naral_prevention_first_report

1
2
3
PEOPLE, POLITICS, AND POLICY
THREE WAYS TO WIN WITH PREVENTION FIRST
1156 15th Street, NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
202.973.3000
ALLIED PRINTING
TRADESTRADES COUNCILCOUNCIL
WASHINGTON
UNIONUNION
LABELLABEL
WAYS TO WIN WITH PREVENTION FIRST
36349mvpR2_cover:36349p001_24.ps 8/15/08 9:52 AM Page 1

MORE ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION
Ted Miller, communications director, served as this report’s principal writer in consultation with staff
members from across the organization and with the support and guidance of Nancy Keenan, president
of NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation. State affiliates and external groups provided insight and
valuable information. We also appreciate the work and creativity of our designer, Freedom by Design,
and the generous financial support of the Summit Fund of Washington.
This report is strictly informational and does not constitute legal services or representation,
and NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation hereby specifically disclaims any liability for
loss incurred as a consequence of the use of any material in this report.
PEOPLE
POLITICS
POLICY
36349mvpR2_cover:36349p001_24.ps 8/15/08 9:52 AM Page 2

THREE WAYS TO WIN WITH PREVENTION FIRST
Winning with Prevention First p. 4
A. Addressing the Challenge
B. Expanding the Debate
C. Going on the Offense
MOVING A PROACTIVE MESSAGE p. 6
Putting the Proactive Pieces Together p. 7
A. Identifying Key Audiences
B. Connecting with People
C. Developing Proactive Policy
FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST CONTRACEPTION p. 10
Changing Washington: Why Elections Matter p. 12
A. Finding Common Ground
B. Fighting Anti-Choice Attacks in a New Way
C. Electing Pro-Choice Candidates
to Put Prevention First
D. Winning in Tough Territory
E. Changing the Debate in a New Congress
WINNING A BATTLE WITH WAL-MART p. 18
Succeeding in the States p. 19
INSPIRING PEOPLE TO TAKE ACTION p. 22
Moving Forward p. 24
A. Assessing the Landscape
B. Working with Diverse Partners
C. Building a New Generation of Activists
D. Strengthening Relations with
Key Political Audiences
E. Addressing the Moral Complexity of Choice
F. Conclusion
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Our gratitude goes to The
Summit Fund of Washington for
making this publication possible.
The Prevention First initiative
reflects an organization-wide
commitment to advancing a
proactive pro-choice agenda.
We thank our donors,
members, and activists, whose
financial support and willingness
to act on their values made
this progress possible.
We thank our state affiliates
and their partners for inspiring
Americans across the country.
We salute the members
of Congress who embraced
Prevention First and continue
to work to advance measures
to improve women’s
health-care options.
We thank Lake Research
Partners, GMMB, Greenberg
Quinlan Rosner, DonorDigital,
M+R Strategies, Mission Control,
and other firms whose creativity
made so many Prevention First
advancements possible.
CONTENTS
36349mvpR4_text:36349p001_24r1 8/22/08 11:38 PM Page 3

ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGE
In December 2004, NARAL Pro-Choice America
and the entire pro-choice progressive community
faced significant challenges on a number of fronts.
President George W. Bush had just won reelection,
as did many other anti-choice politicians in
Congress and in the states.
At the time, talk-show pundits, members of
the political establishment, and others quoted
in analyses of the election results cited the
choice issue as a primary reason for these
electoral setbacks. One story began this way:
“In interviews and public appearances since
Election Day, Democratic officials have said
that the party should open its doors to
abortion opponents and that candidates
should make abortion a less central focus
of future campaigns.”1
It didn’t matter that independent polls disputed
these claims. It didn’t matter that voters of many
religious backgrounds, particularly Catholics,
consistently backed pro-choice candidates. In
the political universe, perception often trumps
the facts—and the idea among some that the
Democratic Party had to temper its support for
abortion rights or run away from the issue was
something NARAL Pro-Choice America, as the
political leader of the pro-choice movement,
had to address head-on. After the 2004 elections,
Nancy Keenan joined the organization as
president. Prior to that, Keenan had spent
nearly two decades as a pro-choice elected
official in her native state of Montana. She
had won statewide elections three times
as the superintendent of public instruction
and ran a competitive race for Congress in 2000.
Arriving as the organization faced numerous
post-election challenges, Keenan brought the
experience of a successful pro-choice elected
official from a so-called “red state.” From the outset,
Keenan said that the time had come for a change
in the tone of the debate over reproductive rights,
and that NARAL Pro-Choice America would marshal
its resources—the power of people, policy expertise,
and political acumen—to lead the charge.
EXPANDING THE DEBATE
In 1994, as NARAL Pro-Choice America celebrated
its 25th anniversary, we expanded our mission to
include reducing unintended pregnancy, promoting
age-appropriate sex education, and improving
access to contraception and prenatal care. This
expanded mission made clear that we support
all reproductive decisions women face, and places
the right to legal abortion properly in that context.
NARAL Pro-Choice America, our state affiliates,
and our member activists acted on these values,
devising proactive legislative initiatives and
identifying opportunities for advancement.
However, the political environment in Washington
and many state capitals made progress very
challenging. Anti-choice lawmakers used abortion
as a wedge issue, ignoring efforts to improve
women’s access to contraception. Anti-choice
lawmakers took vote after vote to roll back
women’s access to safe, legal abortion.
With control of the legislative process comes control
of the dialogue, and the divisiveness of the choice
THE TIME HAD
COME FOR A
CHANGE IN THE
TONE OF THE
DEBATE OVER
REPRODUCTIVE
RIGHTS.
PEOPLE, POLITICS, AND POLICY THREE WAYS TO WIN WITH PREVENTION FIRST
I. WINNING WITH PREVENTION FIRST
NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation
4

