Totally inane for NARAL, Planned Parenthood to battle with Bernie with 100% rating from them.

[madfloridian]

Bernie has a 100% rating from both groups. Yet here we are in the middle of mud-slinging by both groups toward Bernie because he dared used the word "establishment" in a general way.

Planned Parenthood has just been fighting for survival after the right wing attacks about a video. They have been seeking help and support to survive all the defunding nonsense going on.

So then they for the first time ever come out with an endorsement of Hillary. The use of her name around right wingers is like waving a red flag toward a bull in a bull fight. They have in effect declared their medical group which does so much for women....tied to the Clintons and the Democrats right after they have fought a big fight.

They have aligned themselves with the Democrats, and now they have started a battle with Hillary's opponent. NARAL has joined the battle as well.

As far as I can tell these are the words Bernie spoke to Rachel.

But there`s been a series of high-profile endorsements. Groups like
Planned Parenthood and NARAL, they`ve gone out of their way to make very
early endorsements for Secretary Clinton. Just today, Human Rights
Campaign, the gay rights group, announced their Clinton endorsement.

Are you competing for those groups` endorsements and not getting them or
are you not trying to get them?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Look – well, no,
Rachel. I would love to have the endorsement of every progressive
organization in America. We`re very proud to have received recently the
endorsement of MoveOn.org. We have received the endorsement of Democracy
for America. These are grassroots organizations representing millions of
workers.

What we are doing in this campaign – it just blows my mind every day,
because I see it clearly – we`re taking on not only Wall Street and the
economic establishment, we`re taking on the political establishment. So I
have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund, in Planned
Parenthood. But, you know what, Hillary Clinton has been around there for
a very, very long time. Some of these groups are, in fact, part of the
establishment.

Rachel's show Jan. 20

He said some of these groups are in fact establishment. He did not say Planned Parenthood, he mentioned two groups.

I haven't found a corporate funding page for Planned Parenthood, but I did find a very long one for Human Rights Campaign.

HRC Corporate Partners

The donors are listed as Platinum, Gold, Silver, and Bronze.

I think the word establishment is interpreted differently by many of us. In the theme of this highly weird primary in my mind it refers to the Democratic leaders who want to protect a party that is now geared to moderate/conservative themes.

So here's Bernie, who most likely misspoke, with a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, being attacked by those two as well as HRC and the Hillary campaign and surrogates.

In case you want more info on Bernie and womens' rights...here is his On the Issues page.

I have not kept up with NARAL and HRC endorsements through the years, but since I have for years donated to Planned Parenthood, I do pay attention to what they do.

They are in my mind a medical group that is there for women even those in poverty.

They have actually NOW become in my mind a political group that is attacking a candidate to whom they gave a 100% rating.

It's utterly inane.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

1. Bernie is no champion for woman rights. You know his mad. Nt

[Fumesucker]

4. Evidently NARAL was in error giving him a 100% then

Ooops...

[beam me up scottie]

5. Prove it.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

7. Cali_D did it for me below. :). Nt

[beam me up scottie]

9. No he didn't. When you make a claim you should back it up.

When did Bernie not champion abortion rights?

[ProudToBeLiberal]

11. So, are you going to accept my apology or not. I've asked you thrice now. Nt

[beam me up scottie]

12. I have no idea what you're talking about. Apology for what?

[ProudToBeLiberal]

13. Here's the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511071062#post73

[beam me up scottie]

17. Oh, didn't see that. It's fine, no worries.

I've been mistaken for a boy here before because of my user name.

If we don't specify gender in our profiles it happens.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

20. Thank you. You are a good person. Nt

[ProudToBeLiberal]

14. And another

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1071952

[wendylaroux]

22. false statement

[Cali_Democrat]

2. There's a difference between an ally and a champion

<...>

On Tuesday night, Bernie Sanders found himself on the wrong side of a major women’s organization for the second time in as many weeks. The first dust-up came when Planned Parenthood (along with the pro-LGBT Human Rights Campaign) issued its first-ever presidential endorsement, on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Sanders fired back by calling the nonprofits “part of the establishment” that he’s running to take on. The latest came at an Iowa town hall meeting, where Sanders’ efforts to walk back his Planned Parenthood comments sounded like foot-in-mouth to some feminists, and led a NARAL Pro-Choice America spokeswoman to write: “Senator Sanders once again highlighted the difference between an ally and a champion. … His voting record is sufficient, but it doesn't make him a champion for women. That champion is Hillary.”

