National Organization for Women PAC Endorses Obama-Biden

STATEMENT OF KIM GANDY
Chair, National Organization for Women Political Action Committee (NOW PAC)

September 16, 2008

It is with great enthusiasm that I announce today, on behalf of the nation's oldest and largest women's rights organization, that the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee (NOW PAC) proudly endorses Sen. Barack Obama for President of the United States.

It is no coincidence that I am joined in this announcement by so many allied organizations that collectively represent a broad and diverse cross-section of U.S. women. From teachers to social workers, from business owners to college students, women in this country are lining up behind the candidate who is out there every day standing up -- clearly and consistently -- for women. Women of all ages, races and ethnicities are coming together in support of Sen. Obama and his pledge to fulfill this country's promise of equal opportunity for our daughters as well as all our sons.

Although it is very unusual for us to endorse in a presidential election, this is an unprecedented candidate and an unprecedented time for our country. The NOW PAC reviewed Sen. Obama's record and public statements on issues that disproportionately affect the women of this nation, and I spoke with him at length about his commitment to women's equality. For example:

On pay equity. Sen. Obama is a co-sponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation to end wage discrimination against women.

On reproductive rights. Sen. Obama is a co-sponsor of the Prevention First Act, to strengthen access to contraception and reproductive health care, and prevent unwanted pregnancies. He strongly supports Roe v. Wade and will oppose any efforts to overturn it.

On violence against women. Sen. Obama supports the continued reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act -- of which Sen. Joe Biden is the chief sponsor -- as well as the Security and Financial Empowerment (SAFE) Act, which is legislation to provide legal, medical and financial support to victims of domestic violence.

On the Supreme Court. Sen. Obama opposed the nominations of George Bush's extreme right-wing nominees to the Supreme Court, who have consistently ruled against women's rights,

For more than a decade, Barack Obama has said "yes" to women's rights, while John McCain has consistently said "no" - NO to pay equity, NO to contraceptive access and reproductive rights, NO to appointing Supreme Court judges who will uphold women's rights and civil rights, NO to funding shelters and other anti-violence programs, and NO to supporting working moms and dads with policies that support work/life balance.

NOW supported Sen. Hillary Clinton in the primary, and now we join with her in saying "NO" -- No Way, No How, No McCain! And we proudly stand arm-in-arm with her in putting our hopes and our dreams, our hard work and our hard-earned money, behind the next President of the United States -- Barack Obama, and his running mate, longtime friend and ally of women, Sen. Joe Biden.

http://www.now.org/press/...09-16.html

There's a shock.

There's a shock.

Genesia said:

Your Sarah Christ Superstar just aint cuttin it

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

It has nothing to do with whether she's "cutting" it. NOW is not an organization that represents mainstream American women in any way, shape or form.

Women who like Sarah Palin will be ecstatic that NOW dissed her. It will be a further validation of everything they believe about that group.

good - i'm glad they made it clear that McCain's record on women's issues is abysmal.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

It has nothing to do with whether she's "cutting" it. NOW is not an organization that represents mainstream American women in any way, shape or form.

Women who like Sarah Palin will be ecstatic that NOW dissed her. It will be a further validation of everything they believe about that group.

Genesia said:

what kind of a woman would vote for someone who voted against paying her and every other woman in this country the same as men??

Genesia said:

what kind of a woman would vote for someone who voted against paying her and every other woman in this country the same as men??

Genesia said:

what kind of a woman would vote for someone who voted against paying her and every other woman in this country the same as men??

cborgman said:

Because this woman has the smarts to figure out that the whole "equal pay" thing is a complete and utter red herring.

cborgman said:

Because this woman has the smarts to figure out that the whole "equal pay" thing is a complete and utter red herring.

Genesia said:

a red herring for ... what exactly?

how can you possibly endorse and vote for someone who has no qualms about legally declaring you and all women second-class citizens, and significantly less important than men?

cborgman said:

i'd looove to see an answer for this as well. it absolutely perplexes me.

Genesia said:

a red herring for ... what exactly?

how can you possibly endorse and vote for someone who has no qualms about legally declaring you and all women second-class citizens, and significantly less important than men?

cborgman said:

Y'know what? You're right. It isn't a red herring. It's just a flat-out falsehood.

The only way to arrive at the 77-cents to the dollar myth is to lump all of the pay statistics together and do an apples to oranges comparison. Don't separate the rates for part-time versus full-time work. (Many more women than men work part-time - and part-time workers of either gender are paid less.) Don't limit your comparisons to men and women with identical levels of education, working in identical jobs, for the same length of time. Don't control for taking time (sometimes years) to bear or raise children.

Don't do any of that...because you will find that once you do, the pay disparity disappears.

Genesia said:

i am sure you have reports and studies that confirm your assertation, then? i trust you have done research into this, and aren't just making this up?

if it is indeed a "myth" it shouldn't be hard to disprove it.

please share the data that copnfirms this with the rest of us. i would be most interested to see it, and i am sure many others would love to see the data as well.
[Edited 9/16/08 14:25pm]

Genesia said:

i am sure you have reports and studies that confirm your assertation, then? i trust you have done research into this, and aren't just making this up?

if it is indeed a "myth" it shouldn't be hard to disprove it.

please share the data that copnfirms this with the rest of us. i would be most interested to see it, and i am sure many others would love to see the data as well.
[Edited 9/16/08 14:25pm]

cborgman said:

Yes, I do. But I don't think I will. My offerings on this subject and others haven't exactly been treated with respect. It makes me loathe to spend the time.

cborgman said:

Yes, I do. But I don't think I will. My offerings on this subject and others haven't exactly been treated with respect. It makes me loathe to spend the time.

cborgman said:

the (ever so liberal ) Department of Labor has some stats:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/wl...7-2007.pdf

but i'm sure they're in the pocket of "big feminist"

cborgman said:

Yes, I do. But I don't think I will. My offerings on this subject and others haven't exactly been treated with respect. It makes me loathe to spend the time.

IrresistibleB1tch said:

The Labor Department statistics prove my point, actually. They lump all workers together, regardless of education level, profession, and length of time in the workforce.

For more than a decade, Barack Obama has said "yes" to women's rights, while John McCain has consistently said "no" - NO to pay equity, NO to contraceptive access and reproductive rights, NO to appointing Supreme Court judges who will uphold women's rights and civil rights, NO to funding shelters and other anti-violence programs, and NO to supporting working moms and dads with policies that support work/life balance.

Genesia said:

did you even read the document? it was broken down very specifically by education level.

and there are many more stats that address those other issues. but don't let mere government numbers get in the way of your opinion.