WINNING WITH PREVENTION FIRST
5
debate caused many Americans to refuse to engage
on issues related to women’s freedom and privacy.
This publication examines how NARAL Pro-Choice
America shifted its strategy and incorporated
a proactive approach into all aspects of its
work, including message development, policy
advocacy, electoral efforts, and grassroots
organizing. It also will chart the next steps
in NARAL Pro-Choice America’s quest to
continue to go on the offense.
GOING ON THE OFFENSE
In February 2005, NARAL Pro-Choice America
issued a challenge to President Bush and
“right-to-life” organizations. In an open letter
published as an ad in the conservative The Weekly
Standard publication, we issued a simple call to
action: if you’re serious about preventing the
need for abortion, then join us in helping to
reduce the number of unintended pregnancies.
Based upon the pro-choice movement’s tradition
of connecting with the values of the American
public, we then organized a “Heartland Tour,”
meeting and talking with our state-based affiliates,
pro-choice officeholders, and activists in states
such as Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas,
and Washington. NARAL Pro-Choice Texas
hosted a meeting with pro-choice legislators, as
well as a gathering with pro-choice students from
the University of Texas at a campus pizza joint.
Other affiliates hosted roundtable discussions
with coalition partners and health-care providers.
In these meetings, one consistent theme rang true:
pro-choice activists and lawmakers felt they had
been debating the choice issue according to
the terms of the anti-choice side. They were
looking for a new direction, one that emphasized
a positive affirmation of their pro-choice values.
Focus groups with individuals who are part
of our email action network confirmed that
the pro-choice base was receptive to a
new direction.
JOIN US IN HELPING
TO REDUCE THE
NUMBER OF
UNINTENDED
PREGNANCIES.

The American Prospect described this approach
to the debate on choice as “a cunning strategy”
that allows “pro-choice advocates to define the
terms of the debate.”
Jodi Enda, “The Women’s Views, The Pro-Choice
Movement Has Seen Moral Complexity as it’s
Enemy. But Moral Complexity is Exactly Why
Choice Must be Saved.” American Prospect.
April 1, 2005
“[P]ro-choice leaders like Keenan, who is at
once forthright and politically savvy, are honing
a message about American values of personal
responsibility, freedom, and privacy. It’s a new
stance and a realistic one.”
Laura Berman, “Michigan Rally Shows Abortion
Rights Camp Faces an Uphill Battle.” Detroit
News, April 25, 2006
“Indeed, the timing is perfect for a challenge
to anti-abortion groups: If you want to decrease
the number of abortions in this country, join
us in a high-profile campaign to increase
contraceptive use.”
Cynthia Tucker, “Contraception
The Best Truce in Abortion War.” Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, January 22, 2006
“After years of playing defense, NARAL
Pro-Choice America has gone on the offense.”
Ellen Goodman, “Prosecution or Prevention?”
Washington Post Writers Group, March 16, 2005
“[P]ro-choice abortion activists [are] getting
smarter about their strategy.”
Andrew Sullivan, “The Case For Compromise
on Abortion: How The Pro-Choice Side is
Wielding a Principle That’s Tough to Argue
With.” TIME, March 7, 2005
MOVING A PROACTIVE MESSAGE
MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA HAVE NOTICED PREVENTION FIRST
AND NARAL PRO-CHOICE AMERICA’S LEADERSHIP.
Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-Mich.) speaks
out in support of prevention policies at a
Statehouse rally.

