Hi everyone! Thanks for joining us. Let's get started!

My experience as an elected official taught me that politics is about making choices. NARAL Pro-Choice America is the political leader of the pro-choice movement and our organization’s role is to galvanize pro-choice voters – men and women, Republican, Democratic, and Independent alike – to go to the polls this November and elect a pro-choice president. Both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton have mobilized millions of new voters, many who represent the next generation of our movement. We are facing a unique moment of opportunity with those individuals - and in order to reach them, educate them, and persuade them to join the pro-choice cause, we must speak to them now. To do so effectively, we must be for someone, not just against John McCain.

This is an historic election and we have often said that Americans have been fortunate to have two fully pro-choice candidates in the race for the Democratic nomination. Throughout this campaign, we have consistently praised both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton for their leadership in standing up for women’s reproductive rights, but only one candidate can advance to the general election. We believe that candidate is Sen. Obama.

NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC endorses fully pro-choice candidates regardless of gender or party affiliation. We understand that other organizations have specific criteria regarding gender or party affiliation as part of their endorsement process. They have endorsed Sen. Clinton in this race – many of them doing so before the first primaries.

We respect the decisions they make and would hope that our friends would respect the decisions we make.

We may disagree about who the front-runner is in the Democratic race; we may have endorsed different candidates; but the outcome we seek is the same: to put a pro-choice president in the White House in January 2009 who will begin on day one to repair the damage done by the Bush Administration to women’s reproductive rights.

Our collective long-term goal as a pro-choice movement must be to advance the cause.

We understand how emotional, excited, and passionate people are about the Democratic candidates in 2008. NARAL Pro-Choice America is a political organization. Our PAC endorses candidates.

Just so you know, it isn't new for NARAL to be involved in presidential endorsements. For example, in 2004, we endorsed John Kerry when it was apparent that he was going to be the nominee, even though there were other fully pro-choice candidates still in the race. In 2000, we endorsed Al Gore over Bill Bradley in February.

So this isn't anything new for our organization, and frankly, politics is what we do.

As president emeritus of NARAL Pro-Choice America, we don't work together on strategy, so I cannot speak to why she made her decision.

Valhalla, you tell me. Am I sounding like a PR machine? :)

Sen. Obama has been a strong advocate for a woman’s right to choose throughout his career in public service. Since joining the Senate in 2005, he has worked to unite Americans on both sides of this debate behind commonsense, common-ground ways to prevent unintended pregnancy.

He is an original cosponsor of the Prevention First Act, a package of proposals that would, among other things, provide teens with comprehensive sex education, prevent pharmacies from denying women access to their birth-control prescriptions, and increase access to family-planning services.

Sen. Obama is also a cosponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify the tenets of Roe v. Wade and protect the right to choose for future generations. And he is the author of legislation to fix the birth-control pricing crisis facing millions of low-income women across the country today.

The vast majority of voters still don’t know just how pro-choice Barack Obama is and how anti-choice John McCain has been during the quarter-century he has been in Washington, DC. Many voters who may be inclined to support McCain don’t know his positions on specific issues, particularly his consistent opposition to a woman’s right to choose. They believe instead that John McCain is a “moderate” and a “maverick” so assume he must be pro-choice.

Senator Obama needs an organization like ours to help close the identification gap with key voting constituencies before the fall campaign begins in earnest and people’s opinions are already formed about the two candidates. We can help ensure a pro-choice victory in November, but only if we act now.

Without a clear Democratic nominee, Sen. John McCain has been getting a free ride with the media, and a critical voting bloc that could very well swing the election: pro-choice Independent and Republican women. These women could very well make the difference between a pro-choice president in the White House and another four years of anti-choice policies from John McCain.

With our endorsement, John McCain’s free ride ends.

I think many people do equate being pro-choice as a "women's issue." NARAL Pro-Choice America does not endorse candidates based on gender or party affiliation. We believe that it will take men and women, people from all backgrounds - religions, races, ages - to join the choice movement to ensure that women's reproductive choices are always protected.

