Home CT Elections: Local, State & Federal CT Maps Links Help About CT Research CT History

!!! Connecticut Local Politics has moved! Please go to http://www.ctlocalpolitics.net for new content!

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

NOW PAC Endorses Lamont

Connecticut Blog has the details, though My Left Nutmeg must be given credit for having word of the endorsement yesterday.

From the Press Release:

Our endorsements go to the strongest feminist candidates. We listen to our membership and respond to their requests for action in races in their states. Therefore, pursuant to the request of Connecticut NOW, NOW PAC is endorsing Ned Lamont for the U.S. Senate.

Ned Lamont ardently supports a full range of reproductive choices for women. He certainly understands that reproductive justice includes full access for rape victims to emergency contraception. Ned Lamont recognizes that "civil rights for all" encompasses the right of everyone to marry the person they choose regardless of gender. He acknowledges that support of the continuing war in Iraq continues to decimate our economy and our standing in the world. Finally, Ned Lamont knows that allowing Samuel Alito's Supreme Court confirmation vote to proceed in the Senate has put Roe v. Wade in extreme jeopardy.


Source

Shiozaki, Mai. "Now Pac Endorses Ned Lamont for U.S. Senate in Connecticut." NOW Press Release. 5/16/06

30 Comments:

Blogger bluecoat said...

Senators Wrangle Over Immigration Bill from the AP.

5/16/2006 02:25:00 PM  
Blogger mod.dem.like.jfk said...

I'm sorry to see NOW forget about Lieberman after 17 years in the Senate of defending a woman's right to choose, not to mention his time as Attorney General and in the state house.

One vote on a cloiture bill to prevent a fillibuster (announce by Kerry from Switzerland) apparently changed all of that. Seems pretty rediculous.

Also, maybe its because I'm Catholic (and a man) but I don't think anyone should be forced to do anything they morally object to. Lieberman basically said that we could find a compromise here without making anyone have to do that. I'm just not so sure he articulated it that way.

5/16/2006 02:32:00 PM  
Blogger mod.dem.like.jfk said...

BTW- Way to be all over what is going on today guys! Keep up the good work!

5/16/2006 02:33:00 PM  
Blogger cgg said...

I lost all respect for Lieberman when he said that a rape victim in need of Plan B could simply take a short drive to another hospital. As a woman who has had to make that trip to the emergency room, admittedly before the days of Plan B, I find that position inexcusable for any Democrat in office to hold.

5/16/2006 02:47:00 PM  
Blogger ctblogger said...

cgg nailed it on the head.

5/16/2006 02:54:00 PM  
Blogger TrueBlueCT said...

mod.dem--
I don't think anyone should be forced to do anything they morally object to.

So the pharmacists down South who won't fill prescriptions for contraceptions? You're down with that?

Obviously you're a man. And obviously you've never really understood what groups like NOW are fighting for.

"Find a compromise here" --like taking a taxi to another hospital after you've been raped??? Lieberman definitely deserved to be abandoned by NOW. And the environmental groups should desert him too, what with his vote for Bush's energy bill.

5/16/2006 03:00:00 PM  
Blogger TrueBlueCT said...

CTBob deserves a mention for this outstanding diary about the need for pre-printed maps for rape victims according to Lieberman's view of things.

5/16/2006 03:19:00 PM  
Blogger mod.dem.like.jfk said...

CGG- I see and respect your point and I can't even begin to imagine putting myself in your shoes.

To elaborate, first point was that three decades of a solid voting record shouldn't hinge on one statement. That said, I understand the feeling that it was horribly insensitive. I do feel like it was meant to say there could be a compromise.

I can't speak for the Senator, but in my mind a compromise wouldn't have to be taking taxi or a walking map, but what about a mobile response unit, that insurance could pay to come and administer the drug. It could be done in the hospital even as long as it was not the Hospital that was not doing the administering. Similar measures have been taken with Catholic colleges and condoms (though that looks like that stupid policy will finally change).

It seems like a ridiculous line to draw, but as a Catholic I have a major problem with the state telling my religion that its facilities had to do something that as an institiution it opposes and teaches that it is against. Don't get me wrong, I don't drink the kool-aide with everything the church teaches, and I'm not a pro-lifer either (to be honest, I don't really think that as a man I have any business over deciding privacy rights of women). I just think the state dictating requirements on a religious institution begins to set a dangerous precedent. (And I know where this is going, Insert pedophile clergy or branch dividian joke here).