IDENTIFYING KEY AUDIENCES
Boards
The boards of directors of NARAL Pro-Choice America
and NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation set
the visionary direction for the organization. In addition
to their commitment to protecting choice, board
members also expected to see a proactive agenda
that would work within the current political climate.
Affiliate Network
Although independent entities, the state affiliates
work in partnership with the national office in all areas
of their work, from organizing to fundraising to
message development to electoral campaigns.
Any national initiative would require their
involvement, since each affiliate operates in a
different political environment. The national
organization and other affiliates benefit from the
lessons learned advancing pro-choice initiatives
or fighting anti-choice attacks in the states.
Pro-Choice Activists
NARAL Pro-Choice America has invested in our
Choice Action Network, a corps of more than one
million committed volunteers in all 50 states. Like
many progressive activists after the 2004 election,
the pro-choice base was dismayed at the prospect
of another four years of a Bush administration
and a Congress under anti-choice control.
Coalition Partners
NARAL Pro-Choice America works in partnership with
a wide range of reproductive rights organizations
that specialize in health-care services, litigation,
lobbying, and research. Our collaboration with
these partners is a key part of any proactive strategy.
Political Establishment
This audience includes the media, namely
political pundits and commentators, and
influential individuals on whom the media rely
for sources on how issues are faring in the political
environment. Informal and formal surveys showed
that this group wanted to see a shift in the
pro-choice community; not a change in values
or principles, but a new way of articulating them.
The wear and tear of the divisive anti-choice
battles had taken their toll on this audience.
CONNECTING WITH PEOPLE
Like many political advocacy organizations, NARAL
Pro-Choice America conducts research to develop
the best way to communicate our values.
In 2005, NARAL Pro-Choice America’s research
showed strong and broad support from the
American public for a values-based pro-choice
message that focuses on promoting prevention
policies, like access to birth control, family-
planning services, and comprehensive sex
education. We developed the commonsense,
common-ground Prevention First framework
as a counter to President Bush’s anti-choice
“culture of life” message. The public supports
prevention policies over the anti-choice rhetoric
by a 61- to 27-percent margin, and prevention
attracts support even from self-identified
“pro-life” voters.2
These findings encouraged NARAL Pro-Choice
America and our affiliate network to move forward
with a plan to transform the terms of the debate
by expanding the conversation to include all
II. PUTTING THE PROACTIVE PIECES TOGETHER
7
RESEARCH SHOWED
STRONG SUPPORT
FOR A VALUES-
BASED PRO-CHOICE
MESSAGE THAT
FOCUSES ON
PROMOTING
PREVENTION
POLICIES.

reproductive decisions that women make.
The values of freedom and privacy served as the
basis of a message that focused on preventing
unintended pregnancy without undermining
a woman’s right to choose.
In the summer of 2006, we faced a challenge that
required a second round of research. How could
we talk about proactive prevention measures
while politicians were working to ban abortion
outright in states like South Dakota or impose
onerous federal restrictions on a woman’s
right to choose?
Here is what we found: Americans have grown
tired of the divisive attacks on safe, legal abortion.
They are looking instead for solutions to the
challenge of unintended pregnancies. The public
is beginning to see the hypocrisy of the anti-choice
side: that the same politicians pushing abortion
bans refuse to support better access to
contraception and accurate sex education.
In short, it wasn’t enough to be against something,
to oppose the anti-choice agenda. We had to tell
the public what would be different if pro-choice
leaders were in charge:
• Americans are tired of divisive political
attacks around the abortion issue.
• Voters want their leaders to work toward real
solutions that prevent unintended pregnancies
and thus reduce the need for abortion.
• Voters believe that government and
politicians should stay out of a woman’s
personal and private decision about abortion.
• The strongest pro-choice messages are
anchored in the values of freedom, privacy,
and the personal responsibility that comes
with each.
DEVELOPING PROACTIVE POLICY
NARAL Pro-Choice America analyzes and tracks
state and federal legislation, produces proactive
proposals, and develops strategies to contend
with anti-choice threats. NARAL Pro-Choice
America has long championed the cause of
prevention. In addition to our work in protecting
women’s access to safe, legal abortion, we have
actively supported legislation that would make
abortion less necessary, not more dangerous
or difficult.
In partnership and consultation with affiliates
and coalition partners, NARAL Pro-Choice America
engineered the proactive Prevention First initiative,
and we produced a policy-oriented document
that outlined the key policy proposals that are
part of this new initiative.
Insurance Coverage for Birth Control
Women pay roughly 68 percent more in out-of-
pocket medical expenses than men, mostly due
to their reproductive-health-care needs. We have
made some progress on this issue: today, 27 states
require insurance companies to cover birth control
equally with other prescription medication. Despite
this advancement, nearly 17 million women—most
of whom are young, low-income, or women of
color—do not have private insurance or Medicaid
coverage and cannot benefit from these
state mandates.
PUTTING THE PROACTIVE PIECES TOGETHER
8
AMERICANS
HAVE GROWN
TIRED OF THE
DIVISIVE
ATTACKS ON
SAFE, LEGAL
ABORTION.