Access to birth control and condoms is as much a men's issue as a women's issue. It's about safe sex, preventing unintended pregnancy, preventing disease, and making sure we all have access to contraceptives.

We hope to receive their appreciation, but there was nothing offered or promised by the campaign or asked by NARAL Pro-Choice America for this endorsement.

Our decision to endorse Sen. Obama was made at this time because we believe, based on the current state of affairs in the race, that he will be the nominee who will face anti-choice John McCain in the fall. With so many voters for whom choice is an important issue not knowing that McCain is anti-choice, the time is now for us to define the differences between the pro-choice likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama and the anti-choice Republican nominee John McCain.

We have great respect for and have worked closely with Sen. Clinton over the years, and intend to do so in the future.

We are fully aware of Barack Obama's State Senate record. NARAL Pro-Choice America, like many other pro-choice organizaitons, endorsed Sen. Obama in 2004 during his run for the U.S. Senate.

I know that there have been charges leveled against Sen. Obama questioning why he voted 'present.' Planned Parenthood of Illinois confirmed that Sen. Obama's 'present' votes were part of a strategy they asked him to participate in for their overall strategy.

While he's been in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Obama voted pro-choice on parental notification laws like CIANA and also released a statement condemning the Federal Abortion Ban decision by the Supreme Court.

With respect to the 'so-called' born-alive bills, those bills were different from the federal bill, however, Sen. Obama has said he would have voted for the federal bill that passed the Senate unanimously.

Sandy, I understand that you're upset about our endorsement. That's fair.

Let me try to convince you again. Sen. Obama has brought nearly 2.5 million new voters into the democratic process. Additionally, historical numbers of Independent and Republican voters have changed their registation to support his candidacy. We need to start comparing and contrasting Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain with these voters TODAY to ensure they vote pro-choice in November.

They are already awake! We've already seen the attacks coming fast and furious against Sen. Obama, especially from right-wing anti-choicers attacking him because of his choice position.

We hope that our support of Sen. Obama makes clear how extreme McCain really is on choice - we know that Sen. Obama has a real opportunity to win over Independent and Republican voters, and choice can play a large role in attracting this constituency.

Yes. Jennifer, Sen. Obama leads overwhelmingly in the important markers leading to the nomination: pledged delegates, superdelegates, popular vote and cash on hand.

With only a handful of contests left before June 3, Sen. Obama needs fewer than 30% of the remaining delegates to win; Sen. Clinton needs to win more than 70%.

He is very likely going to be the Democratic nominee.

Hi Sue. Thanks for your great question. NARAL Pro-Choice America will be contacting pro-choice Independent and Republican women to encourage them to support Barack Obama against John McCain this fall.

We’ll educate them about Sen. McCain and contrast his anti-choice record to the fully pro-choice record of Sen. Obama. The sooner the better, since every day that goes by without this stark comparison, McCain continues the myth that he is moderate.

If you want to help spread the word, you can send this ecard to your friends and family: http://action.prochoiceamerica.org/site/Ecard?ecard_id=1421

Because of federal election law, the sole responsibility of federal endorsements rests with NARAL Pro-Choice America's PAC. Our affiliates weren't consulted because federal election law doesn't allow it. It's also important to remember that NARAL Pro-Choice America endorses federal candidates for office and the sole responsibility for endorsing state and local candidates rests with our affiliates.

So, if you're angry about our endorsement of Sen. Obama please make sure to contact us and let us know, but don't blame our affiliates.

Sue, in 2006 when we were facing an outright ban on abortion in South Dakota - one of the reddest states in the nation - Sen. Obama stood with us when very few others would. He spoke out against the ban and helped us raise the critical funds we needed to defeat the ban by a 12 point margin. Sen. Obama publicly helped us when the chips were down and women’s lives were at stake, literally.

