WILLisms.com: The National Organization For Far-Left Women.

« Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 96 -- College Sports. | WILLisms.com | Iraq: What Might Have Been. »

The National Organization For Far-Left Women.

With a nomination for the Supreme Court looming, it is important to understand where groups are coming from, politically, when they make claims about whether a jurist is in the mainstream.

One left-wing activist group, the National Organization for Woman (NOW), wants to whip feminists into a frenzy over this issue.

Take a gander at the NOW webpage:

Clearly, it's NOW that is out of the mainstream. Let's take a look around NOW's homepage, shall we?

Exhibit #1:

On nearly every page on the NOW website, there is a "The Truth About George" button, which is really just an extensive personal attack against President Bush "and his cronies."

Oh, okay.

Exhibit #2:

NOW asserts:

"The right wing immediately seized upon [the gay marriage] issue to rally its ultra-conservative supporters."

But support for traditional marriage is not some kind of right wing issue. Opposition to gay marriage cuts across ideological and party lines.

Exhibit #3:

Rather than promoting crucial reform in Social Security, NOW demands adherence to the status quo. Typical left-wing dogma.

Exhibit #4:

NOW has joined the lunatic fringe on this issue. There's really no other way to put it. NOW accuses President Bush of "following in the footsteps of Richard Nixon and trying to steal the government," whatever that means.

Exhibit #5:

NOW has hopped on the "Wal-Mart is evil" train, boasting about its long-term "campaign to expose Wal-Mart as a "Merchant of Shame" and as a retailer whose greed for profits comes at the expense of women and people of color."

While it is not always the most pleasant shopping experience, the left's crusade against Wal-Mart borders on paranoid. Wal-Mart is worthy of occasional criticism, but the left's single-minded campaign against Wal-Mart is ideologically driven, not to mention intellectually dishonest.

Exhibit #6:

NOW complains about the Democratic Party establishment's recruitment of the otherwise liberal Robert P. Casey, Jr. to run in Pennsylvania against incumbent Republican Senator Rick Santorum.

Why?

Because he is pro-life.

Talk about a litmus test. No wonder it is becoming such a rarity to find a pro-life Democrat in the national party leadership.

And last, but certainly not least,
Exhibit #7:

Lives on the line, eh? NOW points to six examples, spread out across the 21st century, of women dying due to illegal abortions.

Well, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that, from 1972 to 2000, there have been at least 338 deaths induced by legal abortions, a small (relative to the number of abortions) but not insignificant number. Many pro-lifers believe the CDC number may be an underestimation.

Meanwhile, since Roe v. Wade, there have been well over 40,000,000 abortions (.pdf) in the United States.

And it's just not at all likely that replacing O'Connor with a pro-life Justice would lead to Roe v. Wade being overturned.

And even if Roe were overturned, the U.S. would not suddenly see an explosion of back-alley abortions. Indeed, as James Taranto argued in his December piece "Be Careful What You Wish For," overturning Roe v. Wade, "abortion would likely remain legal in much of the country, and the Democratic Party would find it has nothing to fear from democracy."

---------------------------

So who is responsible for NOW's ridiculousness?

Well, Kim Gandy is the President of NOW, and as a reward for her outrageously far-left record over the past four years, she was elected to a second term this weekend.

No wonder so few American women are willing to call themselves feminists. Whereas buddying up to feminist causes was once a way for college men to meet eligible and liberated women (if you catch my drift), today's campus feminist movement has devolved into a sad caricature of the worst feminist stereotypes.

Expect NOW to exclaim bloody murder unless President Bush's Supreme Court nominee is ardently pro-choice and left-wing (which obviously won't happen). Also expect NOW, lacking any political credibility, to lose its battle.

Posted by Will Franklin · 4 July 2005 01:25 AM

Comments

Dude, that's not Kim Gandy. That's Tom Hanks.

Posted by: Nathan at July 4, 2005 09:03 AM

Good one Nathan. Exactly what I was thinking that this was a promotion shot for Bosom Buddies.

Posted by: cranky at July 4, 2005 09:06 AM

I love Tom Hanks.

Posted by: Zsa Zsa at July 4, 2005 10:50 AM

Awesome post. I love the picture of Tom Hanks. It's very 80's, very retro, very frightening to children.

NOW is one of those 'action groups' that doesn't really scare me (as opposed to the DNC) because I think most women don't want to be associated with that kind of crazy, and men don't want women who hate men (as NOW folks do). I actually do love their indignant banner-waving marches. They're always good for a few laughs. Like lat year when Maxine Waters said, "I vote for abortion because my mother couldn't have one."

Mkay.

And those awful t-shirts they wore that said 'This is what a feminist looks like' and except for Ashley Judd, they were universally hideous hags. That's truth in advertising.

Posted by: RTG at July 4, 2005 02:42 PM

Is Kim Grady a woman?... She isn't a trans-gender person is she?

Posted by: Zsa Zsa at July 4, 2005 06:12 PM

Will Franklin of WILLisms.com once interviewed a woman who used to be a man for the League of Women Voters...I recall seeing that article. Very interesting!*****

Posted by: Zsa Zsa at July 5, 2005 05:46 AM

Why is NOW so preoccupied with abortion?... Abortion should not be a means of birth control... I have two friends who almost died after legal abortions! After Planned Parenthood took their money and gave them their abortion. They sent them on their way and they almost bled to death! For NOW to have those pictures of women who died because of illegal abortions is fine. BUT how many have died from legal abortions?... Birth control! NOT ABORTION!

Posted by: Zsa Zsa at July 5, 2005 06:05 AM

I, for one, am very distressed that Maxine Waters' mother wasn't allowed to have an abortion.

Posted by: Don at July 25, 2005 07:08 PM

So, in a period of almost 30 years, there were a total of 338 abortion-related deaths...

In a period of 8 years from 1991-1999, maternal pregnancy-related deaths numbered 4,200. Source: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5202a1.htm

I'm not a math major, but that works out to about 11 abortion-related deaths per year versus 5,250 pregnancy-related deaths per year... so while there are deaths related to abortion, carrying a pregnancy to full term is significantly riskier. To put it another way, roughly 500 women will die from pregnancy for every 1 who dies from an abortion.

This prolife website: http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=5&q=http://www.catholic.net/rcc/loveboth/chapter27.html&e=912 states that in 1966, the year before the first state decriminalized abortion, there were 120 deaths due to illegal abortions. Why does NOW only focus on 6 women over a course of several decades who have died due to illegal abortions? I imagine it has more to do with the impracticality of researching, tracking down friends and family, and getting bios in a web-friendly format for the hundreds of women who died pre-Roe.

Posted by: cat at August 8, 2005 07:00 PM

I'm ashamed to admit that I was a big supporter of NOW in the 70's & early 80's. Geez, even campaigned for ERA. Well, ok, Will has a point, it may have been related to "a way for college men to meet eligible and liberated women (if you catch my drift)", but still. I mean, I could've taught Alan Alda how to be sensitive! All that, of course, was before NOW was highjacked by the looney left and trans gender whatevers.

And I certainly agree with Don and am also very distressed that Maxine Waters' mother wasn't allowed to have an abortion.

NOW's call to boycott Wal-Mart is, of course, just their joining the NEA and other labor unions in support of the United Food and Commercial Workers union. The boycott is clearly a smear campaign hatched by the UFCW, which has been trying for years -- unsuccessfully -- to organize Wal-Mart employees.

So predictable.

Posted by: RPalmer at August 20, 2005 04:13 PM