ON THE CUTTING EDGE: New Non-Partisan Group To Promote Women's Agenda

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 
Please direct all media inquiries to:

A Movement Is Born: The New Agenda
 
New Non-Partisan Group Formed To Promote Women's Agenda
 

August 11, 2008 --On Monday, 30 women from around the country who are leaders of various women's organizations or have worked as community activists came together in Westchester, NY, to found a group called The New Agenda, a non-partisan organization to advance women’s issues.   

 

"We will pool our talents and leverage already established 'friends of the family' organizations to launch a grass roots and grass tops effort to register women voters, organize a national 'get out the vote' effort around women’s issues," says Amy Siskind. "Our long-term goal is to cultivate and groom women to run for public office at all levels of government – including the presidency," adds Siskind, a former Wall Street executive who is active in Democratic politics and is a founding member of Together4US, which is supporting efforts to put Hillary Clinton's name on the ballot at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.  

 

"The first order of business for our group is to persuade candidates for the presidency, Senate and House to incorporate a number of women’s rights goals and policies into their platforms," says Siskind. These include: 

  • Mandating paid maternity leave; 
  • Ensuring that affordable healthcare is available to women and children; 
  • Passing the Fair Pay Act in the Senate; 
  • Helping women establish and run small businesses; 
  • Reducing domestic violence; 
  • Allocating 20 percent more party money to female candidates than to male candidates until the number of women elected to Congress is on par with their percentage of the population; and  
  • Strengthening FCC regulations to penalize content that denigrates women.  

"One women’s rights issue conspicuously missing from our list: abortion," Siskind points out, adding, "It’s not that The New Agenda doesn’t view choice as a central women’s issue, it’s that Roe v. Wade has been used a single defining issue to hold women voters hostage in the past. There are many other issues that are important and relevant to a broad spectrum of women."

  

The New Agenda also will look to hold men and women in the public eye accountable when they treat women with disrespect and are dismissive of issues important to them. "Although several names were put on a 'to do' list, Chris Matthews was our unanimous choice as the worst offender on women’s issues, therefore the first person on whom we will focus," says Siskind. 

 

Many of the women who attended The New Agenda's first meeting got to know each other as a result working with pro-Hillary groups. Attendees included founding members of such groups as Together4US, Party Unity My Ass (PUMA), IOwnMyVote,  Just Say No Deal and Vote Democracy ’08.

 

"This group is comprised of women who are "gravely concerned about the mistreatment of Hillary Clinton during the primary season, and the passion and emotion that resulted from Hillary’s mistreatment brought us together.," says Siskind.  

 

"There was enough brain power in that room to do just about anything. We are looking to help the women of our country, who often have no voice. We are hoping to make life better for women in all walks of life."

 

The New Agenda has already contacted representatives of the McCain and Obama campaigns to press its concerns.

 

"While we have had a much better dialogue with the McCain campaign, I believe both sides increasingly understand that the votes of women over the age of 40 will determine this race," says Siskind.

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments
Page: 1 of 2
  • August 13, 2008 alice1970 wrote:
    Nice to see this. Keep fighting, we need you.
    Reply to this
  • August 14, 2008 invisible_hand wrote:
    Women's rights are essential to america. but do you really think you will be serving the cause of women by working with an intensely anti-choice and anti-equal pay candidate like mccain??? Please work with the democratic party and not against it, as it's our only hope.
    Reply to this
    1. August 19, 2008 morninmist wrote:
      The Democratic party left me. They supported the Obama camps sexist strategy.