Family-Planning Services
Almost 17 million women nationwide rely on
publicly funded family-planning programs as
their primary source of reproductive-health care.
Since these services help prevent unintended
pregnancies and reduce the need for abortion, they
should be made a priority.
Ensuring That Pharmacists Fill Prescriptions
Reports of pharmacists refusing to fill women’s
birth-control prescriptions continue to surface
across the country. Making matters worse, some
pharmacists go so far as to lecture women,
humiliate them in public, or refuse to hand back
the prescription once they have refused to fill it.
Improving access to the “morning-after” pill
emergency contraception (EC), also known
as the “morning-after” pill or by its brand name,
Plan B®
, can significantly reduce a woman’s
chance of becoming pregnant if taken soon after
sex. Time is of the essence if a woman’s primary
contraceptive method fails or if she is the
survivor of a sexual assault. Improved access
to the “morning-after” pill is critical to helping
women prevent unintended pregnancy and therefore
reducing the need for abortion.
Honest, Medically Accurate Sex Education
Young people need and deserve honest and
medically accurate information about their
reproductive-health issues, such as preventing
pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases
(STDs), including HIV/AIDS. Independent research
confirmed that the Bush administration’s
“abstinence-only” policy has failed and must
be replaced with sex education that promotes
both abstinence and birth control. By censoring
information, “abstinence-only” programs put
our teens at risk for unintended pregnancy
and STDs. Only when armed with all the facts
can teens make healthy, responsible decisions.
Teen-Pregnancy Prevention
Our nation has the highest rate of teen pregnancy
in the Western industrialized world. Nearly
one-third of teenage girls become pregnant
before reaching the age of 20—and the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention recently
reported that one in four has an STD. Instead
of promoting a policy of ignorance, we must
invest in proven, effective teen-pregnancy-
prevention programs that help teens abstain
and protect themselves.
PUTTING THE PROACTIVE PIECES TOGETHER
9
“ABSTINENCE-ONLY”
PROGRAMS PUT
OUR TEENS
AT RISK FOR
UNINTENDED
PREGNANCY
AND STDs.

MAY 2005, MINNESOTA: Rebecca Polzin
tried to fill a prescription for birth control
at a drugstore in Glencoe. The pharmacist
on duty refused to help her, claiming moral
objections to filling the prescription. The
pharmacist told Polzin to come back in a few
days when a different pharmacist was on duty.
Polzin asserted that she needed to take the
pills sooner. Eventually, Polzin had to get her
prescription filled by another pharmacist
across town.3
SPRING 2004, TEXAS: Julee Lacey, a
32-year-old married mother of two
and first-grade teacher, went to
a CVS to get her birth control
prescription filled. The
pharmacist refused, citing
personal beliefs, and
told Lacey to get the
prescription filled at
a Walgreens down
the street. Lacey
left the store
without getting
her prescription
filled and did
not go to
Walgreens
because she did
not have time
to set up a new account. Lacey’s husband
attempted again to get the prescription filled
at CVS but the same pharmacist again refused.4
Many observers assume that anti-choice
politicians and their allies, given their intense
focus on undermining women’s access to safe,
legal abortion, seek only to outlaw abortion.
That is not the case. In 2006 alone, 18 states
considered measures that would allow pharmacists
or pharmacies to refuse to fill women’s
prescriptions for birth control. This legislative
activity emerged as newspapers across the
country began reporting women’s stories of how
rogue pharmacists blocked their access to the
legal medication their doctors had prescribed.
In 2004, President Bush’s political appointees
at the Food and Drug Administration took
their first step in a three-year effort to override
the recommendation of the agency’s medical
and scientific experts to make the Plan B®
emergency contraceptive available over the
counter. After intense public pressure, including
a strong grassroots campaign by NARAL
Pro-Choice America, the Bush administration
finally relented in August 2006.
As Steven H. Aden of the anti-choice Christian
Legal Society told the Washington Post about
pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions:
HERE ARE TWO EXAMPLES OF STORIES THAT APPEARED IN NEWSPAPERS
AND ON TELEVISION PROGRAMS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THEY ARE PART
OF A GROWING TREND OF POLITICAL INTERFERENCE IN CONTRACEPTION-
RELATED ISSUES AT THE PHARMACY COUNTER, IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS,
AND AT THE WHITE HOUSE:
FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST CONTRACEPTION