I seem to remember that Sen. Clinton helped defeat the California parental notification ballot initiative that same year. She recorded robo calls, if I remember correctly.

Hi Rose Ann. As a political organization, we weigh a variety of considerations when we make an endorsement. Even after the West Virginia win, the numbers to win the delegate count were still out of reach.

As Beth said earlier, Sen. Obama leads overwhelmingly in the important markers leading to the nomination: pledged delegates, superdelegates, popular vote and cash on hand.

I believe that Sen. Obama is very likely going to be the Democratic nominee.

Lynne, not only do I THINK Obama can beat McCain, I KNOW Barack Obama is going to beat John McCain. Here's why: when voters find out just how extreme John McCain really is, there's no way they are going to support another 4 years of anti-choice craziness in the White House.

You might remember from our last web chat when I said that John McCain even votes against birth control. Now, do you really think women are going to vote for a guy who wants to take away birth control, give our kids unsafe ab-only programs in public schools, and eliminate birth control and cancer screenings for low-income women who rely on Title X?

Seriously??? This guy is too extreme for the mainstream. With a record like that, I have no doubt that Barack Obama will be our next president.

Absolutely. That's politics!

As a former elected official, I know that politics is about making choices... some of them that are really difficult. And no matter what decision you make, you have people that agree with you, and people who do not.

There are two things that come with political leadership: the courage to stand up and make the tough decisions and the knowledge that you did the right thing for women, this issue, and this country.

Nancy let you know about the backlash we received, but let me also say publicly to all the Obama supporters who have called, emailed, faxed, and blogged on our Blog for Choice site: THANK YOU!!!!

We have received literally hundreds of positive responses and we're so glad to have you with us.

Judy, you tell us: how we doin'?

Judith, the response that we've recieved from this endorsement has been mixed. We've lost some supporters, but we've gained some, too.

We've also seen folks linking to us and asking people to support us because of this endorsement.

Elizabeth, I hear you.

I know exactly how it feels when you support a candidate with your time, energy, and resources and at the end of the day, that candidate is not going to be the nominee.

I've been that candidate. I lost a congressional race and will never forget the morning my brother came into my house and hugged me and said, "I have a storm in my heart." Sen. Clinton has been a champion of reproductive choice her whole life and we are very appreciative. I trust women will come together in the fall in spite of their broken hearts and support Sen. Obama and ultimately support this issue.

Great! I'm going to let Beth take the last one.

Thanks, everyone, for the thoughtful questions!

Nancy, wow. Your question and remark really saddens me. I can't even begin to know why you'd risk putting someone like John McCain in the White House - a guy who could appoint two or more Supreme Court justices who most definitely would overturn Roe.

I can't even begin to know why you'd "take your chance" in the fall when you've got a guy like John McCain who thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

And finally, I don't understand all the hate.

I know you may not want to hear it now, but Sen. Obama is a candidate who will work tirelessly to defend a woman's right to choose when he becomes president. If this issue is at all important to you, I strongly urge you to reconsider and think about what's at stake in November.

Joan, thanks a million. It really does mean a lot to all of us here to hear from feminists and friends like you.

Thanks so much everyone for your great questions. You can continue the conversation at our blog, www.BlogforChoice.com. Keep in touch, keep the faith, and keep it real. :) On to November!

Hi everyone! Welcome to our web chat. I'm Elizabeth Shipp, Political Director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, but you can call me Beth.

Sen. McCain has been more upfront about his anti-choice views during this race than even President Bush was in either of his two presidential elections, by explicitly calling for the overturn of Roe v. Wade!

In a May 2005 article that ran in The New Yorker, Gary Bauer – a social conservative politician who endorsed McCain in his 2000 presidential bid – is quoted as saying, “I wanted a commitment from either George Bush or John McCain that if elected he would appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court... Bush said he had no litmus test, and his judges would be strict constructionists. But McCain, in private, assured me he would appoint pro-life judges.”

