Skip to comments.National Organization for Women PAC Endorses Obama-Biden for Re-election
Posted on 07/11/2012 12:03:50 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
National Organization for Women PAC Endorses Obama-Biden for Re-election Statement of NOW/PAC Chair Terry O'Neill
July 11, 2012
It is with great pride that I announce today, on behalf of the nation's oldest and largest grassroots women's rights organization, that the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee endorses President Barack Obama for re-election as president of the United States.
NOW PAC is proud to stand behind a president who unquestionably represents the path forward to achieve equality for women. Throughout the past four years President Obama has listened to our concerns and repeatedly stood up for women's rights against a right-wing juggernaut bent on undermining our access to reproductive health care, our economic security and even our safety from intimate partner violence and sexual assault.
The extremists' War on Women is all too real, and in order to win this struggle we must have strong allies in the White House who will work with us to implement policies that empower the women of this country to live healthy, safe and productive lives. President Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden have shown time and again that they are our allies.
President Obama's record on women's issues speaks for itself:
On health care: The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover preventive care without co-pays, including contraception, mammograms, screening for cervical cancer, diabetes and heart disease, and many other prevention measures. The ACA also prohibits sex-based discrimination in insurance premium pricing, stops insurers from refusing coverage because of a pre-existing condition, expands Medicaid coverage to millions of low-income people (disproportionately women, particularly women of color), and will subsidize health premiums for millions more low- and middle-income earners -- again, disproportionately women -- who don't get health coverage through their jobs and wouldn't be able to afford it otherwise. And the president stood up to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops when they demanded restrictions on birth control, ensuring access to contraception coverage for the millions of women insured through religiously affiliated schools, hospitals and nonprofits throughout the country.
On pay equity: The first piece of legislation President Obama signed in January 2009 was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and he continues to support passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill to end wage discrimination against women.
On violence against women: President Obama supports the inclusive, bi-partisan Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, and he has threatened to veto the partisan Republican House version of the bill that excludes key provisions protecting Native Americans, immigrant women and the LGBT community.
President Obama also issued an executive order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls, tasked with ensuring that every part of the federal government takes into account the needs of women and girls in the policies they draft, the programs they create and the legislation they support. He is also a strong supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Meanwhile, presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney has consistently spoken out against women's rights, and he doesn't appear to have a clue what women really need or want.
Romney has promised to defund family-planning programs, even though access to family planning is essential to women's basic health and to their families' economic security. Romney has also vowed to outlaw abortion and even supports a 'personhood' measure declaring a fertilized egg to be a human being, which would criminalize all abortions without exception and likely outlaw common forms of contraception as well as stem cell research and in vitro fertilization. He has made it clear that he would overturn Roe v. Wade, saying: 'Absolutely, it would be a good day for America.'
Finally, Romney supports Rep. Paul Ryan's budget, which takes aim at Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and a range of social programs that disproportionately serve and employ women. And we have yet to hear Romney's position on equal pay legislation, or where he stands on guaranteeing women's basic equality through an Equal Rights Amendment.
In the months ahead, NOW will make sure voters understand what is at stake for women in the November elections. In particular, the contrast between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney could not be clearer. Through the president, a leader who listens and responds, we have a pathway toward achieving the goal of real equality for all women. Mitt Romney would not merely block progress -- he would actively turn the clock back on women's rights all the way to the 1950s, if not the 19th century.
From now until November, NOW activists and leaders will work tirelessly to re-elect our president, Barack Obama.
And once again we discover water is wet.
What a shock!/sarc.
Single women prefer Obama over Romney, 60% to 30%.. If this number doesn’t change and females don’t come out of their ‘black magic spell’, we are in a heap of trouble.
Well, since fewer women are employed under Obama perhaps NOW would like to get back in the kitchen!
Phew! Glad I was sitting when I read this...
Hedonistic Harridans and Harpies for 0bama
NOW-—Who saw that coming?
I am shocked!!!!!
Reason # 9786 to not vote for the muzzie commie and his buffoon sidekick.
Wow, now that IS surprising!
One can always count on finding flies on sh...er....Obama.
Does anyone here actually know someone in NOW?
Seems to me their political clout is right up there with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Single/Divorced women will always favor socialism.
They’re claiming to be “independent”, but always vote for the politician that promises to take better care of them.
Sure, NAGS, you don’t depend on any “man”...
but you’re dependent, nonetheless. You’re not strong enough to overcome your biological need for a provider and protector.
Politicians with wishy-washy abortion stances generally are waffling to try to get traction in the NOW voter block. But, NOW is steadfast on the Dem plantation and will not budge.
It’s all about abortion.
No shi* this is unexpected?
The irony is that they would probably make larger inroads appealing to women’s “wiring” by strongly espousing family values, especially marriage and children.
Yes! What a surprise.
I don’t trust any organization that needs to put pork chops around their members necks so their dogs will play with them.
of course I call it insanity but that is just me...
NOW truly hates the feminine woman. Any serious look at sexual reality will argue against their priorities; against their agitations.
For a detailed look at the Feminist movement: Feminist Delusion.
To cut to the chase, the idea of the sexes as competing interest groups is both biologically and historically absurd. But that appears to be NOW's whole reason for existence.
Single/Divorced women will always favor socialism.
And, people who let them have abortions on demand, have sex with other women, and free condoms, etc. But those idiots better not make over $200,000 a year.
Can someone please explain to me what this “War on Women” crap is? What the hell are they even talking about????
“Its all about abortion.”
You’re so right. There’s no upper limit on how complicated the thinking and the morality and all everything can get with this crowd, but to them, abortion as a right is fully equivalent to the 2nd Amendment to conservatives. It’s that simple.
Paying you to wash the quilt? Dogs are notoriously bad with laundry.
On the abortion issue, you have to make sure you understand specifically why “it’s all about abortion”.
It’s not that they envision themselves as ever needing an abortion in the future. It’s about participating/having an abortion in the past, and knowing that it was murder, and seeking to repress any reminder that it was even “wrong”, much less murder of an innocent.
They cannot allow any vestige of “wrongness” to creep into our society via law.
NEWS FLASH - Bright Light in the sky will rise in the East in the morning.
I lost the minuscule respect I had for N.O.W. when they led the fight against GOP Senator Bob Packwood in 1995 for sexual misconduct and a couple of years later sat like the classic monkeys about President Clinton doing much the same with a female intern half his age.
The obvious difference was the political affiliation and NOW should be NO(Liberal)W, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party.
So beyond stupid.
I think that the more important question is, who did NO MA’AM endorse?
NOW membership must be at least 80% bull lesbian. Which makes their fascination with abortion so odd. It’s not like they ever have to worry about getting pregnant in the first place.
But for some reason it’s always the #1 issue with lesbo feminists like Rachel Mancow and Moochelle.
NOW, according to their website, has 500,000 members.
The NAACP is having its national convention here in Houston, approximately 600-800 participants. An almost equal number of ‘journalists’ reporting on it. The NAACP likely has less than 300,000 paying members.
These two democrat supporting organizations are not representative of their population and are, IMHO, irrelevant.
Dogs get it. My Golden is like that. In the morning he takes all his toys out of the box and bothers me all day to play with him. I tell him I am working and to go put away his toys.
About an hour later I got up for a break, walked into the living room and the place was clean. Never trained him to do that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.