<...>

NARAL rightly tweaked Sanders not for what he did say on Tuesday, but for what he didn’t. “When asked a direct question about why he would be the best candidate for women, he ignored the impending crisis that restricts access to abortion,” spokeswoman Kaylie Hanson wrote. Sanders responded to the controversy over his “establishment” comment, but not to the question at hand: of how he would fight for women’s rights in office. He’s made it clear that, in his mind, the economic critique at the center of his campaign trumps the importance of any identity politics, including gender.

But as Hanson points out, access to health care—and especially to birth control and abortion, which allow women to time their families around their economic situations and their careers—“is an economic issue, and one that's fundamental to a woman's ability to succeed.” Sanders had a great opportunity to make that point last night, and thereby to signal that he really deserved Planned Parenthood’s endorsement. Once again, he passed.

Read more:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/01/26/bernie_sanders_just_can_t_get_it_right_with_women_s_groups.html

[Fawke Em]

24. OFFS

Why don't they just say, "He doesn't have a vagina" and get it over with.

I'm for women's rights and very pro-choice, but needling him for an omission after he has made that point before is fucking STUPID. Are they PURPOSELY trying to piss off a good portion of their donors?

I don't vote with my vagina. I won't vote for Hillary because I don't think she'll be a good president - in fact, I think she'd suck - and I'm tired of women's groups acting like I'm supposed to support her Republican-like foreign and economic policies because she has a vagina on the women's policies.

[SidDithers]

46. +1...nt

Sid

[madfloridian]

50. It's nitpicking by a DNC spokesperson who should not take sides. Makes me furious.

[Arazi]

55. Hanson is also a DNC press Secretary. NARAL and DNC twined together

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511072779

Doesn't get more "establishment" than that

[beam me up scottie]

3. I agree. Bernie has always been there on abortion rights.

His record is perfect, in fact it's better than Hillary's because of her support for a ban on late term abortions.

CLINTON: My opponent is wrong. I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice.

Source: Senate debate in Manhattan , Oct 8, 2000

http://www.ontheissues.org/Cabinet/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm

I will continue to donate to PP because of the good work they do and because women's lives are at stake but they shouldn't be endorsing anyone before the nomination.

[CajunBlazer]

6. As I recall....

..Bernie started it the "discussion" because he unhappy that the endorsed Hillary. Am I missing something?

[R B Garr]

19. Yup, I think it was Rachel Maddow's show and he was

put upon that they endorsed Hillary . He became dismissive of them so he could keep up his phony victim- of-the-Establishment applause lines.

[Lage Nom Ai]

42. No

He was making a statement with regards to their political wings which are run by a small group and not the whole membership. He has always backed a woman's right to choose. If this isn't due to Hillary being a woman why for the first time did they endorse this early? What has Hillary done that makes her better than Bernie on woman's issues other than being born a woman?

[R B Garr]

56. Wrong, that's not what he said on Rachel's show.

He later walked back his comments because he started getting negative pushback on saying they were the Establishment as an excuse to make himself a victim. He has walked back several comments recently. Quite the weathervane.

And how offensive to say that a woman in political life for decades with the loyal personal and professional alliances she's built over that time is only considered worthy because of her gender. What a divisive thing to say, but that's standard Berniebro fare, so whatever.

[Lage Nom Ai]

58. Horseshit

And you know it typical one position voter. And how many of those organizations polled their membership? Keep your self righteous bullshit in your little protected area or learn how to debate.

[R B Garr]

59. Horseshit yourself. Look at Rachel's show.

She even did a follow-up show on it. The real facts were presented there. You are obviously mistaken. LOL at your bullshit about a "one position voter". What a bizarre comment.

Oh, and welcome. Looks like you know more about the "little protected areas" than I do. Hmmm.

[Lage Nom Ai]

67. I did watch it

Many times and your comprehension seems to be poor. I know more because the Bernie supporters seem to be more tolerant and accepting of different views. The Hillary folks seem to fear the truth much like you.

[R B Garr]

68. Uh huh.

You enjoy yourself.

[Fumesucker]

8. All over one word...

American politics has zoomed past surreal at warp speed and is well on the way to schizophrenic.

[Agschmid]

10. "They aligned themselves with democrats"...

Yah, and?

[bettyellen]

57. this is as bad as the voting with the vagina schtick. did not think that the tone deaf crap

could reach this level, damn. what has hillary done for women? fucking ignorant questions like that blow my mind.

