oh balls.

Heh--my favorite troll tactic for the win! "Did you know that when women get abortions, they're killing fetuses?" Why, yes. Yes, we did know that. That's...pretty much the point.

Is it just me, or are there any other Jews on the boards who find the term "Army of God" to be deeply threatening? It's never a good sign for the Jews (or the atheists, for that matter, or the women) when Christians get together and start calling themselves an army, especially in God's name. They can justify all kinds of crazy shit that way.

Jasper, you're not going to convert any of us, so you might as well save your breath to cool your porridge.

EEEEEEEEEEEEW, I clicked on that Army of God link & they have a tribute to Paul Hill, an anti-woman terrorist.

unwavering my ass. the man went from saying that abortions should be publicly funded for poor women to this very kind of noncommittal place he is at now. ridiculous!

"...cool your porridge." Heh. Nice one!
I have to say, though. While I don't enjoy the idea of PP endorsing a republican of any stripe, I do have to nod to their effort to make choice a bipartisan issue. If only politicians would follow. Giuliani is far from a "choice" candidate on any level, but if he does in fact represent a break in the "stranglehold" that the far-right anti-abortion forces have on the republican party, a little gnome of glee is doing a quiet jig of hope in my heart.
Can you imagine a world where choice wasn't even an issue because all candidates support it? Then we could talk about something else, like, I dunno... health insurance, or spending gobs of money on pointless "defense" initiatives like Star Wars.

(not engaging jasper)

I'm a little puzzled by how much flack Rudy Giuliani's gotten for the comment on Roe v. Wade. I've read pro-choice articles on the overturning of Roe v. Wade that have argued that it either a) will have a neutral impact, or b) may have a positive impact, in that it will turn this back into a state-by-state issue. I don't agree. But I can see how Republicans might be strongly drawn to the state's rights aspect of this argument. Maybe it doesn't have to mean he's anti-choice. Thoughts?

Interesting posit, anna. I could see the sensible, logical Republicans working off of it on a States' Rights basis, but I've only met constituents who fall into that category, not elected officials. As it, the main line of the Republican party has been hijacked by the religious right, who really see abortion (or at least talk about it) in moral terms.

While I don't agree it's a States' Rights issue - I see it as a female health issue - I would be interested in hearing from someone who framed it as such. Stepping away from the idea that women can't make their own decisions or that God says it's wrong would be refreshing.

I see what you're saying, Anna. And I know a few people who really want to like Giuliani (I personally hate him and aside from that, don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell--he's far too much of a New Yorker to appeal to the rest of the country), but he issued an utterly unambiguous statement about the recent partial-birth abortion ban, saying that the Supreme Court did the right thing. He's also caved on immigration. He likes to present an image of tough-talking fearlessness, but he's as spineless and sleazy as all the rest of them, and he'll throw abortion rights to the wolves eventually. He's already halfway there.

While Guliani's stance makes me roll my eyes a bit, here's my take on it: this will further divide the already crumbling Republican party, which after the last few years, seems like a pretty good thing. Also, while I will never personally vote for a Republican, on the chance that one is elected in '08, I would much rather have one that has come out as saying that he is pro-choice (however wishy-washy that statement seems from Rudi) than someone who takes the particularly anti-choice viewpoint of the current stinking miasma of an administration, or that of any of Guliani's competitors.

Come on PP WTF? Giuliani only supports abortion if it is going to work in his favor and the favor of his campaign. This is bullshit he has insulted women and continues to do so in thinking that we will just take his word for it. That old "trust me ladies." Apparently it has worked on PP. I would like to support PP and defend them when people say they are only about money but shit like this really makes me wonder. I expect better from a national women's organization.

I expect better from PP too, M'Erica, but I don't think they're doing this for the money. 900 bucks is a lot to me, but in terms of donations to a national not-for-profit, it's pretty paltry. It reminds me of NARAL's endorsing Joe Lieberman, and I think both things are motivated by a desire not to appear partisan and a fear of alienating potential supporters who are old-school pre-crazy-Christian-right Republicans. I think what they're doing is misguided, but I really don't think this is a case of money talking, because 900 bucks isn't enough to speak above a whisper.