      No working within at this point.
      Reply to this
      1. August 26, 2008 Phyllis wrote:
        As a slightly older feminist who fought in the first wave with Gloria Steinem and Bela Abzug, I am so sorry to see this group turn away from some of our basic unifying principles. Seems you are 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' by voting for McCain. I too preferred Hillary, not just because she is a woman but because she is a qualified, deserving candidate with whom I agree on most issues. However, abandoning the Democratic party and refusing to try to effect change from within is self defeating. Republicans will never support the issues which are near and dear to my heart and the next Supreme Court Judge appointment is very likely to tip the balance in the wrong way.Even knowing some of the founders of this group it is hard for me to believe that it is not a Republican front.
        Reply to this
        1. August 31, 2008 lynn wrote:
          i think the new agenda group is brilliant. taking the polarizing roe v wade off the table and trying to effect change on multiple fronts. staying with the democratic party, as invisible hand asks, has got us into this mess. they take us for granted. and it cuts us off from half the power and half the women of this country, ie the republican party. McCain will listen to people he disagrees with and his selection of VP is already a great start. Of course she doesn't have all the same opinions as us, she's a republican. but women are allowed to have opinions that differ. I have also heard McCain will put many women in his cabinet. I believe it with all the top women in his campaign.
          Reply to this
        2. October 13, 2008 Ali Gal wrote:
          I wish I could sit with you to say face to face - abortion is a wedge issue for us. Choice is simply that. I trust in women. Or we'd be extinct. Roe v. Wade is law that isn't holding up to science and it leaves us, therefore, vulnerable. It served its purpose. And now we have a changed society so that even if the result was that we had a state by state law governing abortion, we could fight those in a concentrated way and we would be successful. There is no putting this genie back in the bottle. I would work tirelessly to make certain that women had the right to choose. NOW we have other issues before us and we cannot allow our progress to end. We need economic parity desperately. That alone empowers women more than any federal law - they will write the laws once empowered in greater numbers. Lastly, when we have 51% of the senate and house reflective of the society and women, they will also come with their liberal, moderate and conservative roots. Feminism isn't a liberals issue. It's a woman's issue. Having said that, please know, too, that I consider myself a liberal sans any apologies.
          Reply to this
  • August 15, 2008 mesofreee wrote:
    Where do I sign up?
    Reply to this
    1. August 15, 2008 The Stiletto wrote:
      I would start at Together4Us. The link to this group is included in the post.
      Reply to this
  • August 15, 2008 Christina wrote:
    ahaha. They have a much better dialogue with the mccain campaign because they are a pro-mccain group chock full of lobbyists! We all know how Obama feels about lobbyists.
    Reply to this
  • August 15, 2008 amyfemchick wrote:
    Come visit The New Agenda . We're birthing a new language in the movement for women's rights. We mean business!
    Reply to this
  • August 17, 2008 Kelly wrote:
    Oh my gosh!

    The goal to provide "affordable healthcare for women" will simply translate into another government program that will be inefficient, extremely expensive, and unlikely to solve more problems than it creates. And on a personal note, it will probably increase MY taxes, which I would rather use to save for my childrens' college funds.

    "Strengthening FCC regulations to penalize content that denigrates women" translates into greater curbs on free speech. As a Reservist, I took an oath to defend the Constitution. Please tell me where denigrating women is forbidden by the Constitution. I do see where free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution, however.

    The New Agenda seems to be willing to limit the freedom of others in order to accomplish its goals. I don't know enough about the Fair Pay Act to comment, but usually something that has the word fair in it (e.g. The Fairness Doctrine) is anything but fair.

    P.S. When a group needs to birth a new language, it usually means that everyday Americans with common sense won't go for its agenda otherwise.

    Reply to this
    1. August 17, 2008 The Stiletto wrote:
      What is exciting about The New Agenda – and indicates that these women mean business – is its refusal to use abortion as a litmus test for joining. Where you stand on abortion doesn’t necessarily define your position on, say, school choice, or whether the government should bail out homeowners who borrowed irresponsibly.

      The New Agenda will no doubt need to meet many more times to put some flesh on the bones of its policy goals. But as it is billing itself as non-partisan, don't immediately assume that "affordable” healthcare coverage means socialized medicine. Perhaps it means allowing people to shop for the best terms regardless of the state in which they live. Or maybe a offering a standardized core "menu" of preventive and catastrophic coverage, dropping such exotica as gender reassignment (for instance), so as to keep costs down for everyone. Keep an open mind.

