NOW is flat out lying. For the truth, see

http://www.newsweek.com/id/91755

The article says "It is true he voted present several times between 1997 and 2001. But it was part of a strategy designed by Planned Parenthood. Republicans in the Illinois Senate had repeatedly tried to pass bills restricting abortion. This put Democrats in a difficult position. They wanted to vote against the bills, but worried they would be smeared by Republican opponents for opposing legislation with names like "The Born Alive Infant Protection Act." So Obama and a group of Democrats and moderate Republicans cut a deal with Planned Parenthood. The politicians would vote present as a bloc. The bills wouldn't get enough votes, and the pols would have political cover. Everybody would win.

Pam Sutherland, president of Illinois Planned Parenthood, tells NEWSWEEK that the ploy was her idea: "Senator Obama was always a no vote in committee, but we had other Democrats, and a couple of Republicans, who were tired of having mailers sent out against them." Sutherland says Obama could have voted no without suffering any negative fallout, since he came from a very liberal Chicago district. But, she says, his participation in the deal helped give cover to his colleagues."

Lorna Howard, former president of NOW, a true Women's rights activist, and enthusiastic Hillary supporter worked on the Hillary campaign. She started to notice some very dirty tactics in both IA and NH. She quit in protest of the obvious swift-boating of a great Women's rights advocate in the senate.
Hear what she has to say.
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJ s

Obama is at the forefront on a Woman's right to choose. See his speech to planned parenthood in July.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUl99id2S vM

"The recent decisions handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States. The court presumes that a women's health is best protected by the court, not by doctors or by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong! Some people argue that the ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure. That is is not part of a concerted effort to steadily roll back the hard won rights of American women. That is also wrong!"

My typing doesnt do it justice. Please see the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUl99id2S vM

We want someone who will stand up for our rights. Not use it as a political wedge against someone who is fighting the Women's right with us.

Say no to dirty email by the Clinton Campaign. Women's rights should never be an attack tool.

There's more...

In the days and weeks leading up the elections, there's been a major shift toward pro-choice candidates. Voters in key heartland states are getting the message about where candidates stand on common-sense issues like support for women's health and safety - and it's clear they care.

In Ohio, anti-choice candidate Ken Blackwell (R), who said he would sign an abortion ban even more extreme than the one in South Dakota, trails pro-choice candidate Ted Strickland (D). In Wisconsin, pro-choice Gov. Jim Doyle (D) is running against Mark Green (R), who opposes providing emergency contraception to rape survivors. Doyle is the one thing standing between women's health and safety and a total abortion ban. This year Doyle vetoed seven anti-choice bills this legislative session, including a law that would have allowed concealed weapons into family planning clinics. Michigan's gubernatorial candidate, Dick DeVos (R), is trailing pro-choice Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) and running scared from his extreme views: in a televised debate, he insisted he would do nothing to change the state's current abortion law -- and yet the very next day said on a Catholic radio show that he supports a South Dakota-style ban.

Our supporters have been out on the streets, raising money, collecting signatures, and getting people in these key states excited to vote on election day. We all feel the momentum building, and we want to be ready for this pivotal moment in our country's history. We CAN advance an agenda that ensures the health and safety of women and families. But we can't get there without a plan.

We have to make it clear what we are for, not just what we are against. We will play offense, not defense, in exposing anti-choice groups and their political sponsors and making them explain their indefensible anti-family planning positions. We have to communicate common-sense values to the entire nation. We're striking a new deal between the pro-choice movement and legislators and policymakers. We will use the courts to broadcast our message.

Read more about our strategy and let us know what you think.

There's more...