I love it when the anti-choicers use 30 year old photographs of miscarriages and / or premature births as evidence of the "ickyness" of abortion. We all know what photoshop can do, and we're not buying it.

Bottom line, Jasper: If you gave a shit about the poor widdle babies, you'd support birth control or even male responsibility, which my instinct says your backwoods trailer park ass doesn't.

Word, SMC. Check out Jasper's comment in the Jennifer Jin Brauer thread for a further example of his insights about women's lives.

The reason it's not worth engaging anti-choice people in debate here is that there are other places to do it if that's what you want to do. If we stopped to have the whole "but it's a cute little baby from the moment the sperm meets the egg" argument every time we discussed anything, we wouldn't get anything discussed. It would be like trying to teach college biology and having some fool stand up every five minutes demanding that you consider young-earth creationism.

What a disappointing post. Being prochoice isn't about liking abortions. It's about respecting the liberty - a woman's right to choose. If more people who were personally opposed to abortion were like Guiliani, the world would be a better place.

Guiliani's candidacy is groundbreaking. No GOP candidate has run a prochoice platform since Roe v Wade.

And what a terrible misrepresentation of his view! You wrote that he would appoint an anti-choicer. He said the opposite - that he wouldn't adhere to a litmus test. He didn't guarantee that he would appoint some one who is pro-choice, but that's not the same thing as saying he would appoint an anti-choicer.

Also, for the record, he later clarified the "okay" response. What he meant was "not okay." But I'll give you that because he obviously he flubbed.

Planned Parenthood, NOW, League of Women Voters, PLEASE try to catch up with the plot developments.

If. You. Support. A. Modern. Repulican. You. Are. Supporting. Misogyny. And. Bigotry.

It. Does. Not. Matter. What. The. Candidate's. Position. Is. The. Candidate. Will. Dance. With. Them. What. Brung. 'Em. To. The. Ball.

If nothing else, the last 20 years of politics in these here United States has impressed upon us the pure, naked, partisanship of power.

And for the record, no monetary donations to PP don't make one a lifetime member. If they did, then Romney would get an endorsement too. Or hadn't you heard? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3157749 (The reason I ask is because there was no mention of it here. Nor has there been any post-debate coverage of the democratic or republican debates.)

I'm assuming you don't work in politics, Ann. This is freakin genius.

PP is not ENDORSING Giuliani for christ's sake (and they never would, they would leave that to NARAL). They are calling national attention to the fact that there are, indeed, pro-choice republicans. And it is in fact groundbreaking that this is the first major republican running for president to express at least some support for abortion rights since the two major parties became firmly entrenched in their pro- and anti-choice camps.

And, of course, this combined with the Romney donations posits PP as a mainstream medical provider, which is their goal. It's win-win.

EG -- I just noticed jasper's oh-so-compassionate comment on Jennifer's post above, too. This guy is a piece of work.

Giuliani does not have a lifetime endorsement from Planned Parenthood, and he does not have an endorsement from Planned Parenthood Action Fund today. But he has chosen to run for the Republican nomination as a pro-choice candidate and that shows a commitment to mainstream values that a majority of voters can get behind. The more politicians we have who support women's health, the better. I agree with kgsavoie -- it will be a great day when choice isn't even a political issue. But if we ever want to break the right-wing, anti-choice grasp on the Republican Party, we have to start somewhere. We have to show all candidates that standing up for women's health is not a Republican, Democrat or Independent value -- it's a value that all Americans can and should support.

Giuliani does not have a lifetime endorsement from Planned Parenthood, and he does not have an endorsement from Planned Parenthood Action Fund today. But he has chosen to run for the Republican nomination as a pro-choice candidate and that shows a commitment to mainstream values that a majority of voters can get behind. The more politicians we have who support women's health, the better. I agree with kgsavoie -- it will be a great day when choice isn't even a political issue. But if we ever want to break the right-wing, anti-choice grasp on the Republican Party, we have to start somewhere. We have to show all candidates that standing up for women's health is not a Republican, Democrat or Independent value -- it's a value that all Americans can and should support.