      Passing the Fair Pay Act, may be as smart politically and economically as welfare reform. Because of pay disparity, polls show a majority of women support government entitlement programs that redistribute income from the "haves" (men) to the "have-nots" (women and children). Pay parity with men makes everyone a "have," and women will soon see that earning their own money – and paying lower taxes on their earnings – is much preferable to a government handout.

      Finally, as a regular reader of this blog you know The Stiletto disapproves of free speech restrictions - the First Amendment gives Chris Matthews the right to be a jackass (and he certainly does exercise his right!) - so she is waiting for more details on the use of the FCC to penalize misogynous content before commenting further.

      Reply to this
  • August 18, 2008 pat harding wrote:
    I concur with this writter. No system is perfect, but the Republican platform as it currently stands has no place in a women's movement.
    Reply to this
  • August 18, 2008 Ed Canell wrote:
    I feel a definite need for an organization such as this. I am just so damn sorry that it is predicated on the ilk of Hillary Clinton. I know one day if you are able to mainatin some semblence of integrity with this group you will provide the American voter a truly special candidate for the highest office in the land. There are many quality and qualified Ladies of distinction available. Please do not set your goals so low as to include any presently elkected official currently supposedly serving in elected office.
    Look out into the public spectrum and find some really well established and qualified person that isn't known and build them up so that all America can say, "She is the One."
    Just a few thoughts from a nobody of consequence...ED
    Reply to this
  • August 18, 2008 Marie wrote:
    Wearing heels shouldn't make you one Stiletto. Be honest. the real reason New Agenda won't take a position on choice is that its a Republican party front group trying to trick disgruntled Hillarites into dumping the reliably pro-choice Obama in favor of the fiercely right-to-lifer McCain. Beware of anybody, sisters, who says this election is not about our basic right to control our bodies. That hard won right has never been under greater threat. this outfit is trying to get us to cut our own throats out of some horribly misplaced loyalty to Hillary.
    Reply to this
    1. August 18, 2008 The Stiletto wrote:
      Marie & Deborah: The Stiletto doesn't know the identities of all 30 women who co-founded this group but the couple she knows have been very active in the Dem party and are heavy-hitter fund-raisers. Many of them met when they started or joined groups that were pressing to get a roll call vote at the convention. We're in the middle of a war, gas and food expenses are sky-high, home values and stock prices are in the gutter and abortion is not the only (or even the most important) issue on which a woman should base her vote. The New Agenda made a deliberate decision to take this wedge issue off the table to encourage women from across the political spectrum to join. The Stiletto thinks it was a smart move. When there's so much that can bring us together, why let abortion tear us apart?
      Reply to this
    2. August 21, 2008 Cathy in Texas wrote:
      Once again, this has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton, but with any other woman who runs for public office. We make up the biggest majority of voters, and believe me, we are NOT one issue voters. If roe v wade was your biggest concern, you should have voted for the woman who has fought for it for years, not Obama, who would not even stand up for his own position in the Saddleback Forum.
      Reply to this
  • August 18, 2008 Columbus Ohio wrote:
    Is the Cynthis Ruccia the same person who ran for office in Columbus, Ohio, and was a Mary Kay rep?
    Reply to this
  • August 18, 2008 Deborah wrote:
    I agree with you , this is a farce. A woman's group for McCain who probly thinks women should be seen and not heard, with his crude jokes. Read the one about RAPE. These groups really are an insult to 'REAL WOMAN" who deal with real issues every day, we don't have time for your HATE CRUSADE!
    Reply to this
  • August 18, 2008 George wrote:
    I find it interesting that this group calls itself non-partisan but sounds full of conservatives. Chris Mathews is nowhere as bad towards women as Rush. Sounds like a Wolf in sheeps clothing. Lets see what they say after talking to Obama.
    Reply to this
  • August 18, 2008 Lisa wrote:
    BRAVO! There is a wonderful article on AOL which is how I found out about this organization. Chris Matthews and other damning media has to have the whistle blown on them. Thank you for being that whistle!
    Reply to this
  • August 18, 2008 Jan wrote:
    Oh puleese..., a woman's website to protest the way Hillary was treated??? I agree that Chris Mathews denigrates women in that I watched him one night call a female author "a cute little thing." Regarding the Hillary part though, she's got a husband who doesn't treat her right and apparently she likes it that way. So please don't group or equate women's rights or a movement with anything resembling Hillary's failures.
    Reply to this
    1. August 19, 2008 libgrl wrote:
      Oh, it's Hillary's failures again, is it? Go to hell, because you are a part of the problem - a misogynist yourself.
      Reply to this
  • August 18, 2008 Jonathan C. wrote:
    I'm a man who supported Mrs. Clinton and I would like to say thanks for the good work and insights you are doing here. I agree with what was said about Chris Matthews, someone who claims Mr. Obama is his "messiah". No doubt the media coverage was extremely biased against Mrs. Clinton.

