OK, obviously, I reeeeeallly am irritated by Allyson Schwartz, and you can expect me to write something more about her soon, because her votes have shown where her priorities lie. But, I think we gotta be careful in slamming "feminist" groups.

First, why dont we get as angry when organized labor backs Republican congressmen? When an environmental group backs a Republican because they have been reliable voters? I just think people like Markos have made it easy to slam "feminist" groups when the problems with the Democratic party are a lot broader than that, and certainly a lot broader than pro-choice interest groups.

Second, in any case, as far as Emily's List as a bullseye, the real national organization that has made some really stupid decisions lately (such as endorsing a Republican Senator who does things like vote to confirm John Roberts or supports Santorum all the way), is NARAL. (Which is not the same as the local org, NARAL-PA.)

But yeah, lets just be careful. I agree that that Democratic party cannot be all about choice. But too many in the progressive blogosphere seem to be taking pleasure in slamming those "damn feminists."

When you say this:

I think you are really unfairly undermining the very serious fight to peel back Roe vs. Wade and even worse, you seem to be minimizing how the right to a safe abortion for women is an economic justice issue. You also seem ignorant of the myriad ways that NARAL, Planned Parenthood, Choice USA and many other women's groups do fight for women every day on a very broad set of issues.

I'm not minimizing the fight for abortion. I am calling out the pro-choice groups who put this single issue above all others. You say it's about economic justice? Well then make it about economic justice, but then why does Emily's list still support Schwartz- who clearly is, in this case, working against the economic interests of poor and working class women?

Now, before you get overly outraged by what I am saying, I want to reiterate two points I made above- 1) I personally think that Emily's list is generally a great grass-roots organization (for the reasons you've sighted) that is much less likely then NARAL and other, non-choice, single-issue groups to put their single issue above the interests of the party, and 2) this is not just about choice groups- for example, unions who support Republicans are horrendously shortsighted and also deserve to be publicly attacked when they act idiotically. (Have unions classically been the bedrock of support for the Democratic Party? Yes. Does that mean that they can't screw us now? Not at all.)

The answer to this question though is pretty simple:

So, yeah what Allyson did on the bankruptcy bill is bad. In your indictment of her Alex, do you have to cast stones at every other entity that ever supported her? If so, can you do it in a way that is aware of the fact that Emily's List is not the enemy while simultaneously understanding that they may not be right?

Take a look at Schwartz' fundraising from the last election cycle. Emily's list is her biggest single financial supporter, giving her more then double the second place donor. If Emily's List continues to support Schwartz then there's almost no chance for removing her from office, and if they remain supportive they are sending a clear message to Democratic lawmakers throughout the country: other than abortion, you don't have to worry about the plight of working women of this nation. By removing their support from Schwartz, Emily's List can also prove that they are not stupid about how the legal system works- i.e. Schwartz will not vote on judges who will uphold choice, she will not vote on the legality of Roe V. Wade, so you have to judge her on those things that she can actually effect. Schwartz' warm words of support do little to thaw the chill she casts upon the plight of women by selling them to the credit card companies.

If Emily's List cannot see how short-sighted their tactics are in this case, and how harmfull votes like Schwartz's are to the women of this nation, then why should I, or our actually progressive lawmakers, stand with them at all?

The question about Allyson's action on the bankruptcy bill needs to be not "let's get rid of her" or "who elected her," but instead how do we create accountability for her by changing the infrastructure of the progressive community?

I completely disagree. IMO the questions need to be:
1) how do we get rid of this formerly progressive, and currently soulless, member of our caucus?

2) what parts of the infrastructure are supporting her, thus hurting our chance to remove a working-class turncoat from our midst, and why?

3) if those parts of "our" infrastructure will not raise their heads from their single-issue hole in the sand, and evaluate not just a candidates stand on a single-issue, but their overall record of support for woman's rights, and their actual ability to effect change for their single-issue, then why should we take them seriously? Or more to the point, why should we stop calling out their idiocy in public?

Allyson Schwartz has shown herself to be an enemy, or at least not a friend, of the working men and, especially, women of this nation. She had her trip to DC and now it's time for both a pro-choice and "pro-working-class-and-poor women" candidate to represent Philly. But that's never going to happen so long as Emily's List and others pretend that only one issue effects the lives of those they represent.

The wedge in this case is Schwartz herself- remove her, or at least your explicit support for her, and you remove the wedge.