“This is a very big issue that’s just beginning
to surface. More and more pharmacists are
becoming aware of their right to conscientiously
refuse to pass objectionable medications across
the counter. We are on the very front edge of
a wave that’s going to break not too far down
the line.”5
One of the most vocal and visible groups of
pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control
is Pharmacists for Life International. This group
was founded in 1984 “to make pharmacy once
again a life-saving profession, a mooring from
which it has drifted.”
Karen Brauer is the current president of
Pharmacists for Life International. In 1996,
an Ohio Kmart fired her because she not
only refused to dispense prescriptions, but
also lectured and lied to her customers.
Brauer has said:
“Birth control serves to make women sexually
available to men at the convenience of men and
not at the most convenient time necessarily for
women. It’s really to place women at the service
of men.”6
These sentiments are not confined to a few
individuals within the anti-choice movement.
In 2006, Joseph Scheidler, whose name is
synonymous with anti-choice blockades and
violence at reproductive-health-care clinics,
hosted 180 activists at a conference titled,
“Contraception is Not the Answer.”
As Scheidler told the Chicago Tribune,
“We’ve been trained to steer clear of discussing
contraception, as if it were a distraction. I’m
tired of this `Don’t get off the subject’ mentality.
Contraception is the subject.”7
Scheidler and his cronies are out of sync with
the mainstream once again.
Recent polls show that 81 percent of people
surveyed believe access to birth control is a
good way to prevent the need for abortion,
including 81 percent of Catholics and 75
percent of born-again Christians. The same
research shows that 89 percent of those
surveyed, including 88 percent of Catholics
and 85 percent of born-again Christians, agree
that “people should have more access to
information about birth control options.”8
The Prevention First initiative represents
an ideal opportunity to reach this segment
of the public and, contrary to Scheidler’s
views, begin the conversation about women’s
reproductive rights in a more constructive,
common-ground fashion.
Anti-contraception activists protest birth
control outside a women’s health clinic.

Between 1995 and 2006, when anti-choice forces
controlled Congress, with the exception of a time
in the Senate between 2001 and 2002, the House
and Senate cast 185 votes on reproductive-rights
and health-related issues. Pro-choice Americans
lost all but 42 of those votes.
During the 1990s, President Clinton consistently
vetoed bills that would have jeopardized women’s
health and undermined a woman’s right to choose.
But when, after President George W. Bush took
office in 2001, the White House was no longer a
shield against anti-choice attacks. Bush not only
signed anti-choice legislation and nominated a
host of anti-choice judicial nominees, but he
zealously and willingly put all the power
of his office behind the anti-choice effort
to dismantle women’s reproductive freedom.
FINDING COMMON GROUND
As our research revealed, Americans from all walks
of life want their elected officials to focus on ways
to prevent unintended pregnancies and thus reduce
the need for abortion. They are tired of attacks on
women’s reproductive freedom, and they want
elected officials who may not agree on the issue
of abortion rights to at least seek common ground.
In 2005, Sen. Harry Reid, then the new Senate
minority leader, introduced the Prevention First
Act, a commonsense bill that included a
thoughtful package of preventive health and
education measures designed to help reduce
unintended pregnancy and, therefore, the need for
abortion. NARAL Pro-Choice America endorsed it
enthusiastically and our activists sent 65,000
messages urging senators to support it. Rep.
Louise Slaughter, a co-chair of the House
Pro-Choice Caucus, served as the bill’s chief
House sponsor. The Reid-Slaughter collaboration
illustrated how lawmakers on different sides of the
abortion debate could join together to support
prevention-based policies that shift the debate
away from the divisiveness that dominated the
legislative and political landscapes for far too long.
During the budget debate of 2005, Sen. Reid
joined pro-choice Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
in sponsoring an amendment to the budget
resolution that would have set aside funds for
sensible pregnancy prevention programs. More
than 22,000 NARAL Pro-Choice America members
sent messages to their senators urging them
to support the amendment. Unfortunately, anti-
choice senators rejected the measure by a vote of
53 to 47, but this vote helped expose the hypocrisy
of anti-choice senators, including former Sens.
Mike DeWine and Jim Talent, who consistently
voted to undermine safe, legal abortion but
refused to support the commonsense measures,
like the Reid-Clinton amendment.
In 2006, Rep. Tim Ryan, a self-described “pro-life”
Democrat, joined with pro-choice Rep. Rosa
DeLauro to introduce the Reducing the Need for
Abortion and Supporting Parents Act. The Ryan-
DeLauro bill joined a number of other legislative
proposals like the Equity in Prescription Insurance
and Contraceptive Coverage Act (Reid/Rep. Nita
Lowey), which would require insurance companies
to pay for prescription contraception; and the
Prevention Through Affordable Access Act
(Sen. Barack Obama/Rep./Joe Crowley) which
12
III. CHANGING WASHINGTON:
WHY ELECTIONS MATTER
OUR ACTIVISTS
SENT 65,000
MESSAGES URGING
SENATORS
TO SUPPORT
THE PREVENTION
FIRST ACT.