[Baitball Blogger]

15. It's a sickening fact.

I met with a Civil Rights leader not too long ago. Based on what I see on his Facebook, he's embracing the same machinery that is creating fair treatment to minorities.

Now, I understand why they would be seduced by money. I just don't understand why they can't see how they dilute their own integrity when they do it. I mean, who are they to talk down to us?

[Broward]

16. Women's rights no longer seem to be their top priority.

[madfloridian]

18. Yes, there seem to be political priorities now.

[stillwaiting]

21. It is incredibly stupid for both groups to have acted the way they have.

From beginning (endorsing) through now (criticizing Bernie).

Their organizations could very well lose support, and I think both groups are very important so I find that quite sad. Ultimately, they both decided to jump in to the middle of a hotly contested political primary. It was a very bad move on their part when Bernie has 100% ratings with them. It actually boggles my mind that they thought this would be a good idea.

[Empowerer]

23. A 100% voting record does not necessarily mean a Senator is a "champion" for anything

It just means they vote on the right side of the issue.

I've seen situations in which certain Senators score low on some of these scorecards because they happened to miss one or more votes (most of these scorecards count not voting as as no vote), yet they actually go far out of their way to fight for that constituency in other ways that don't get measured in the scoring - for example, stepping up to block a unanimous consent vote, using their clout in Committees or using their political capital to organize support or opposition to something. And I've seen other Senators score very high because they vote right each time, but would never lift a finger when asked to go out of their way to help that constituency or cause beyond casting a vote on the floor.

So, while the scorecards are helpful in giving a snapshot of where a Senator stands on particular issues, I have never treated them as gospel by themselves, but instead, look much further into their record and activities to see whether they are a supporter or a champion, two very different things.

I suspect that NARAL is looking at more than just how Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton voted, but at a larger picture of their engagement with them and their issues over the years.

[onecaliberal]

27. RIght, voting to protect rights for 40 years doesn't mean anything...

What complete bullshit.

[Empowerer]

29. Did I say it doesn't mean anything?

No, I did not.

[onecaliberal]

47. Yeah you did.

[loyalsister]

64. Especially

when a candidate is on record supporting abortion bans, but using the anti-choice, fake term "partial birth abortion."

[moondust]

25. Yes.

Are there other comparable women's services available for those they manage to offend with their deeply partisan politicking?

[misterhighwasted]

26. Bernie still thinks the Anti-Roe v Wade HYDE Amendment

..has merit.

That'll boil the blood a lot of people ..
He stated so, last night.
With this statement alone, it shows he hasn't a full comprehension of whats in that Rider nor does he care enough to listen to how destructive it has been.

Maybe this is a part of why NARAL said what they did.

[beam me up scottie]

28. What are you talking about?

He's been voting against the Hyde amendment for decades.

[misterhighwasted]

30. what are you talking about?

He said he would ok with parts of it. He needs to stop playing both sides.
Its a disasterous amendment put in place 7 yrs after Roe v Wade .

[beam me up scottie]

31. Like I said he's been opposing it for decades, he called for its repeal.

When did he say he was okay with it? Link?

His record on abortion rights and the Hyde Amendment is perfect, stop trying to imply he's waffling on it now.

[merrily]

33. Direct quote, please?

[madfloridian]

38. He just called for repealing it. You need to provide proof of your words.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2016/01/23/3742221/sanders-hyde-repeal/

The Hyde Amendment is an obscure budget rider that bans any federal funding from covering abortion services, which means low-income women on Medicaid can’t use their plans to cover an abortion. It has also helped limit access for government employees, military personnel, those in the Peace Corps, and others. It’s become a routine piece of policy, renewed in every federal spending bill since 1976, and frequently becomes a political football, as when President Obama signed an executive order including restrictions along the lines of Hyde in the Affordable Care Act as a way to win support for the bill’s passage.

But now both frontrunners for the Democratic presidential nomination have come out against it, calling for it to be repealed. Hillary Clinton has repeatedly called for a reversal of Hyde, and now Bernie Sanders has followed suit.

On Friday, Sanders said in a statement, “Women must have full control over their reproductive health in order to have full control over their lives. We must rescind the Hyde Amendment and resist attempts by states to erect roadblocks to abortion.” Sanders has voted against the Hyde Amendment while serving in both the House and Senate, but his statement made his intentions clear to repeal it once and for all if elected.