Along those lines, McCain has voted for a series of anti-choice justices including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts.

You can go here: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/mccain_fact_sheet.pdf to read more about his abysmal record.

Actually, McCain is not in favor of all pro-active birth control, based on his record. Not only is he absolutely anti-choice, this is a guy who voted to terminate Title X family-planning programs. Title X provides low-income women with birth control and cancer screenings. That's pretty pathetic.

John McCain has never supported any preventative legislation like the morning-after pill that would actually reduce the need for abortion, so I doubt he cares much about making morning-after pills available during the week, much less the weekend.

Thank you for the great question, Catharine. You are not alone in feeling confused by the two stories McCain weaves – one through his "moderate maverick" rhetoric and the other through his voting record.

But let me make it clear that John McCain is staunchly anti-choice, and has been throughout his tenure in Congress. Since coming to Washington in 1983, John McCain has voted anti-choice 125 times in 130 opportunities.

He has consistently voted anti-choice on legislation related to abortion, birth control, and sex education, and has never cosponsored or supported legislation that would prevent unintended pregnancy or reduce the need for abortion.

Lynn, I beg to differ that choice is not one of the most important issues facing our country today. For the last eight years, we have seen a woman's right to choose attacked by President Bush, his anti-choice cronies in Congress, and now at the Supreme Court, too.

A new president will likely have the opportunity to reverse the disastrous course Bush has taken with respect to judicial appointments, contraception, and safe, legal abortion. So many women across this country have no access to exercise their right to choose because of the policies put in place by this president. If John McCain is elected, we can expect the same, or worse.

I would argue that either Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama would be a much better president for women than John McCain.

Actually, in an interview with Tim Russert in 2000, McCain said he would support a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions. Mr. Russert asked him multiple times to confirm that he understood the question, and each time, McCain replied, “Yes, sir.”

So, I'm sorry to say, Marsha, that McCain's own words confirm he would support a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

Senators Obama and Clinton are both fully pro-choice and have been endorsed by NARAL Pro-Choice America in their previous races for U.S. Senate. You can access their records here:

Obama's record:
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html

Clinton's record:
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/clinton.html

Ann Coulter calling Hillary more conservative is like me calling Ann Coulter politically relevant – it just doesn't hold up to inspection.

The bottom line is this: McCain has voted anti-choice 125 out of 130 times on choice-related votes. He is neither a moderate nor a maverick when it comes to choice. And, you should know that Sens. Clinton and Obama are both fully pro-choice. Thanks, Eric.

Dan, what a great question. The prospects for electing more pro-choice candidates across the country looks very promising right now. We have a host of fully pro-choice candidates running for U.S. Senate, House, and, of course, the presidency.

In fact, I'm excited to say that we're seeing more pro-choice candidates this year than ever before. Maybe it's because candidates know that NARAL helped pro-choice candiates win several competitive seats in 2006 and contributed more than $550,000 to their campaigns. We're prepared to do even more this year to increase the number of pro-choice House and Senate members.

We're proud that our two most recent victories were in Illinois 14 with Bill Foster and Indiana 7 with Andre Carson. Both of these candidates won special elections and choice played a role in their victories. Expect to see even more pro-choice victories come November.

Hi Kathy. Thanks for bringing this up. The president has tremendous power and influence and can use the White House either to protect or undermine women’s freedom and privacy. For example, the president nominates Supreme Court justices, issues executive orders, and vetoes legislation.

The president also influences appropriations and nominates cabinet officers such as the U.S. Attorney General, who has the power to prosecute perpetrators of clinic violence, among other things.

We can't risk another 4 years on McCain, whose voting record makes him one of the most consistently anti-choice politicians in Congress.

Check out our Protect & Elect description to learn how we will work to elect more pro-choice leaders to Congress: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/about-protect-elect.html

Your guess is as good as mine, Wendy.