As to the other point by truebluect, in my mind, if your a pharmacist working at a place that sells contraception and you are opposed to that, you gave up that moral objection when you took that job. Same cannot be said over a Catholic nurse, or Nun working at a Catholic hospital where one may have taken a job with moral expectations for it.

5/16/2006 03:39:00 PM  
Blogger cgg said...

A mobile unit would be fine. I've actually been thinking along those lines myself, perhaps a Nurse Practitioner employed by the state stationed at the hospital. As long as it's easily available on site I don't particularly care who is doing the distribution.

5/16/2006 03:57:00 PM  
Blogger turfgrrl said...

Once again the real issue; Plan B should be over the counter, is lost sight of because so called democrats would rather pick on Lieberman than the whole GOP congress and Bush administration, whose oversight of the FDA has kept plan B out of the hands of the women.

5/16/2006 04:47:00 PM  
Blogger TrueBlueCT said...

Yeah, or the Catholic churches could get off their high horses and give the poor woman the emergency contraceptions.

Honestly, if the Catholic church wants to be in the hospital business, they should minister to only their own. But if they want the public's business, they shouldn't force their religion on anyone else. (and yes, I see it as them forcing views on us, and not vice-versa.)

5/16/2006 04:51:00 PM  
Blogger disgruntled_republican said...

While I do beleive Catholic Hospitals should offer Plan B (and yes I am a Catholic), I think they need to accomodate the beleifs of the hospital. I think an independent nurse practitioner as was mentioned earlier is just the ticket.

truebluect...with thinking like yours...why don't you just go to another hospital. When you have a heart attack, don't go to St. Francis, one of the best heart hospitals in the region, go somewhere else.

If you get cancer and need treatment...same thing.

You are missing the big picture here. They are one of the best hospitals the region has to offer...they do not force you to go there and they are not forcing their views on anyone.

5/16/2006 05:10:00 PM  
Blogger TrueBlueCT said...

turfgirl--
you wrote, the real issue, that Plan B should be over the counter, is lost sight of because so called democrats would rather pick on Lieberman than the whole GOP congress and Bush administration...

Shouldn't this line read, "Plan B is lost sight of because of so-called Democrat Lieberman, the GOP congress, and Bush administration"?

Honestly can't you see the way in which Lieberman works to give cover to the GOP agenda? When Joe says emergency contraceptives shouldn't be available in every emergency room, he is muddying the waters, HORRIBLY.

Joe isn't saying that access to Plan B should be every woman's right. Instead he is suggesting something else. Exactly what else, I don't know, but it isn't helping our side, and he deserves to be excoriated for stupid "taxi cab" arguments.

In cases like this, Joe is carrying water for the other side. This is obvious to all, and the reason why Joe's Republican approval ratings are at an astronomical 70%.

P.S. I forget. Are you a Democrat?

5/16/2006 05:12:00 PM  
Blogger TrueBlueCT said...

Disgruntled--
I generally have a high opinion of St. Raphael's, St. Francis', etc...

However, given that this is 21st century America, do you think your average victim knows not to go a Catholic hospital if she gets raped?

The CT legislature should insist that these institutions honor a woman's right not to have a forced pregnancy. Barring that, the hospitals ought to pay for giant billboards saying, "IF YOU GET RAPED, DON'T VISIT US."

Or being sensible like mod.dem, maybe it should just be legislated that no ambulance ever take anyone to a Catholic hospital emergency room.

5/16/2006 05:26:00 PM  
Blogger mod.dem.like.jfk said...

TrueBlue, tone down the Catholic Bashing. Connecticut is one of the largest Catholic states in the country (by percentage of the population). Third behind Mass and RI.

5/16/2006 05:43:00 PM  
Blogger disgruntled_republican said...

First, I don't argue against your point on contraception. They (the legislature)do need to come up with an acceptable way to accomplish emergency contraception at catholic hospitals with those hospitals if they are going to mandate it.

As fo the ambulances, and i certainly hope you were kidding, Hartford Hospital does not have the capacity to handle ALL emergencies and there arent any other options in the area.