[beam me up scottie]

54. Where's your proof for that claim?

I've looked at the transcript and he never said what you claimed.

[Peregrine Took]

32. I've been following politics since I campaigned for JFK....this was the biggest TRUMPed up charge

I have ever seen. Makes their side look inept to come up with it.

Wayne Beson, radio host, Chicago, WCPT progressive radio, said he used to be Communication Director for the Human Rights Fund and he is and would have been (back then) delighted to be considered "establishment" i.e. had a seat at the table.

[kristopher]

34. "It's utterly inane."

Did you forget an /s/?

[madfloridian]

35. lol no i did not forget an s. look it up.

It's too stupid to be insane.

[DirkGently]

36. "Safe, legal, and RARE" -- Hillary Clinton.

This has been a bit of an odd fight for HRC to pick. Other than her close ties to Wall Street and her support of the Iraq war, I think her most substantive deficiency as a progressive has been her triangulation on abortion rights and gay rights.

Her adoption of the anti-abortion position that we should be just as concerned with making abortion "rare" as with ensuring safe, legal access, always struck me as a politically calculated betrayal. It's along the same lines as her other fudges, delays, and silences on human rights. Marriage equality leaps to mind. Remember that odd non-answer about how she never changed her mind, but rather the country "evolved" or something?

To me, Hillary follows this same pattern of trying to be as safe as possible first, then backfilling once something has already been decided. I do not see how she can claim to be the real "champion" when her pattern is to equivocate first, never push for anything not already well supported, then speak up loudly when the fight is over (and claim she never changed her thinking in the process).

Which results in this precise kind of undermining.

"Safe, legal, and rare?"

This is the best "champion" we have for women's reproductive freedoms?

I'm sorry, but that just is not her style. Champions stick their necks out.

[NanceGreggs]

61. Fer fuck's sake.

The idea behind the phrase "abortion should be safe, legal and RARE" is that abortion would be rare if women had easy access to sex education and birth control, thereby making unwanted pregnancies and the need for an abortion RARE.

It is NOT an anti-abortion position, and never has been. When was the last time you heard any anti-abortion group say "Well, if it's rare, then that's okay with us"?

Saying abortion should be rare is no different than saying homelessness should be rare, children dying of preventable diseases should be rare, seniors living in poverty should be rare.

The need for abortion CAN be made rare - by educating women, especially young girls, how to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place, along with access to affordable birth control. Many, many unwanted pregnancies are the result of women NOT having those tools at their disposal.

So yes, making abortion safe, legal AND RARE is championing women's reproductive rights. If unwanted pregnancies are RARE, it follows that the need to terminate those pregnancies will be rare as well.

[DirkGently]

65. Well, no. "Rare" is stigmatizing rightwing framing.

It's not even a controversial observation. "Rare" gives weight to the rightwing premise that abortion is a moral hazard. It is also, unfortunately, precisely the kind of calculated triangulation that gives progressives a lot of their misgivings about the Clintons. It's a deliberate sop to the religious right -- "We hate it too, of course."

But "safe, legal and rare" is not a framework that supports women's health needs: it stigmatizes and endangers it.

In a 2010 research article, Dr Tracy Weitz, Director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) program at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote that "rare suggests that abortion is happening more than it should, and that there are some conditions for which abortions should and should not occur".

"It separates 'good' abortions from 'bad' abortions", she added.

Steph Herold, the deputy director of the Sea Change Program – an organization that seeks to create a culture change around abortion and other stigmatized reproductive experiences like miscarriage and adoption – agrees. "It implies that abortion is somehow different than other parts of healthcare," she told me. "We don't say that any other medical procedure should be rare."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/09/hillary-clinton-abortion-legal-but-rare

What’s really at issue in Douthat’s column is the perils of accepting the right-wing frame when constructing liberal positions. By unilaterally presenting abortion as a very bad thing in the 1990s, the message mavens of the Clinton administration, with their construction of “safe, legal and rare,” gave abortion opponents a rhetorical rationale for piling on restrictions that, in many states, make abortion inaccessible to increasing numbers of women — despite the fact that the Supreme Court decided decades ago that their right to the procedure is protected by the Constitution.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_02/breaking_where_abortion_is_ava035510.php