As far as I can tell, people are really buying into the image McCain has created for himself – the role of the “moderate maverick” who is willing to buck his party on certain issues.

Unfortunately for pro-choice Americans, “moderate” does not mean pro-choice when it comes to John McCain. Not only does he oppose legal abortion care, he’s even against commonsense prevention measures like birth control and sex education. And there’s nothing “moderate” about opposing birth control.

I'd say it's a tough one, Debra, but unfortunately for John McCain, his 25-year record is chock-full of not only anti-choice abortion votes, but anti-prevention votes, too. Just a few examples:

-Voted to terminate Title X family-planning program

-Voted to de-fund family-planning clinics nationwide

-Voted against insurance coverage for birth control

-Voted against medically accurate sex education

You can see McCain's full anti-choice record here:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/mccain.html

Hi Kirsten, I’d tell her these three important facts:

1) McCain has a 25-year record of voting against women’s freedom and privacy

2) McCain has voted anti-choice 125 times in 130 opportunities and

3) McCain has even gone so far as to call for the overturn of Roe v. Wade – something that even President Bush hasn’t done!

Then I’d direct her to www.MeetTheRealMcCain.com and tell her to read all about McCain and his anti-choice record and statements.

Well, Wendy, when it comes to emergency contraception, McCain has voted anti-choice. Period.

Here are two examples -- first, he opposed legislation that would have improved access to emergency contraception, as well as required insurance coverage of prescription birth control, and provided more women with prenatal health care.

Second, he voted against legislation that would have developed programs to increase awareness about emergency contraception, invested in insurance coverage of prescription birth control, promoted family-planning services, and implemented teen pregnancy prevention programs.

We're worried because we've heard that argument before. Remember George W. Bush? Voters didn't think he would pay much attention to choice, either. Wow. How wrong can you be?

NARAL is worried because John McCain has gone even further than George W. Bush did when he was running in 2000 and 2004. McCain has specifically called for the overturn of Roe v. Wade -- something even Bush didn't do when he was running for president.

In 2000, it's interesting to note that prominent anti-choice zealot Gary Bauer supported John McCain over George W. Bush. In an article published in the New Yorker in 2005, Bauer said he supported McCain over Bush because John McCain promised him that if elected he would appoint pro-life judges.

With the very real prospect that the next president will appoint additional Supreme Court justices, that scares the hell out of me.

Now you know why ALL of us should be worried.

Hi Barbara. McCain voted to confirm 4 anti‐choice U.S. Supreme Court nominees, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito (both nominated by President Bush) and Clarence Thomas.

All three voted to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, a law that criminalizes some abortion services, with no exception to protect a woman’s health, and carries up to a two‐year prison sentence for doctors!

McCain also voted to confirm six other anti-choice lower-court nominees, including Priscilla Owens and Charles Pickering.

I hope you spread the word about this kind of info to your friends.

Thanks for your question, Jeane. While it would be impossible to list out all of the 125 anti-choice votes McCain has cast anti-choice votes during this one-hour webchat, I can direct you to our 14-page profile on McCain which lists each bill and the accompanying bill number: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/mccain_fact_sheet.pdf.

But again, McCain has voted anti-choice 125 times in 130 opportunities! I know I’ve repeated that fact many times, but it's because I agree with you that it’s important that pro-choice Americans understand how anti-choice McCain really is.

Stephen, trust me, we do a lot of screaming here too when it comes to McCain's record and the pass the press is giving him. I mean, seriously, this is a guy who couldn't even answer a question about birth control and whether or not information about it should be offered to teens.

Here's the link to that story:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/

If you check out our site, www.MeetTheRealMcCain.com, you'll see our 14-page profile of John McCain and every anti-choice action he's taken.

You can write a letter to the editor; call into talk radio programs; tell your friends and family to take action, too. It will take all of us working together to hold the media accountable for accurately covering John McCain. Thanks for the question.