    Furthermore, I feel the comments made by Michael Pfleger a "catholic priest" who launched a slew of hate speech and insults against Mrs. Clinton at Mr. Obama's "church"/former "church" were sickening. The Cardinal to whom he repots should have ex-communicated him at once for such hate speech from a "church" pulpit, but I guess he brings alot of money into the church with such outrageous slander.

    Regards
    JC
    Reply to this
  • August 18, 2008 Deborah wrote:
    Yawn. We're in a war that is killing Iraqi women at numbers we're don't even know, because our military isn't keeping track of Iraqi deaths! We're killing the male kin of U.S. racial minority women in this war and in Afghanistan, where weddings are regularly bombed. We're using taxpayer money to feed these unnecessary wars. We're torturing people in dungeons and overturning the rule of law in the U.S.

    Our political system is broken, and this has everything to do with women's lives. The war, torture, lawlessness had better be "women's" issues or we're all in trouble.

    Anger at the way Clinton was portrayed in the media, when Clinton was not a victim but could give out as well as she could take, as if Clinton were a fifteen year old girl instead of an adult woman with lots of experience in political battles is girlish and not in a positive way. It shows a lack of maturity and a lack of curiosity about women who are not being misled by the media but who do not support Clinton for President.

    This agenda is not "bad" but just specific to a relatively small number of women in the U.S. and world wide. It has very little to do with the way most women in the world live--the abject poverty from which they suffer and by that I don't mean "feminization of poverty" in America; I mean not having shelter, medicine and vaccination from diseases that are able to be eradicated, living in local and regional economies that have been ravaged by the U.S. led World Bank and I.M.F., not having potable water, etc. etc.

    When I think of women's agendas, I think of Iraqi women refugees who cannot go home, who are stuck in camps between Iraq and Syria or Iraq and Jordan. I think of their loved ones dead, their lives destroyed by an occupying army that had no business being there in the first place.

    When I think of "women's" issues, I think of them first to better understand what needs to change "here."
    Reply to this
    1. August 21, 2008 Cathy in Texas wrote:
      Oh for G-d's sake, get over yourself. I am sick and tired of America being cast as the Great Evildoer by Americans. We have done more good for the world than any other country I can think of, maybe you should stew on that for awhile.
      Reply to this
    2. August 21, 2008 Sue wrote:
      Since Hillary was representing "women" as the first woman to ever be able to wage a presidential campaign to the end and end up in a statisical tie with the opponent, then every anti-woman slur cast against her was also made against the rest of us.

      Every.Single.Slur.

