SIVACRACY.NET: What's the matter with NARAL?

I have had misgivings about the National Abortion Rights Action League for many years now. My problems with it stem from a suspicion that it is more concerned with fundraising than winning legal and political battles. In fact, losing seems a little too good for the organization as pro-choice donors rally around it in times of stress.

NARAL's endorsement of Joe Lieberman in the CT Senate race has pushed me over the edge.

I'm hardly alone. Firedoglake asks: 'Can Someone Explain This to Me?'

The reason it disgusts so many people that NARAL would endorse this closet Republican who did nothing to stop the Alito coronation is that Lieberman is on the record -- I am not making this up -- opposing a law that would force CT hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims:

Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn’t be forced to do so.

"In Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said.

What sort of person would say something like that? Disgusting.

Comments

Hey Siva, it's Alice--

My girlfriend Jessica is the Official NARAL Blogger (http://www.bushvchoice.com/)(she runs Feministing as well: http://www.feministing.com/). She's explained this to me. NARAL is a single issue organization. They have one criteria for endorsing candidates: whether or not they support abortion rights. That's it. Nothing else. This does mean that they end up endorsing some extremely shady characters who are nonetheless pro-choice (and trust me, I am no Lieberman fan). And yeah, they get tons of shit for it.

Lemme know if you want me to get you in touch with her.

Happy July!
Alice

Posted by: alicetiara | July 13, 2006 06:29 PM

Hi Alice,
I just noticed and published your comment, which was apparently stuck in "moderation" for about 14 hours because you included two links which made Movable Type incorrectly guess that your comment was spam. So please don't think Siva or anyone was censoring you!

With respect to the merits of your comment: Lieberman's primary opponent Ned Lamont supports abortion rights too. Why did NARAL choose to support Lieberman over him? Why not either endorse both, or stay out of the primary race altogether?

In fairness, if it wasn't for his views on the Iraq War, very few of the Supposedly Liberal Dudes would be critcizing Lieberman's less progessive abortion views and statements. They just use any ammunition available. You don't hear them criticize Harry Reid on abortion much, and he is effectively anti-choice.

Most feminists would still criticize Lieberman on abortion, though, even if he suddenly changed his mind on Iraq. That's why the NARAL endorsement is so disheartening.

Posted by: Ann Bartow | July 14, 2006 08:47 AM

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)