Hey Christina. We can’t be sure, and that’s why NARAL Pro-Choice America is working so hard to elect a pro-choice president!

Among his 125 anti-choice votes, McCain has voted to cut off funding for the Title X family-planning program, which provides low-income women with health care services ranging from birth control to breast-cancer screenings. He even supports disproven “abstinence-only” programs. We simply cannot trust McCain with our reproductive health care.

Wow. With so many fights on so many fronts, it's hard to say which one scares me more: an anti-choice president, an anti-choice majority in the House, or not having the 60 votes we need in the Senate to stop bad legislation and judicial nominees.

Unfortunately, the way the federal government works, all three of these scenarios are a threat to Roe. In 2008, we know that we need a pro-choice president to fix the damage done by George W. Bush. Likewise, we need more pro-choice House members to increase Speaker Pelosi's pro-choice numbers in the House. Finally, we simply must have a 60-vote majority in the U.S. Senate to put the brakes on potential anti-choice judicial nominees and senators like John McCain (who I'm confident will be back in the Senate in 2009) who consistently vote against women and their reproductive choices.

NARAL Pro-Choice America will be fighting on all three fronts this election cycle and hope you'll join us in that fight.

Kim, you and I seriously need to talk. :)

I know it may be hard to believe that anyone could be worse than George W. Bush, but John McCain IS worse. He's worse because he tries to hide behind the label of "moderate maverick." It always scares me when a politician tries to hide his record because he thinks voters will be duped into believing he is something he's not.

Let's be clear: John McCain is neither a moderate nor a maverick. He's just plain wrong.

Anna, I'm sorry to tell you that you may need to pull your kids out of public schools if John McCain is elected president. Just joking, but it really is that serious.

John McCain has voted against the entire Prevention First legislation. This includes voting against teen-pregnancy prevention, medically accurate sex education, and the ability for teens to access birth control and confidential health services. He fully supports abstinence-only policies that have been disproven and are many times factually inaccurate.

I point you back to the New York Times story I referenced earlier, where John McCain didn't even know where he stood on contraception, medically accurate sex ed, and abstinence-only programs.

Make sure to let your friends know that their kids and yours deserve better than a John McCain presidency.

Katie, I agree with you that voters are fed up with President Bush and most Republicans in Congress. However, that's not to say we shouldn't be worried about McCain's chances in this election.

We've seen Independent voters supporting McCain in primaries and caucuses across the country. The longer the Democratic race goes on, the more time John McCain has to make his case to these Independent voters without having to answer to a Democratic nominee.

NARAL Pro-Choice America knows that the eventual Democratic nominee for president needs these Independent voters, as well as pro-choice Republican voters, to win in the fall. We're focusing on McCain now so that his appeal to these voters will not go unanswered.

Oh, hell to the no! :)

McCain said on January 30, 2000 that he supported a constitutional amendment banning abortion. He said so on Meet the Press when Tim Russert asked him if he supported such an amendment. Russert went even further to ask if he understood that before Roe v. Wade, hundreds of thousands of women were forced to undergo unsafe abortion procedures. McCain's response? "I understand." And when Russert informed him that many women died because abortion was illegal, McCain again said, "I understand."

Finally, Russert asked, "And here you are, want to bring that back." McCain answered, "perhaps."

So he's never really straddled this issue. He always has been, and always will be, anti-choice.

Great, I will take one more.

Jenny, NARAL Pro-Choice America has not yet endorsed a candidate for president. We are fortunate that we have two fully pro-choice candidates running. Both Senators Clinton and Obama would protect and defend a woman's right to choose, if elected president.

We think that our political power is best used going after John McCain instead of choosing between two exceptional pro-choice candidates.

That was quick! Thanks, everyone, for joining us today -- can you tell how much I love talking about just how bad John McCain is?

You can find additional information about McCain and his record at www.MeetTheRealMcCain.com. Thanks again for joining us.