      Women of today who do not believe that need to do a little reading about women's history. Maybe do some of that consciousness-raising that we did in the 60's.
      Reply to this
  • August 19, 2008 papau wrote:
    If Hillary is not the VP choice, Obama will be revealed, again, as treating a comment - his unity call - as "just campaign talk" (remember Canada/NAFTA, Ms. Powers saying not to take seriously the out of Iraq in 16 months promise, the senior economic adviser stating to Kudlow on CNBC that Obama's social program promises carry no taxes and still do not increase the deficit because "we do not expect to pass them", Health reform now has become a "second term push, etc.).

    A Party that screams racism over comments prior to the SC primary that were not racist made by people that have given their life to fighting racism, screams racist so as to hurt the female candidate, while saying nothing about the overt sexism on the air on a daily basis, needs a wake up call more than it needs a win.

    And Obama selling end of choice fear, illogical as it obviously is with a forthcoming Democratic Controlled House and Senate, has an even more hollow ring when you note that it is "just campaign talk" by a man with no firm convictions that he has ever acted on, and indeed a man that has a record of changing those "convictions" to reflect the "reality" of corporate control of politics.
    Reply to this
  • August 19, 2008 renee wrote:
    Sign me up to The New Agenda. When is your next meeting?
    Reply to this
  • August 19, 2008 Dulcy Simmons wrote:
    I'm signing on. Rightly or wrongly, all the "great" women and orgs I thought I knew endorsed Obama. I won't/can't vote for him or any of the women Dems I thought I knew who couldn't wait to endorse him.
    I have nothing to lose here.

    Hillary as VP: Obama and his lazy thugs would eat (even someone as polished and savvy as she) her alive and take all the credit for her work. I want her in the Senate working for me and my kids.

    Reply to this
  • August 20, 2008 egalia wrote:
    Thank you! This is the change women have been waiting for!!
    Reply to this
  • August 20, 2008 RedSox04 wrote:
    You critics don't really get it, do you?

    Yes, the Republican Party sucks and is hostile to women's rights in general. That being said, the Democratic Party now takes women's votes for granted, and feels free to insult and debase women at will.

    So yes, the Democratic Party is marginally better than the Republican Party. But the only way that feminists will get traction and achieve real progress is to gain leverage, which they currently lack.

    Otherwise, we end up with more debacles like this election, where misogynists like Dean and Obama can feel free to get away with sexist crap constantly.

    Reply to this
    1. August 20, 2008 The Stiletto wrote:

      If you define women's rights solely by abortion, then the Repub party is definitely not for you.

      But if you define it by economic freedom - low taxes so you can keep more of your earnings to spend according to your needs or whims - then there's more to like.

      If the Repubs get on board with pay parity PLUS the low taxes it would be a huge boost to the economic power of women in the U.S. Each party has only half the solution, which is why a non-partison effort like The New Agenda is necessary.

      As for the second part of your statement, a couple of months back in this post "
      Obama Quits Trinity To Win; Hillary Won’t Quit Trying To Win " The Stiletto predicted:

      Hillary again reminded the superdelegates that at the close of primary season, neither she nor Obama will have clinched the nomination and that it falls to them to push the party past the impasse and towards victory in November: “I do not envy the decision you must make, but a decision has to be made.”

      But what the decision really boils down to is not whether to go with the candidate who has more delegates as opposed to the one who has more votes, but which voting bloc the party can safely get away with alienating, blacks or women. Women are making it clear that if they get shafted, they will make sure that the next time the party is on the horns of this particular dilemma everyone will remember the consequences of appeasing the wrong voting bloc in 2008.


      Blacks got sufferage 30 years before women did. Is history repeating itself? Dem women should seriously consider whether the party bosses are going to make sure that women have to wait another 30 years to get into the White House because they are afraid of losing the Black vote. But if they lose YOUR votes and McCain wins, the next time "history" won't repeat itself.


      Reply to this
  • August 20, 2008 Harriet wrote:
    I favor those goals that are not affirmative action and strongly oppose those that are. Why should a rich privileged woman be subsidized over a poor man? It will also make illegitimate our advances. Enough people called Hillary an affirmative action candidate.

