Tuesday, EMILY’s List, an organization that advocates for abortion on demand and other ‘choice’ issues, endorsed Tarryl Clark. Minnesota Republican Party Chairman Tony Sutton issued this statement on Tarryl’s latest endorsement:

Today’s endorsement of Tarryl Clark by the far-left group EMILY’s List is yet another indication that Clark is out-of-touch with the families of the sixth congressional district. EMILY’s List only supports candidates who support the ‘right’ to partial-birth-abortions and oppose parental notification for minors. If Clark thinks her blatant disregard for human life will help her succeed on Election Day, she is greatly mistaken.

Normally, I cringe a little bit when I read the term out of touch because it frequently is used when more vivid descriptions can be used. This time, I wholeheartedly agree that Tarryl’s views on abortion are totally out-of-step with CD-6. In 2006, a writer for MSNBC called CD-6 “the Bible Belt of the North.” That’s an accurate description.

When President Bush campaigned in St. Cloud in 2004, he noted in his speech that Central Minnesota had a high Catholic population, which meant that this is a strong pro-life district. Just to give you an idea of just how pro-life Central Minnesota is, in 2004, Bush-Cheney defeated Kedwards by a 76,951-56534 margin in Benton, Stearns and Sherburne counties. That’s a 58 percent clip for Bush-Cheney ’04.

Here are the things you must espouse to get endorsed by EMILY’s List:

In Order To Receive An Endorsement From EMILY’s List, A Candidate Must Support The Right To A Partial Birth Abortion. “A candidate must meet three qualifications to be considered for an EMILY[‘]s List endorsement: back abortion rights, including the right to late-term (or ‘partial birth’) abortions; be a Democrat; and, in primary elections, be a woman.” (Thomas B. Edsall, “EMILY’s List Makes A Name For Itself,” The Washington Post, April 21, 2002)

The notion that this district will be voting for a staunchly pro-choice candidate isn’t realistic. In this district, EMILY’S List’s endorsement probably hurts Tarryl more than it helps.

I visited EMILY’S List’s candidate page. What it shows is that there are alot of female politicians who couldn’t find the mainstream of American politics if they had a GPS and an unlimited supply of gas for their car. I’m not certain that Barbara Boxer and Barb Mikulski have ever seen the mainstream of American politics, much less been part of it. Kirsten Gillibrand, Mary Jo Kilroy, Betsy Markey and Patty Murray are less liberal than Sens. Boxer and Mikulski but only marginally.

Ellen Malcolm’s recent post about the abortion fight in the health care bill tells us alot about EMILY’S List’s priorities:

If there ever was a case study for why we need more pro-choice Democratic women in Congress, it is the fiasco around abortion coverage in health care reform. Our elected women are the ones who fought long and hard to defeat the Stupak-Nelson forces in Congress. Sen. Ben Nelson made attempt after attempt to add versions of the Stupak provisions to the Senate bill, which would take away health care coverage of abortion for millions of women. A compromise ultimately was forged to preserve health care reform, but it is deeply flawed and the choice groups are working hard to improve it. Meanwhile Stupak and Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell continue to try and undo even this compromise and put in the Stupak language. It’s a sorry tale.

How infuriating that women are the political pawns for those who oppose health care reform and those who have their own religious agenda! Though my disgust with this process beckons me to drop away from politics, my anger rears up.

There’s absolutely no way this would have happened if half the members of the House and Senate were women.

As Joe Kennedy famously said, “Don’t get mad. Get even.”

Getting even at EMILY’s List means electing so many pro-choice Democratic women that it will be impossible to use women as political pawns; that there will be no doubt that health care policies will include full reproductive coverage; and that consensus building will replace grandstanding, posturing, and political temper tantrums.

On abortion rights issues, Tarryl would represent EMILY’S List’s priorities, not Central Minnesota’s priorities. A respectable case could at least be made that Tarryl would represent Central Minnesota when the various unions endorsed her. It wouldn’t be a strong argument but reasonable people could make a reasonable argument.

That isn’t the case with EMILY’S List. EMILY’S List’s agenda would attract marginal support in this district at best. This endorsement alone is all the justification church-going Catholic women will need to vote against Tarryl. The intensity over this issue is that strong in this district.

That’s why EMILY’S List’s endorsement might just be Tarryl’s kiss of death.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

8 Responses to “Is EMILY’S List’s Endorsement Tarryl’s Kiss Of Death?”

  • eric z. says:

    Sutton’s kissing the Pope’s ring these days? Your opening quote suggests it. The Roman Church has its fingerprints on the Stupak situation too, with the Catholic Bishops’ letter and all.

    How can a finite planet subsist when the population climbs via unplanned high birth rates in the developing world? How can that irresponsibility be curbed so that real, living, people can attain a fuller, better life.

    The resources are limited. Some folks need to wake up and get smart.

  • eric z. says:

    I think you gave the wrong candidate’s page. You gave the general one. The page there, on Clark, is this link:

    http://emilyslist.org/profiles/clark/

  • Gary Gross says:

    Eric, I don’t accept the premise that resources are limited. In fact, I’d argue that technology keeps expanding resources. In the 1970s, people said that we had a limited amount of recoverable oil. In the 1980s, a technological breakthrough was made that allowed deep sea drilling to be done at depths that no one though possible. With that single discovery, the world’s oil reserves more than doubled.

    People indeed need to get smart. Those people are the ones that say that (fill in the blank) can’t be done.

  • Eric – We are not talking about abortion in developing countries (nice straw man by the way)…we are talking about Abortion in America where over 90% of the abortions performed are done FOR CONVENIENCE!
    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

    LL

  • walter hanson says:

    Eric:

    We have laws that say a girl has to be sixteen to drive a car.

    We have laws that say a girl has to be eighteen to vote for a person like Clark.

    We have laws that say a girl has to be twenty-one to legally drink liquor.

    So how on Earth can you or Clark or Emily’s list not want to endorse a law that says a fifteen year old girl can get an abortion without their parents being told.

    Even if the parent approves the girl by having sex has risked getting aids for example?

    Or are you saying it’s okay for a fifteen year old girl to have sex to get aids?

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

  • Lee says:

    LL is right, convenience seems to come up in all the abortion coverage. It will ruin my career plans. But I’m going to school. I don’t want a baby with that guy. I’m too young. I didn’t know I could get pregnant. We were just messing around.

    If you don’t want a baby don’t have sex. If you get pregnant you had sex. If you are pregnant raise the baby and learn from your inconvenience.

  • walter hanson says:

    Lee lets not forget the choice of giving the child up for adoption. It’s a sure bet the adopting parents wants to raise and love that child.

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

Leave a Reply