would fix a problem caused by a measure in 2005
that led to skyrocketing prices for birth control at
campus health centers and family-planning clinics.
These bills, and others like them, attracted
bipartisan support and united lawmakers on both
sides of the abortion issue. The measures reflect
sensible, reasonable proposals with broad public
support.
FIGHTING ANTI-CHOICE ATTACKS
IN A NEW WAY
In 2006, anti-choice Senate leaders scheduled
a vote on the so-called Child Custody Protection
Act (CCPA), a bill to make a federal criminal
of anyone other than a parent who accompanies
a young woman to an out-of-state doctor for
abortion care if the home state’s parental-
involvement mandate has not been met. Under
this legislation, trusted, caring, and responsible
adults, like grandmothers, aunts, sisters, and
clergy, would be faced with the threat of a jail
sentence simply for responding to a request
for help from a young woman who believes
she cannot involve her parent.
We knew this was an opportunity to not only
actively oppose a dangerous legislative proposal
but also provide the public with an alternative
vision for how the Senate could address the issue
of teen pregnancy and family communication.
Accordingly, NARAL Pro-Choice America launched
a two-part message strategy and promoted it
throughout the battle: (1) the bill endangers teen
safety and (2) anti-choice politicians behind this
dangerous measure refuse to support constructive
efforts to improve family communication and
reduce the number of teen pregnancies.
Both The New York Times and the Washington Post
cited NARAL Pro-Choice America in their stories
about the vote. Our online advocacy produced
terrific results, with more than 50,000 email
messages reaching Senate offices in the hours
leading up to the vote. The Rev. Dr. Katherine
Ragsdale, a NARAL Pro-Choice America board
member who counseled many young women in
difficult circumstances, testified before Congress
against this legislation, and spoke out against
the legislation in the media.
CHANGING WASHINGTON: WHY ELECTIONS MATTER
13
On March 7, 2006, NARAL Pro-Choice
America entered the next phase in
Prevention First Challenge for Common
Ground by organizing events in more
than 20 states and in Washington, DC.
Nancy Keenan appeared at a Capitol Hill
press conference to challenge anti-choice
congressional leaders to hold votes
on commonsense measures to prevent
unintended pregnancies. NARAL Pro-Choice
America published an ad in USA Today
that called on lawmakers to unify behind
the Prevention First initiative.
MORE THAN
50,000 EMAIL
MESSAGES REACHED
SENATE OFFICES
IN THE HOURS
LEADING UP
TO THE VOTE.

Before and after the vote, we worked in partnership
with our affiliate network to generate additional
letters to the editor and ensure that pro-choice
columnists and editorial writers received fact
sheets and other background materials outlining
the threat this bill posed to teen safety. We also
pointed out the hypocrisy of senators who
supported CCPA but voted against an amendment
to the bill that would fund programs that prevent
teen pregnancy in the first place. Newspapers as
diverse as The New York Times, the Kennebec (ME)
Journal, the Daytona Beach News Journal, the Miami
Herald agreed, and many more ran editorials
echoing this theme. An editorial from the Denver
Post stated, “Congress’ focus would be better
placed on sex education, contraception and
counseling so girls don’t have unwanted
pregnancies in the first place.”9
Needless to say, although anti-choice politicians
had enough votes in the House and Senate to pass
CCPA, they overstepped and overreached in their
zeal to send yet another anti-choice bill to
President Bush. The House, which had passed
CCPA many times in the past, failed to read the
public mood and responded, incredibly, by making
the bill even more extreme by including criminal
penalties for doctors. They passed the new version,
a bill called the Child Interstate Abortion Notification
Act (CIANA) and challenged the Senate to follow suit.
Then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a longtime
foe of choice, readily agreed, but he miscalculated.
He failed to muster the votes necessary to pass
it, and thus, anti-choice politicians’ quest to deliver
an election-year gift to far-right supporters failed
in the closing hours of the 2006 congressional
session. The change in the tone and focus
of the debate clearly contributed to this
outcome. Anti-choice lawmakers went to far—and
thus failed to pass the legislation.
The 2006 election cycle provided ample
opportunities to make such changes by defeating
anti-choice incumbents who had consistently
voted for CCPA and other legislative attacks
on safe, legal abortion.
ELECTING PRO-CHOICE CANDIDATES
TO PUT PREVENTION FIRST
NARAL Pro-Choice America endorsed
154 candidates in the 2006 general election
and executed a comprehensive $2.5 million
independent-expenditure campaign, including
$540,000 in direct political action
committee contributions to
federal candidates. In preparation
for the 2006 election cycle,
NARAL Pro-Choice America
produced
a DVD for candidates on how
to answer tough choice-related
questions and pivot back to a
positive pro-choice framework
that incorporated the
Prevention First message
framework. We also hosted
briefings with candidates and other
progressive political organizations. Armed with a
values-based prevention message, these
candidates were able
to clearly communicate their pro-choice views
while putting their opponents on the defensive.
14
NARAL PRO-CHOICE
AMERICA
PRODUCED A DVD
FOR CANDIDATES
ON HOW TO
ANSWER TOUGH
CHOICE-RELATED
QUESTIONS.