    I also think paid maternity leave should be limited to the first 1 or 2 kids- 1) to have a chance of passing and 2) because subsidizing population growth is environmental suicide.

    I'd rather see a plank supporting family planning.

    Reply to this
  • August 20, 2008 Corinne Davis wrote:
    Where do I join this group. It is exactly what I have been missing.

    Corinne Ray Davis, Ph.D.

    Reply to this
    1. August 20, 2008 The Stiletto wrote:
      Anyone who wants to join The New Agenda should send an e-mail to: JoinTheNewAgenda@yahoo.com

      Supporters of Obama, Clinton, and McCain are all welcome.
      Reply to this
  • August 20, 2008 marindenver wrote:
    It is hard for me to believe that this is a legitimate organization. As a long time feminist (I'm 59) I would be interested in an organzation that focuses on women's issues in the political ring but I can't find any information about your organization as to who all these 30 founders are or what their credentials are. The only contacts listed are people affiliated with the PUMA organization (an organization that appears to live only for the purpose of attacking Barack Obama and making offensive racially charged comments about Michelle Obama) and the primary stated goal right now is to get Chris Matthews fired. If this group wants legitimate members it should set up a relevant website, indicate its organizational status (i.e. non-profit, 527 group, etc.) and give a complete listing of the founders and/or board members with their biographies and credentials. Otherwise I have to conclude that this is not a legitimate organization at all but just another PUMA offshoot.
    Reply to this
    1. August 21, 2008 The Stiletto wrote:
      A point of clarification: The Stiletto is unaffiliated with The New Agenda, PUMA - or with any media outlet or presidential campaign, for that matter. The Stiletto Blog is in the main a political news and opinion Web site, and The Stiletto had the opportunity to be among the first to publish a press release announcing the formation of The New Agenda and its goals. The long history many of the co-founders have in political activism and fund-raising for the Dem party makes the group newsworthy from the get-go, and The Stiletto will continue to cover its growth and progress.
      Reply to this
  • August 22, 2008 debra reynolds perri wrote:
    I just read about New Agenda in a column by Froma Harrop. I was thrilled to see that strong, powerful women are taking action against the disgraceful way in which Senator Hillary Clinton was treated. Chris Matthews' conduct was disgraceful. I am nearly 59 years old and have never voted for a Republican in my life but I see no way I will be able to vote for Senator Obama. I am a housewife who worked outside my home for many years - and I am an informed voter. We have been marginalized and treated with great disrespect. Senator Clinton has behaved with poise and grace - and would certainly have been much the better candidate and able to win in November. I am proud that women are banding together to take action.
    Reply to this
  • August 29, 2008 Diane Harper wrote:
    Electing McCain will undo 40 years of progress for full equal rights of women. The US Supreme Court has 4 liberal, 4 conservative and 1 swing, but often liberal, justices. Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed by President Ford, is 88 years old. McCain has promised to appoint a justice in the "mold of Justice Antonin Scalia." If McCain is elected kiss afordable health care good-bye. For women's rights, this is the most important election since I cast my first vote in 1964. Please, please don't let disappointment lead to John McCain's election as President.
    Reply to this
    1. August 29, 2008 The Stiletto wrote:
      John McCain just picked a woman to be his running mate. That woman could become president one day. As a feminist, The Stiletto values action over symbolism. So kudos to him!

      By the way, did you know that most spontaneous abortions (i.e. miscarriages) involve male fetuses because they are more prone to being non-viable? That means abortions of viable fetuses in later stages of pregnancy are more likely to be female. This saddens The Stiletto - so too the fact that infanticides around the world almost always involve girl babies. The Stiletto considers abortion a "gendercide" agains girls. You see, being a feminist doesn't automatically make one pro-abortion.   
      Reply to this
  • August 31, 2008 Mary wrote:
    Nobody is "pro-abortion" the canard of the religious right. The issue is of course whether one is pro-choice and believes that women have the right to control their bodies and make that decision. No "feminist" wants that most fundamental power taken away. Your comparison of infanticide to choice is false and offensive. There is no definition of feminism that allows misognyst men to force women to return to backstreet abortions.