5/16/2006 05:45:00 PM  
Blogger MikeCT said...

mod.dem & disgruntled,

The kind of third-party delivery compromise you suggest is exactly the kind of deal that Sen. Chris Murphy and others tried to work out. As I understand it, there was a deal worked out and the Catholic Church backed out at the last minute. It should not be that difficult to come up with a workable compromise, if the Church is willing to be more flexible.

A few other points - I don't have the references handy for all of these but as I recall...
* This is only an issue now because the CT Catholic heirarchy made its policies more restrictive recently (so the Church was not anti-Catholic last year when it allowed it).
* The Church in other states allows emergency contraception (eg., I believe NY Church is OK with it, and presumably they don't hate themselves)
* As with many so-called "controversial" issues, this is only a problem for the CT Church heirarchy, not the laity - about 3/4 of CT Catholics thought the hospitals should provide emerg. contraception

turffgrl,
Are you actually saying that these hospitals should send these women to a pharmacy? You don't tell a traumatized rape victim to go off and find a pharmacy when they need an emergency treatment. Period. If you don't understand why, I can't explain it.

More on this issue from CONNSACS.

5/16/2006 06:29:00 PM  
Blogger mod.dem.like.jfk said...

MikeCT-

Catholic hospitals were able, in the past, to make that choice themselves, some did, some didn't. It was only recently that the Archdiocese decided to take on this issue with emergency care, presumably because its been in the news around the county. We still have a fairly new Arch-Bishop in Hartford and from what I understand, this debate has been going on for sometime behind the scenes before the legislature in their infinite wisdom stepped in.

On the "deal" my understanding is that it was personalities at the Capitol that actually caused it to break down...and it wasn't as simple of a solution as a mobile response unit.

I think this is more of an issue with change in leadership and change in the priorities. But the chruch never "allowed" it in the past. Rumor has it though, that Rome is changing some of its positions on birth control (finally) because of to AIDS in Africa, so some things are changing.

As for Catholic laity supporting it, I'm sure most of the Catholic laity are against a lot of things, but its not a Democracy at the Vatican.

5/16/2006 06:49:00 PM  
Blogger TrueBlueCT said...

mod.dem--
I'm not Catholic bashing. So don't accuse me of it. I like the Catholic hospitals, and I like my Catholic friends. Most of them are in agreement that the Church, and its subordinate institutions, should move forward on issues such as these.

How do you feel about allowing women into the priesthood? And do you think Catholic priests should be allowed wives and families? Do you have an ounce of progressivism in you, or would you be happier if women never got the vote?

5/16/2006 06:55:00 PM  
Blogger cgg said...

So does anyone think that this endorsement will sway any delegates?

5/16/2006 07:17:00 PM  
Blogger mod.dem.like.jfk said...

Easy true blue, I was giving you a hard time because I don't think your comments about my church were offensive. I don't think you were about to start a persecution or anything.

To answer your questions, On women priests- its 1) long overdue and 2) consistent with the history of the early Church (and I'm not talking DaVinci code here).

Priests, male or female should not, however be allowed to marry or have families- it is a major precept in cannon law, that I don't think even lay catholics would allow. I do feel however, that the Church should allow Nuns, Deacons and lay ministers to play a more advanced roll in administering Church life, and even celebrating the Mass. To throw in something else, I wholeheartedly believe that gays should be welcomed into the church.

I don't think being Catholic, or being moderate prevents me from being progressive. But don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to abortion, but thats like a fish being opposed to land. I think women should have the right to choose and that right should not be dicated by men who would never be in that situation where they had to choose. I also think that abortion isn't going anywhere and I wish to God we focused more of our time on getting more sex education to kids, keeping kids healthy (and in school) by providing universal health care at least to our children, and really making an effort to keep abortion "Safe, Legal, and Rare" (See the Clinton administration where the number of abortions nationally dropped every year for the first time since it was tracked).

So yes, there are many progressive bones in my body. But for me, my political philosophy has to fit in with my moral philosphy, so its a little more complex. take the death penalty,I'm against it. It's wrong and it doesn't work. But I also can't think of a single reason that if one of the 911 Hijackers survived that I could possibly advocate against it (Mousaui doesn't count). I honestly think Kerry, who was a huge advocate against the death penalty, had the same problem reconciling. So we come up with things like "excpet when it involves someone attacking out nation...". So I guess that's where I am left, that issues are more complicated than just liberal or conservative, and thats why I have no problem lableing myself a moderate, because frankly I think its OK to have your position be a little more cut and dry that pro or against.

