RSS Feeds Feeds: Articles | Issues
Articles About TAP Subscribe Donate
TAPPED  |  Beat the Press

Remember Me
Forgot your password?

The symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.


 



The group blog of The American Prospect

ELIZABETH EDWARDS AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD. Today I'll be watching the three major Democratic presidential campaigns plead their case to Planned Parenthood. It's a significant event because this primary has, thus far, been almost completely lacking in discussion of sexual health. The major exception was the Democratic outcry after the Supreme Court upheld the Bush administration's ban on dilation and extraction abortion in April.

Representing her husband, Elizabeth Edwards was charming, glowing, funny, and very warmly-received. "If I wanted Rick Santorum's opinion" on my reproductive health choices, "I would call him up," she quipped. In what sounded like a dig at Hillary Clinton and her perceived radical left agenda, Elizabeth argued, "We need a pro-choice candidate who can be elected on a pro-choice platform.”

Elizabeth tied John's women's health platform into his support for universal health care and the alleviation of poverty, assuring Planned Parenthood that it would be recognized as a service provider under her husband's plan, that all prescription drug coverage would include regular and emergency contraception, that pharmacists would not be allowed to refuse such drugs to women or girls, and even that abortion would be eligible for federal funding under an Edwards administration. This would mean a Congressional-backed repeal of the Hyde Amendment.

Elizabeth also supported full funding of Title X and the Real Sex Ed Act, which would create a federal funding stream for reproductive health services, comprehensive sexuality education, and prenatal and postnatal care for women on Medicaid.

My only complaint is that Elizabeth seemed to add a caveat onto John's support for abortion rights. "John opposes any ban that does not include an adequate protection for a woman’s health," she said. But what about bans that protect women's health, or claim to? Is it okay to erect barriers to abortion in cases when a woman's health may not be clearly at risk, but abortion remains her choice? How about late in a pregnancy?

Unfortunately, I couldn't ask, because the three questioners appeared to have been cherry-picked in advance by Planned Parenthood. Still, one can't complain too much about a passionate speech that included the promise, "I know the art and theater of politics. There are times when you have to position yourself just to be heard. But there are also issues that are so important... that to try and position yourself out of it is to lay down the mantle of leadership. Women’s lives are at stake, and our lives are not fodder for compromise.”

--Dana Goldstein



COMMENTS

"Today I'll be watching the three major Democratic presidential campaigns plead their case to Planned Parenthood. It's a significant event because this primary has, thus far, been almost completely lacking in discussion of sexual health."

And this is a problem for you?

It seems to me that when the court (lacking any other possible means constructing the decision they wanted) legalized abortion under the "right to privacy," they were indicating that the best way to go with this was to sweep it under the rug.

It's nice to know that Edwards' fantasy health plan considers PP a legitimate healthcare provider but, really, your biggest *enemy* is politicization.

Women's health is one thing, but slaying of a living human individual without due process is a violation of human rights. It is the unquestionable and even government funded right to do just that we are really discussing here.

"It is the unquestionable and even government funded right to do just that we are really discussing here."

Oh, give it up now. No one will ever get any of their points across about anything so long as men want to fuck indiscriminately.

Post a comment


Search TAPPED for:

Archives

About TAPPED

TAPPED, the Prospect's award-winning group blog, is a link-intensive collection of musings, ramblings, opinions and other assorted writing on the political developments of the day. See a list of our contributors.

| RSS | Twitter


Renew your print subscription or e-subscription.
Get an e-subscription for $14.95.
Give the gift of political insight. Send The American Prospect to a friend.
Change your email address or street address.
YES! I want to receive The American Prospect
— the essential source for progressive ideas.
Explore The American Prospect's award-winning investigative journalism and provocative essays in a free trial issue. Continue receiving The American Prospect at only $19.95 for a one-year subscription - a savings of 60% off the newsstand price!
First Name
Last Name
Address 1
Address 2
City
State
ZIP     
Email

Should you decide not to continue receiving the magazine after the initial free issue, simply write "cancel" on the invoice and you will not be billed.

© 2009 by The American Prospect, Inc.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Permissions and Reprints