National Journal noted our work, saying “NARAL
Pro-Choice America… mobilized their grassroots
supporters and got voters to the polls in the
most competitive races.”10
National Journal also
listed NARAL Pro-Choice America among the
top five political interest groups that supported
candidates in races that The Cook Political Report
defined as competitive. Nationally syndicated
columnist Marie Cocco observed, “when NARAL
targeted lawmakers for defeat, it preached no
radical feminist sermon. It merely appealed to
voters’ sense of reason.”11
The following information highlights examples
of our independent expenditures in select races
where pro-choice candidates were challenging
anti-choice incumbents or trying to win seats held
by retiring anti- or mixed-choice lawmakers. In
each race, we targeted Independent, Republican,
and Democratic pro-choice women to make them
aware of anti-choice candidates’ rigid and extreme
records on choice and how these views adversely
affect their everyday lives. NARAL Pro-Choice
America ran programs aimed at persuading and
motivating pro-choice women voters in six
targeted congressional districts—Arizona’s
1st, Arizona’s 5th, Arizona’s 8th, Iowa’s 1st,
Pennsylvania’s 7th, and Pennsylvania’s 8th.
The pro-choice candidate was victorious in
five of these six races.
This voter identification and contact program
made the difference in these highly competitive
races. The independent expenditures in swing
suburban and exurban districts illustrate how
a proactive pro-choice message can merge
abortion and prevention-related themes.
Based on polling, NARAL Pro-Choice America used
a four-step process to inform voters and persuade
them to support pro-choice candidates:
1. Expose anti-choice candidate’s opposition
to safe, legal abortion, using public statements
and voting record.
2. Emphasize the hypocrisy of the anti-choice
candidate, who wants not only to outlaw or
criminalize abortion, but also refuses to support
measures that would prevent unintended
pregnancy and therefore reduce the need
for abortion.
3. Reinforce the consequences of the anti-
choice incumbent’s views on women’s everyday
lives, whether it’s accessing contraception or
making sure teens receive medically accurate
information in the classroom.
4. Promote the alternative of a pro-choice
candidate who shares the voters’ pro-choice
values.
WINNING IN TOUGH TERRITORY
In 2006, NARAL Pro-Choice America proudly
endorsed pro-choice candidate Harry Mitchell
over anti-choice incumbent Rep. J.D. Hayworth
in Arizona’s 5th District.
The 5th District includes Tempe and other parts
of suburban Phoenix where Republicans enjoy
a four-point voter-registration advantage. That
means the district votes four points more
Republican than the nation as a whole.
15
NARAL PRO-CHOICE
AMERICA MOBILIZED
THEIR GRASSROOTS
SUPPORTERS AND
GOT VOTERS TO
THE POLLS IN THE
MOST COMPETITIVE
RACES.

As part of a nearly $200,000 independent-
expenditure program, NARAL Pro-Choice America
reached nearly 54,000 households in the 5th
district a total of six times by mail and phone and
conducted voter identification, polling, persuasion
mail pieces, online alerts, and phone calls. The
target audience included pro-choice Independent
and Republican women, many of whom described
themselves as politically conservative or moderate.
NARAL Pro-Choice America’s critique of Hayworth
was successful in helping to drive up negative
impressions of him in considerable numbers.
Hayworth’s unfavorable rating increased 16
percentage points among pro-choice women
between mid-September and Election Day, and
his final favorable-unfavorable ratio was 12 – 72
percent. Notably, his unfavorable ratings were
high among Independents (73 percent), moderates
(71 percent), and even relatively high among
Republicans (34 percent).12
In our September survey, Mitchell held a 64 – 32
percent lead among pro-choice women. On Election
Day, the research shows that he won a 77 – 19 percent
victory among this group, a gain of 13 points in
his vote over the final two months of the campaign.
The choice-focused message was very effective
among this electorate, particularly in peeling
off non-Democratic women who were not
persuaded by other issues. This case study
shows that this universe of women voters will
switch parties to vote for a pro-choice candidate
over an anti-choice candidate. In addition,
NARAL Pro-Choice America’s direct mail
also exposed Hayworth’s refusal to support
prevention-related measures, such as accurate
sex education and better access to contraception.
Overall, Hayworth’s opposition to abortion rights
scored as the argument that came through most
effectively, with 48 percent saying it was one of
their top two reasons to vote against him.
CHANGING THE DEBATE
IN A NEW CONGRESS
With the net gain of 23 pro-choice seats in the
House and three in the Senate, Americans put
Congress under pro-choice leadership for the
first time in 12 years.
Among the rank and file, however, anti-choice
lawmakers still outnumber pro-choice members
in Congress, a reality that unfortunately limits
opportunities to repeal harmful anti-choice laws
or to enact new policies that protect the right
to choose.
In spite of this, the change in congressional
leadership alone has had immediate and profound
implications for reproductive freedom. Simply put:
the most important benefit of a Congress in pro-
choice hands is what doesn’t happen.
As Nancy Keenan told the Washington Post in February
2007: “You’re going to see a change in the tone of
the debate, and a move toward more solutions,
rather than the divisiveness. What we’re going to
see in this Congress is some problem-solving.”13
In January 2008, NARAL Pro-Choice America issued
a study of congressional action in the first session
16
KEY VOTERS
WILL SWITCH
PARTIES
TO VOTE FOR A
PRO-CHOICE
CANDIDATE.