That is really disappointing. I loved Cecile Richards until this moment.

At least I still have her mother. Ann.

He's getting creamed from both sides on this one. The Dems don't want someone who say that he would appoint strict constructionalists to the bench, and the Republicans a) don't believe him and b) don't think that he "gets" the pro-life side.

We have to show all candidates that standing up for women's health is not a Republican, Democrat or Independent value -- it's a value that all Americans can and should support.

Not quite, Planned Parenthood. Anyone who is as involved in choice policy as you are should know that the root of choice for a woman and her reproductive rights does not exist anywhere in actual choice legislation. Choice legislation pretty much exists to show voters who/what they are voting for, but real pro-choice legislation exists in legislation regarding children's insurance, WIC, pre-natal benefits, availability of childcare, and, most importantly, education. Republicans are notorious for voting against things that would actually put women in situations where they have a choice. In fact, it is in their national platform that they deny the public these things and call it "fiscal responsibility". So what if it's legal? If women are forced into situations where the only thing they can afford for their pregnancy is an abortion, then that really isn't much of a choice is it? With this knowledge, the endorsement of a Republican by Planned Parenthood should be unforgivable.

dude, ikkin, what part of "PP has not endorsed Giuliani" is unclear??

When you send out e-mails about a candidate from a very influential organization, what kind of message does that send? That is what is unclear.

Oh shit. I love PP. And this makes me very unhappy.

With Jerry Falwell's recent passing, I think you folks are missing out on an important part of the story here. The so-called moral majority used abortion as an issue to build a political coalition. But historically, it's only Catholics who are ardently pro-life. One of the big reasons there is so much resistance to abortion on the Christian right is because Christian right leaders have been telling their followers they have to be pro-life for years. And as long as the Republican party plans on using abortion as a political issue, Fox News and religious leaders following Falwell will convince their party members that they must be pro-life as well. The only way the right to abortion will be truly safe is if public opinion supports it. And we will never be rid of the Republican Party. So it would be a good thing if there were more Republican leaders supporting the supporting the pro-choice position. The thing to see here is that we live in a two-party system. For pro-choicers, the battle is not to convince Democrats to be pro-choice, its to convince Republicans to be pro-choice. And this is the primaries, not the general election. I fully expect PP to support the democratic candidate in the general election. But in the primaries, I don't see anything wrong with supporting Guiliani versus the other Republican candidates. He is definitely the most progressive of all of them on this issue.

I'm not going to comment on Planned Parenthood's decision, but I had to kind of chuckle (lovingly) at a couple of the comments.

From M'Erica: "Giuliani only supports abortion if it is going to work in his favor and the favor of his campaign."

From Paul G. Brown (with a particularly interesting presentation): "It. Does. Not. Matter. What. The. Candidate's. Position. Is. The. Candidate. Will. Dance. With. Them. What. Brung. 'Em. To. The. Ball."

As much as my big ol' liberal ass agrees, I've got to say that I believe very few candidates (Democrat, Republican, or other) actually give a shit about most of the positions they support. It seems to simply be a matter of keeping the right people happy at the right time. Twenty bucks says that a good number of pro-choice politicians would jump ship if they knew it would get them a strong shot at the White House. And the pro-lifers wouldn't be any better.

Then again, maybe I'm just a cynic.

Good points mpowell. I'm still considering my feelings on this. Thanks.

Briefly (others have stated my feelings on this at length), I'm not a fan of the guy. However, I'll give credit where it's due. It was actually refreshing to see one Republican candidate in the frat-boy sausage fest not completely pussy out on this issue. I'm definitely curious to see how this departure pans out and, most importantly, if it has any lasting effect on the party itself.

For pro-choicers, the battle is not to convince Democrats to be pro-choice, its to convince Republicans to be pro-choice.

There's actually a lot of Democrat pro-lifers popping up. Not politicians, but on the voter base.

What will likely happen is that abortion will be divorced from a political party as an issue. Ultimately, nothing matters until Roe is overturned, and then, it will be a state issue, so it'll only matter on the state level.