5/16/2006 07:21:00 PM  
Blogger mod.dem.like.jfk said...

CGG- way to get us back on track. I think most of the delegates that would be swayed are already in Lamonts corner. It does, however mean money.

But as the JI reported yesterday, I guess Lamont had an error in failing to report his pre-convention cash.

5/16/2006 07:23:00 PM  
Blogger TrueBlueCT said...

mod.dem--
nice answer, thanks. we are making progress.

5/16/2006 07:56:00 PM  
Blogger cgg said...

Ned Lamont accepted the endorsementm. My Left Nutmeg has a transcript of his speech.

5/16/2006 08:03:00 PM  
Blogger turfgrrl said...

MikeCT,

Plan B is a contraceptive, much like a condom. It should be available over the counter.

The frog is in boiling water. The issue is not what to do about treating rape victims, it's about who is deciding what choices a woman has to prevent a pregnancy. It shouldn't matter why a woman would want to prevent a pregnancy.

Rape is a terrible crime. It also an unreported crime. More than half(58%) of sexual assault cases go unreported. 47% of rapes are by acquaintances.

Since most women do not seek medical attention following a rape, why limit the outrage to what Catholic hospitals are up to? The real outrage for me is that Plan B is being politicized by evangelical conservatives who have held up the approval for over the counter use. That is the real outrage.

5/16/2006 09:13:00 PM  
Blogger cgg said...

Turfgrrl is right. And it's not just Plan B. It's the Cervical Cancer Vaccine and birth control period.

Plan B should absolutely be available over the counter, and in every hospital, medical center, and doctor's office. When I'm critical of Lieberman, I'm also starting with that premise.

5/16/2006 09:25:00 PM  
Blogger turfgrrl said...

TrueBlueCT,

No I don't hold Lieberman responsible for the fact that Plan B is being held up by the FDA. The Bush administration does not operate with the idea that they need "cover". They are blatantly disregarding laws, the constitution, and science in every facet of governance.

The real problem we face as a nation is that Shays, Johnson and Simmons vote with the Bush administration. It's that Democrats don't hold committee chairmanships, or majorities and so they can't set agendas or start investigations. This nation needs for Democrats to reclaim the House and Senate.

Reading the anti-Lieberman crusade reminds me of all those voters in Palm Beach who ended up voting for Pat Buchanan in 2000 because they didn't read their ballot. If they had paid attention, Gore would have won Florida, and we wouldn't be saddled with the most incompetent administration in US history.

5/16/2006 09:33:00 PM  
Blogger MikeCT said...

Yes, it should be available over the counter. It should also be available in hospitals as an emergency treatment. Hence the name "emergency contraception". Packing traumatized women off to take care of it themselves is wrong and inhumane, particularly for those women who do need medical attention and are seeking to establish forensic evidence against rapists.

5/16/2006 09:36:00 PM  
Blogger bluecoat said...

turrffy, even if they made PlanB OTC, the RC Hospitals would still resist giving it out. The issue for me is if they want to be a govt. sanctioned community hospital and emergency services provider then they have to provide services based on govt. snactioned scienctific standards - Plan B as currently acceptable to the FDA for supervised emergency use - and not their own religious beliefs.

5/17/2006 09:34:00 AM  
Blogger Hopewellian_Magi said...

Lieberman has NEVER won an NOW PAC endorsement.

To get the endorsement a candidate has to be 100% on all core issues NOW stands for. Here is NOW PAC's core issues http://www.nowpacs.org/facts.html#Rigorous

Ned Lamont was interviewed twice by CT NOW and had to complete a questionnaire. I also believe that NOW PAC's political director interviewed Ned as well. So Lamont wasn't given a free pass on this endorsement. He earned it.

Lieberman was also sent the same questionnaire, yet he dilly-dallied on it and finally got it to us over a month after we emailed it to his campaign. And NOW PAC officials know that Lieberman has not be 100% behind all our core issues.

5/17/2006 12:04:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home