to have helped elect Debbie Stabenow, who reminded Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, when he wanted to leave pre-natal care out of the health care bill because he "didn't need it," that his mother probably had. It's why we're taking on Sarah Palin and the Susan B. Anthony List and their team of radical anti-choice activists.

Today -- as has always been the case -- we stand firm in our belief that the government has no role in this most personal of decisions. That is what EMILY's List and our extraordinary women elected officials have always fought for -- and always will.
Filed Under: Abortion, Woman Up

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.


Filter by:

Let's not forget either the fact that human overpopulation is already enough of a threat to society as well as the planet itself without denying the people of yet another means to keep a lid on our numbers. This is very much an issue of a woman's rights, but it's also about the survival of humanity, and the welfare of one commonly overlooked-- Our mother the earth.

July 28 2010 at 5:31 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Who advocates for the rights of the unborn child? Who is their voice? How can any female who can reproduce participate in the murder of their offspring? How can we who claim to be a modern society convict an innocent to death? What is the deed that this unborn child committed that warrants death? Did he or she take a life? Did he or she cause bodily harm to another? Was he or she guilty of any heinous crime that resulted in genocide or were responsible for acts of terrorism? So why do we have this "Emily List"? Why are we continuing to support abortion? How many existing organizations that are out there today advocating to protect animals? How about those organizations who are against capitol punishment? They fight for inmates who are on death row. It doesn't matter if they are guilty. How about those who advocate to protect our environment? Do you see where this is going? We are guilty of shedding innocent blood. Our children have earned the right to be protected. Women, you need to wake up because we do not have the right to kill our children. It is their body that we are destroying not ours. That is arrogance to think that we totally own our bodies, but disregard the rights of that unborn child to live within it's own body. We can have all of the debates that we can muster, but that unborn child isn't respected, loved, honored, or given a chance to live. Isn't it ironic that those of us who are alive were given that choice by our parents!

June 30 2010 at 1:54 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Pauline's comment

"How about those who advocate to protect our environment? Do you see where this is going?"

As an advocate for the protection of our environment, I see very clearly that the human race has placed a stifling demand upon our planet's natural resources. There are already too many mouths to feed, too many bodies to clothe and shelter as it is. With this and more in mind, I say: no, Pauline, it is -you- who require a rude awakening. Your assumption that abortion ends a life is unstable at best-- science still has not proven that a human life begins at conception. Yes, I was allowed to be born by my parents, and I'm glad that I was. I am glad because with the life and free will that I have, I can vie for the rights of others, and the preservation of the planet which allowed them and subsequently me to be born. If we destroy our environment, there will be NO more human life, and don't you -ever- forget it.

July 28 2010 at 5:41 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

I've noticed that all the people who are for abortions were, themselves, allowed to be born.

June 24 2010 at 7:11 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
ron m

If government has no role in this most personal of decisions, then that means no tax money to pay for abortion. Agreed?

June 23 2010 at 7:35 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply

Okay, I have to disagree with the speaker for Emily's list. Abortion is a very personal choice, not for a female politician to decide, should be between doctor and patient, that's it. Second, Debbie Stabenow? She is very responsible for running part of Michigan into the ground. Need, I say more.

June 22 2010 at 10:24 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

I find it terribly amusing the way the Radical Leftist Democrats, especially the women, will viciously attach and besmirch another person and,again,especially a woman, who does not think exactly the way they do. For the most part, they have no use for anyone who questions their beliefs, morals, and virtues.

June 22 2010 at 2:42 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Randy's comment

I know, it's amazing to me too. How very narrow minded.

June 22 2010 at 2:49 PM Report abuse -3 rate up rate down Reply

I believe the clarification of "pro choice" versus pro abortion is a very important detail. I am pro choice, any available treatment should be provided to the women. BUT, to clarify, a women having 6 plus abortions means one thing only. She is lazy. A limitation should be enaacted. With all of the alternate forms of birth control ,morning after pill,"the pill" condoms, to name a few, there is very little excuse for multiple abortions(except in medical problems).If the stance is "abortion gives a women the right to decide what she does with her body," part of that right is to make intelligent choices on how to prevent pregnancy in the first place.

June 22 2010 at 2:10 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to chrissf4529's comment

6 abortions? Why not two abortions for being 'lazy'? Being pro-choice=pro-abortion. Call it what it is. If a woman wants to abort a baby, yes, it's her choice, but let HER pay for it. No tax dollars to pay for abortions. I'm pro-life and I vote. In the very rare instance that an abortion is necessary to save the life of a mother or in rare cases of incest or rape in which a child is conceived, it is indeed a personal choice but I still do not believe tax payer dollars should be used.

June 22 2010 at 10:41 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply

Since being an embryo is the only way known to Man to become an adult human being, the embryo state must be a human state. Therefore, to kill a human--which by logic must include all phases through which humans develop--is murder. Just as killing Jews may have been politically expeidient, but now thought to be a real "no-no," killing babies will likely also be seen as a genocide. Why women contiune to push for the right to kill the people with whom they would normally share the most love is a horrific example of Satan's influence in our world. But, if one can choose to kill one's baby, why not one's teenager? Why arbitrarily make a child a human being, but not a baby? Abortionists deserve the same fate as the Nazis and we, who do nothing, are akin to the Germans who did not understand that that "smell" was the stench of burning human flesh. The babies are our countrymen and have the same right to life as we who were not aborted. Moreover, they are the children of God. If any of us have value, all must have value.

June 22 2010 at 12:55 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply

If you could take a poll of all women in this country, my bet would be that a BIG majority would be against the murder of unborn children. PERIOD!

June 22 2010 at 12:43 PM Report abuse +9 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Randy's comment

It's already been done. Accounting for the margin of error, women and men are equally likely to be pro-life.

June 22 2010 at 3:43 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply

why is this being discussed ? A woman has a right to privacy and a right to choose. It is no one else's concern, they may have their own thoughts and beliefs which is wonderful, but they only pertain to their lives , no one else's. People should be more concerned about themselves and their life, not others, Do not go where you are not needed or wanted. MYOB ! Please do not rationalize your interference and control over others and their rights as speaking for those who can not speak. That is purely absurd justification for unwanted intrusion. It is legal, it is a right, it is up to the individual and ONLY those she chooses to be part of the decision. Freedom is a right to make your own decisions and choices.

June 22 2010 at 12:23 PM Report abuse -5 rate up rate down Reply
4 replies to vivralafrance's comment

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>