More negative reaction to NARAL

In the wake of condemnations of NARAL's endorsement of Barack Obama by supporters of Hillary Clinton, some of the group's state organizations weigh in.

By Alex Koppelman
May 15, 2008 6:17PM (UTC)
main article image

On Wednesday, NARAL Pro-Choice America's political action committee endorsed Barack Obama. It wasn't, ultimately, the most prominent announcement of the day -- John Edwards stole that spotlight -- but it's proving to be the controversial one. Following the endorsement, some supporters of Hillary Clinton's publicly condemned the group's decision. Now, there's dissension within NARAL's own ranks as well.

The Washington Post's Garance Franke-Ruta reports on several NARAL state affiliates that have come out publicly against the endorsement and stated their desire to remain neutral in the Democratic race:

Since yesterday's announcement, NARAL groups in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Oregon, Washington, Texas and New York -- Clinton's home state -- have issued statements signaling their continued neutrality in the Democratic race and emphasizing that the national group did not speak for them on this matter. These groups represent nearly a quarter of NARAL's state chapters ...

NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri felt so strongly about staying neutral its president recorded a robocall in the wake of the announcement, which the group then sent to 8,500 households emphasizing its neutrality.

According to a statement released by NARAL Pro-Choice New York, the endorsement decision "was made internally by NARAL Pro-Choice America, based in Washington D.C., and without the consultation of the NARAL state affiliates across the country."

Alex Koppelman

Alex Koppelman is a staff writer for Salon.

MORE FROM Alex Koppelman

Related Topics ------------------------------------------

2008 Elections Barack Obama Hillary Rodham Clinton War Room