NARAL Pro-Choice America’s endorsement of Barack Obama yesterday has unleashed a massive shitstorm among other pro-choice groups and within the organization itself from folks who feel betrayed by the national group’s preemptive support of a candidate whose voting record on reproductive rights has been nearly identical to his Democratic opponent’s (the main substantive difference being that Clinton has been far more pro-active in sponsoring pro-choice legislation.)
Indeed, NARAL has consistently given both Clinton and Obama 100 percent ratings on issues relating to reproductive rights—prompting reproductive-rights advocates to wonder: Why divide the pro-choice and alienate Clinton supporters? Why not let the nomination process play out and, assuming Obama becomes the official nominee, endorse him then?
The alternative path certainly hasn’t won NARAL any fans.
Ellen Malcolm, of EMILY’s List, issued a statement calling it “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.”
The National Women’s Political Caucus, meanwhile, issued a statement saying they were “disappointed” in the endorsement, adding, “We believe that this announcement at this time will divide the choice community at a time when we need to stand united.”
And in swing states around the country, NARAL affiliates representing a quarter of NARAL’s state chapters have already condemned the endorsement, which NARAL made without consulting its affiliates.
In Oregon, statewide NARAL director Michele Stranger Hunter said her group was “proud to have two strongly pro-choice candidates running for President. And we look forward to supporting whoever the nominee will be and are committed to defeating Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in November.”
NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri went further, conducting robo-calls across the state to clarify that the Missouri branch of NARAL has endorsed neither Clinton nor Obama. “In our membership demographic, a lot of longtime women’s rights supporters are strong supporters of Hillary Clinton,” Missouri NARAL director Pamela Sumners told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “If we had been consulted, we would have said, ‘Let this play out. We have two strong pro-choice candidates” in Obama and Clinton.
In New York and Pennsylvania, the statewide NARAL groups issued nearly identical statements calling the decision—”made internally by NARAL Pro-Choice America, based in Washington D.C., and without the consultation of the NARAL state affiliates across the country,” as both statements put it— “premature.”
And here in Washington State, NARAL Pro-Choice Washington director Karen Cooper called the endorsement “an unconscionable slap in the face to Senator Hillary Clinton, adding, “Time and again, both Sens. Clinton and Obama have stood up for the right to privacy and the right to choose. American women would be well-served by either Clinton or Obama in the Oval Office.”
Endorsing Obama now is hardly a bold move by NARAL Pro-Choice America (unlike, say, endorsing Joe Lieberman), which has never had anything but kind words to say about both Democratic primary candidates. By endorsing now, NARAL could alienate a substantial portion of their membership—a risky move at a time when the distinction between Democrats and Republicans on reproductive rights couldn’t be more obvious.