I think what a lof of people do not get is that there are some things that simply cannot be quantified, and control over your own body is one of them. It is almost too basic. But, the basic reason why, from my perspective, choice becomes

the issue is the basic concept that the government cannot be intruding into the bodies of women. It is just that simple.

That said, the problem with this statement:

NARAL/NOW/Emily's List/PP are groups that represent
men and women concerned with basic human rights:
health care, single-mother issues,education and
welfare.

is that by supporting someone like Allyson , and being her number one donor, they really bring questions to themselves as to whether that is anything but a slogan. The fact is that the bankruptcy bill will be devastating to Americans, and most accutely to mothers with medical problems. For someone like Allyson to vote for it, someone who used to be the goddamned director of Elizabeth Blackwell, that is simply disgusting. No better word for it: disgusting. She should be ashamed of her self.

I have said this before: The easiest job in the world is being a Congressman or Woman from Philly. Even with her semi-divided district, if she simply votes the Dem line, she will win every time. So, why then, would she sell out working women? And, if Emily's List continues to be her biggest supporter, doesn't that basically say, "well, you vote the right way on choice, so, you get the money," but ignore the fact that she voted for a bill that will subject poor, working and middle-class women around the country to pain and hardship? It is not like there was a clamor from the public for the bankruptcy bill. She simply saw an opportunity to make friends with the financial services industry, and she took it. But, if she will sell out on that, if she will vote to re-authorize the Patriot Act, etc., she still deserves our support, because she will vote against any abortion restrictions? To me, that is simply screwed up.

For starters, I think I would clarify that Human Rights is the center piece- abortion is a fundamental human right for women that must be upheld or there is no life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. In a nut shell isn't abortion the fight for freedom to do what we want with our own bodies? Isn't that essential to life, freedom and happiness? OUR OWN BODIES
Well, first of all I would say, no abortion is not essential to life, freedom and happiness, at least not to all people. You, and other pro-choice supporters, have cast this as the most important issue for all women, but nobody gave you permission to speak for all women. Why don't you go and find some of the single-mothers who are filing for bankruptcy because they or their child got ill and ask them if abortion is more important, as a fundamental human right, then health care, education, or a living-wage job. The fact is- nobody elected pro-choice groups to speak for all women, all over the country- they have anointed themselves. So when you say "OUR OWN BODIES" don't forget- you are talking for other women's bodies as well as yours, and they may not agree with you about the relative importance of abortion vis-a-vis these other fundamental issues facing women.

What is health care, bankruptcy for single mothers, quality education, equality in the workplace, etc? Choice is my answer.
What does this mean? Are you simply talking about the term "choice" or are you still talking about abortion? If you're talking about abortion, I have to ask you "Whhhhhaaaat?" I'm not sure how access to abortion is going to help the mother who can't pay for her child's diabetes medicine, or get them into a school where they can learn with diginity, or help her to find a job that can help her to both pay for the essentials of living and see her child grow up.

Allyson Schwartz and any other candidate's support of women's rights means they have the desire to uphold and protect human rights b/c that is what abortion is, it's a basic human right for women
But Schwartz shit all over another basic human right for women. Unlike abortion, debt is a historical moral issue that has been hotly debated and fought over since biblical times (see usury). And so you have decided, for all women (and men for that matter), that abortion is a more important right then every other right. Let me ask you- what was the count when abortion won the vote amongst women for most important issue? Seems to me if it really was the most important issue we'd have another president, by the name of John Kerry.

NARAL/NOW/Emily's List/PP are groups that represent men and women concerned with basic human rights: health care, single-mother issues, education and welfare.
That be nice, if it were true. NARAL, for example, supported that asshat Chafee in Rhode Island, and yeah he's a real stalwart of "health care, single-mother issues, education and welfare." Emily's Choice still supports Schwartz even though she just took a nice smelly dump all over those issues (as you can tell the fact that women can't get adequate health coverage is the reason for their bankruptcies).

I'll say it again-> By seeming to support those women who choose to abort over those that choose to have their child you are sending the message that abortion is more important than child rearing. If that's not what you want to do- then fine- stop supporting people like Schwartz who vote against the interests of single, working, mothers.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't feel that abortion isn't the most important issue. I'm not saying that Democrats shouldn't all caucus together and vote for judges who will uphold Roe V. Wade. I am saying that the tunnel vision that leads pro-choice groups to endorse people who are rhetorically good on choice, but who are horrible for the interests of poor and middle-class women across the nation, has got to end.