All the best,

Beth

Hey, Nancy here! Welcome to our first web chat! I hope you are as excited as I am to talk about choice in America. Who has the first question?

In the case of the Federal Abortion ban, it doesn't matter if you live in a “red” or ”blue" state because federal law, decided by U.S. Supreme Court Justices, who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, trumps state law.

So with that in mind, the best thing you can do is: 1) continue to write/call/email all of your lawmakers, both state and federal, and let them know that the pro-choice majority is not a silent majority; and 2) work to ensure that we elect a pro-choice president and pro-choice leaders up and down the ticket in 2008! After all, it was Bush who put far-right conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito onto the Supreme Court and succeeded in stacking many lower federal courts with judges who are determined to roll back our reproductive rights.

The rights protected under Roe v. Wade are too important to take for granted. Let's take the Federal Abortion Ban decision as an example. Seven years ago, the Court struck down a similar state ban as unconstitutional. What changed? Bush appointee Samuel Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor and cast the decisive fifth vote upholding this ban. If another pro-choice justice retires, then there's an opening for the fifth anti-Roe vote on the Court. It's just that close.

Hi Lori...good question. Unfortunately, the Federal Abortion Ban has NO exception for a woman's health. That's one of the reasons why we are so concerned about this decision.

Yes, since the Supreme Court has upheld the Federal Abortion Ban, anti-choice politicians throughout the country are already viewing this decision as a “green light" to interfere further in personal, private medical decisions. Keep in mind that Bush has appointed several anti-choice judges to lower-level federal courts, so the atmosphere is ripe for anti-choice groups to use the courts to challenge Roe.

Yes, the ban is in effect nationwide. In fact, since federal law trumps state law, even so-called blue states will have to abide by the ban.

First of all, congratulations on your pregnancy! I hope everything goes well for you and your husband.

The Federal Abortion ban could apply to second-trimester pregnancies and doesn’t include an exception to protect a woman’s health, but it does provide an exception if a woman’s life is in danger. It’s important to remember that if a doctor concludes that the safest possible care for his or her patient is this outlawed procedure, he or she cannot perform it without risking up to two years in jail unless a woman’s life was at stake.

The Federal Abortion Ban outlaws a safe abortion method used in the second trimester. This is the first time ever that Congress has enacted a law of this kind.

Unfortunately, the law doesn't have an exception to protect a woman's health.

A doctor who violates the ban could go to federal prison for up to two years.

We expect most of the attacks on Roe to happen in the states, in the form of anti-choice legislation that lawmakers will want hope to use to challenge roe before the Supreme Court. We are very concerned about everything from bans on other safe abortion procedures, to bills (of which we've already seen some) to force a woman to view an ultrasound prior to having an abortion, to new types of biased counseling, to outright bans on abortion. (This year alone, two states enacted near-total abortion bans that would take effect if Roe falls.)

The single biggest threat to Roe, however, is if there is a vacancy on the Court, particularly a seat held by a pro- or mixed-choice justice, and an anti-choice president is allowed to fill that spot. We are likely, at best, one vote away from Roe being overturned. Another Justice, like those Bush has appointed, could provide that critical vote to overturn Roe.

Good question, Alicia.

The Bush Justice Department will enforce this law. Be afraid!

We can't be entirely sure, but currently there are 14 states with fully anti-choice state governments – this means that their legislature and governor are solidly opposed to a woman's right to choose. Several more states have anti-choice legislatures, with only a pro-choice governor preventing anti-choice bills from becoming law.

Still – the bigger question remains: Should a woman’s right to choose be determined by which state she lives?

There are a number of potential anti-choice bills that can be introduced in the hopes that they are challenged and taken to the Courts. NARAL Pro-Choice America tracks all bills, and we have already seen everything from bans on other safe abortion procedures, to bills that would force a woman to view an ultrasound prior to an abortion, to outright bans on abortion care in any circumstance… and unfortunately, the list goes on.