    More evidence that this is a Republican Party front. I'm pro-choice and I vote, and it sure wont be for any ticket Sarah Palin is on. Your Stiletto is aimed at our backs, "sister."
    Reply to this
    1. August 31, 2008 The Stiletto wrote:
      You obviously did not read through the entire thread , so The Stiletto will again reiterate that this blog is not affiliated with The New Agenda in any way. This is an independent political news and opinion blog.

      Given that many of the co-founders of The New Agenda are heavy-hitter Dem fundraisers, the group is newsworthy – which is the reason  The Stiletto Blog published its press release, as well as articles by women who are affiliated with the group or who share its goals. The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets have also covered The New Agenda, by the way.

      The Stiletto is a feminist - but right of center politically, and you are obviously unaware that there are many socially conservative women who are also feminists. You just don't see us interviewed in the media. The co-founders of The New Agenda consciously decided to make the group non-partisan so as to emphasize what unites us – feminism – and not what divides us – abortion. Most women are not "single issue" voters, anyway, much as you'd like to believe that abortion trumps all other issues. For some women, maybe, but not all.

      The Stiletto shares common ground with the co-founders of The New Agenda that Hillary Clinton got the shaft by the Dem party leadership. She should have been the nominee, as she is definitely more experienced, and very likely more electable, than Barack Obama. It was The Stiletto's spirited protest of Hillary's place in history denied that brought us together in the first place.

      But if you choose not to check out The New Agenda because the co-founders reached out to The Stiletto so her readers would be included in the conversation then so be it. Your definition of sisterhood is different from The Stiletto's.

      Reply to this
    2. August 31, 2008 lynn wrote:
      Well I have a NOW card and get Ms mag- does that mean I'm a feminist? Abortion is not my top issue. I have long thought it should be looked at as the symptom and the goal should be to do away with the need for abortion. many pro-choice groups spend to much time on the fight for abortions, without spending time on reducing the factors that lead to unwanted pregnancy, IMO. And I knew catholics in college who felt they were feminists, but were pro-life and so felt pushed out of the women's movement. I think a bipartisan group is excellent.
      Reply to this
  • September 3, 2008 Atlanta Georgia wrote:
    When will women stop letting the male-dominated, liberal, scandal-seeking media attempt to define a woman's role in politics. Democrats are too scared of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin to ever want them to take control of anything other than a scripted news desk. It's time for this to stop!
    Reply to this
  • September 3, 2008 Mariana Mover wrote:
    Due respect to Hillary first. A bipartisan womens group is sorely needed. I left the democrat party when the women Bill Clinton harassed were trashed by dems and media. Most poignant was when the media presented Monica's high school teacher and his spouse as victims of Monica's home-wrecking havoc.
    Since when is the high school teacher ever the victim when he engages in intimate relations with a student?

    It was stunning. I left the democrat party. I resigned from all womens groups. I removed any blinders I had regarding the media, women, and left wing bias.

    I am pro-choice, pro-women, and I support the stated agenda for this group. I truly hope that your bipartisanship is honest.

    M. Mover

    Reply to this
  • September 3, 2008 Rachel wrote:
    I am certainly not a feminist. I would consider myself to be an Independant leaning on the side of the Republican Party definately concerning economic issues. This is a great forum for women to get their opinions out and be heard.

    I watched the DNC in its entirety and am in the process of watching the RNC. One thing I have noticed right away are the crowd chantings:

    DNC: "OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA!
    RNC: USA, USA, USA!

    Right there, my choice is made.

    Reply to this

Page: 1 of 2
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name (required)

 Email (will not be published) (required)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.