Debunking the right’s contraception myths

But it’s also worth reiterating, as Adele Stan did this weekend and reproductive rights activists have been saying for years, that if you’re more than nominally pro-choice, you cede important ground by embracing the “safe, legal and rare” formulation that Douthat cited as a consensus. As the National Network of Abortion Funds tweeted, “Let’s reject ‘rare.’ If abortions are legal & accessible, number of abortions performed should = exactly the number of abortions necessary.” Contrast the following data points — the 87 percent of U.S. counties that lack an abortion provider, the financial barriers that right-wingers would like to increase with insurance bans, and the significant stigma around abortion — with the fact that almost half of all pregnancies are unintended. Suddenly, “rare” becomes more about a lack of real choice rather than choosing from an abundance of options. If, as a matter of public health policy, we are doing a terrible job of preventing unintended pregnancies, and some women want abortions and can’t have them, then the current rate is too low.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/21/debunking_the_rights_contraception_myths/

[NanceGreggs]

66. From one of your cited articles ...

"If abortions are legal & accessible, number of abortions performed should = exactly the number of abortions necessary."

If the number of abortions "necessary" is lowered because the number of unwanted pregnancies has been lowered, that equals LESS abortions.

Saying abortion should be rare is NOT about denying abortions to as many women as want them. It is about arming women with the education and methods by which they can avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Unwanted pregnancy is not a "moral hazard" - it is often the result of the "hazard" of not knowing HOW to avoid it, or having access to the birth control that WOULD avoid it.

Do you have any idea how many young girls get pregnant because they'd been told by their friends that you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex? Sex education would have made their subsequent abortions unnecessary. So would access to birth control.

If you honestly think the idea of saying abortion should be "rare" means doling out a few abortions here and there among those who want them, you've missed the point entirely.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Their champion: "Clinton Seeking Shared Ground Over Abortions"

Clinton Seeking Shared Ground Over Abortions

ALBANY, Jan. 24 - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Monday that the opposing sides in the divisive debate over abortion should find "common ground" to prevent unwanted pregnancies and ultimately reduce abortions, which she called a "sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."

In a speech to about 1,000 abortion rights supporters near the New York State Capitol, Mrs. Clinton firmly restated her support for the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. But then she quickly shifted gears, offering warm words to opponents of legalized abortion and praising the influence of "religious and moral values" on delaying teenage girls from becoming sexually active.

"There is an opportunity for people of good faith to find common ground in this debate -- we should be able to agree that we want every child born in this country to be wanted, cherished and loved," Mrs. Clinton said.

Mrs. Clinton's remarks were generally well received, though the audience was silent during most of her overtures to anti-abortion groups. Afterward, leaders of those groups were skeptical, given Mrs. Clinton's outspoken support for abortion rights over the years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/25/nyregion/clinton-seeking-shared-ground-over-abortions.html

[senz]

60. Thanks, bmus. Didn't know she played politics EVEN WITH WOMEN'S RIGHTS.

Apparently she has no convictions, just expedient self-interest.

Feminist, my eye.

[jwirr]

39. And one of the items mentioned in the event at Duluth MN

this afternoon was supporting PP.

[salib]

40. This is only the beginning. Bernie is actually challenging the establishment.

That means that many of the organizations and individuals who are truly threatened by that will lash out at him.

[Duval]

41. Especially the DLC, who are afraid of Bernie's position, which is

against Corporations and their influence on both parties. However, I think MSM attacks are going to be nasty and most likely recklessly misleading. We Bernies are facing an uphill battle, but that doesn't mean we can't win the nomination.

[misterhighwasted]

43. LOL.. No one's afraid of bernie.

No one.
Sorry.

[salib]

49. It has been an uphill battle so far.

And look how far we have come already.

Also, should he win, the battle will wvwn be harder.

They tried a coup with FDR. Let us not forget.

[MisterP]

44. whaddya do if the candidate sucks up to The Family? accuse Sanders

of pandering when he tells Liberty University to take either testament seriously for once

[FloriTexan]

45. Kicking for the insanity...

It is insane.

[madfloridian]

48. And also inane.

I guess it is both crazy and stupid.

[madfloridian]

51. This whole primary has been crazy.

Hateful spiteful. Thanks for the rec and kick.

[neverforget]

52. Not Good Enough Bernie!!

[madfloridian]

53. That's exactly what's being done.

Good thought.

Me, too...

[msanthrope]

62. Um....his writings on women squicked me out. Maybe they read what he wrote. nt

[jfern]

63. That's Bernie's fault for not having a 200% rating from them. Not good enough, Bernie!