Hello, Susan.

Roe v. Wade was a compromise. It balances a woman's right to choose with the state's interest in potential life.

In the early stages of pregnancy, a woman should have the right to choose without government interference. The Federal Abortion Ban takes away a safe option for some women in these circumstances.

Consistent with Roe, we do not oppose bans on abortion after viability, as long as they protect a woman's health and life.

In fact, most states already outlaw post-viability abortion.

Yes. The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would effectively repeal the Bush-backed Federal Abortion Ban and other federal restrictions. Contacting your member of Congress to ask them to cosponsor FOCA is crucial. In addition, we will continue working with pro-choice leaders to advance measures that improve access to family planning and support honest and traditional sex education.

Well, they could do what they already tried once: to rifle through women's private medical records.

Yes. There are some legal technicalities involved, but the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would effectively repeal the Federal Abortion Ban and other federal restrictions on abortion care, as well as codify the protections of Roe nationwide. That is why it is so very important to contact your members of Congress and ask them to support FOCA (202.224.3121)!

Thanks for the opportunity to plug our website! Please go to www.ProChoiceAmerica.org/elections, where you will find quotes, voting records, and lots of information about every presidential candidate's position on choice.

On FOCA, our first task is to get as many cosponsors as possible. We made gains in the 2006 elections, but unfortunately anti-choice lawmakers still outnumber pro-choice ones in Congress. On your second question: one of the things we're known for is our relations with key members of Congress. We are in constant contact with offices on the issues you mention, among many others.

Well, gee; you are clearly a NARAL Pro-Choice America supporter, aren't you? Yes, I'm pleased to say that there are some lawmakers on the Hill (in Congress) who disagree with us on abortion but agree with us on some common-ground issues. The Prevention First Act is a bill that clearly bridges the pro-choice/pro-life divide.

Sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – who opposes legal abortion – and pro-choice Rep. Louise Slaughter, this bill is a thoughtful package of services to help women and couples prevent unintended pregnancy. Another example is Rep. Michael Michaud of Maine – a lawmaker who, despite differences with us on abortion, is willing to work on prevention.

In addition to NARAL Pro-Choice America's work defending a woman's right to safe and legal abortion, we also aggressively advocate for policies that help women prevent unintended pregnancies. Unfortunately, many anti-choice lawmakers resist these efforts, exposing their hypocrisy as well as their extremism.

If we want to reduce the need for abortion in this country, we need to address the number of unintended pregnancies. Making abortion dangerous or more difficult is not the answer.

Please visit www.ProChoiceAmerica.org/issues/preventionfirst to learn more about our campaign for prevention programs.

We definitely need volunteers like you! In light of the recent Federal Abortion Ban decision, the two most important things to do are to contact your members of Congress and ask them to cosponsor the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) (202.224.3121). As I mentioned earlier, FOCA would codify Roe v. Wade’s protections into federal law, guaranteeing the right to choose for generations to come.

The second thing you can do is work with NARAL Pro-Choice America to elect pro-choice candidates, and protect the ones already in office. Elections matter, as we see in the Federal Abortion Ban decision, and we need a pro-choice president in the White House and even more pro-choice leaders in Congress.

Also, if you haven’t already, please join our Choice Action Network (CAN) [just click here http://prochoiceaction.org/can/join.tcl] and make sure you get up-to-the-minute updates on what is going on in Congress and in your state legislature.

Leila: It would be a great day if choice were secured for all American women. Unfortunately, as the saying goes, if you ignore your rights, they will go away. We've got to stay informed and vigilant against constant attacks in Congress and state legislatures. Thanks for your work and keep it up!

It's been great talking to you today. Thank you for taking time out of your day to join me.

Your questions and insights will help us as we move forward in protecting a woman's right to choose. I look forward to our next chat and in the meantime please check our website, www.ProChoiceAmerica.org for updates about our work and opportunities for you to take action.