of the 110th Congress that offers a compelling list
of “non-events” wherein pro-choice lawmakers, now
in the majority, repeatedly protected reproductive
choice and averted attempts to entangle unrelated
legislation in anti-choice politics.
No longer in control of Congress, anti-choice
lawmakers were unable to block efforts this year
to guarantee that “abstinence-only” programs
are medically accurate.
Consequently, the final 2007 health-spending bill
includes a first-ever provision taking steps to correct
medical inaccuracies in “abstinence-only” programs.
With 23 new pro-choice seats in the House in the
110th Congress, anti-choice Rep. Mike Pence failed
in his attempt to defund Planned Parenthood by
disqualifying the organization from participating
in the Title X family-planning program. The Senate
rejected a similar proposal offered by Sen. David
Vitter. Had these proposals passed, they would
have crippled the nation's cornerstone program
for birth-control services and other family-
planning care.
Under pro-choice control, Congress significantly
increased Title X funding for the first time in recent
memory, giving the nation’s family-planning program
its third largest spending boost in 25 years.
Congress also began to put the brakes on President
Bush’s wasteful, disproven “abstinence-only” programs
by turning back a proposed budget increase. NARAL
Pro-Choice America opposes these programs
altogether, but this move represented a step
in the right direction.
Unfortunately, Congress failed to repeal President
Bush’s global gag rule, which bans overseas health
centers from receiving U.S. family-planning aid if
they use their own funds to provide legal abortion
care, give referrals, or even take a public pro-choice
position (U.S. funds do not pay for abortion
services). In 2007, both the House and Senate
took historic votes against the policy, reversing
seven years of anti-choice congressional inaction,
but a Bush veto threat, backed up by a sufficient
number of anti-choice lawmakers, forced Congress’
hand on the issue.
17
*As of June 2008
These charts illustrate that, despite gains
in the 2006 midterm elections, anti-choice
members outnumber pro-choice members.
CONGRESS
SIGNIFICANTLY
INCREASED
FAMILY-PLANNING
FUNDING.

NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, in
partnership with NARAL Pro-Choice America,
supported the lawsuit, launched a petition
campaign, and sent a letter to CEO H. Lee
Scott, Jr. on February 13 urging him to reverse
the policy. The campaign helped channel
31,176 Americans’ petitions calling on the
retail giant to end this policy. It worked.
Wal-Mart released the following statement:
“We expect more states to require us to sell
emergency contraceptives in the months ahead.
Because of this, and the fact that this is an
FDA-approved product, we feel it is difficult
to justify being the country’s only major
pharmacy chain not selling it.”14
Unfortunately, the retailer also said it would
allow pharmacists to refuse to fill these
prescriptions if they personally
oppose birth control. That means
pharmacists could still step in
the way of customers trying
to access either prescription
or over-the-counter
medication like Plan
B®
, which requires
identification
because those
under 18 must
have a
prescription.
A story from
Ohio serves
as a prime
example of how this policy blocks women’s
access to birth control.
Tashina and Brian of Springfield, Ohio, tried
to buy Plan B®
over the counter at the local
Wal-Mart after their condom broke. As reported
by the Columbus Dispatch, the pharmacist
laughed at their request for emergency
contraception, stating, “I believe in preserving
life, and I do not believe in ending life, and
life begins at conception.” Tashina and Brian’s
experience makes it clear that there are still
too many obstacles to accessing this important
back-up birth control–from pharmacists who
refuse to dispense the product to pharmacies
that refuse to stock it.15
In partnership with NARAL Pro-Choice America
and NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, Tashina turned
an encounter with an anti-choice pharmacist into
traditional, grassroots activism. She shared her
story with our Choice Action Network and, to
date, more than 31,000 activists across all 50
states have sent email messages to Wal-Mart
CEO H. Lee Scott, Jr., calling on him to end
the retail giant’s policy that allows pharmacists
to refuse to provide the medication.
Wal-Mart buckled to public
pressure in 2006 when it
ended its policy of refusing
even to stock Plan B®
. Now
begins the next phase in that
effort to ensure that Wal-Mart’s
customers can access safe
over-the-counter medication.
WINNING A BATTLE WITH WAL-MART
IN FEBRUARY 2006, THREE BRAVE WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS STEPPED UP
AND FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST WAL-MART FOR ITS DISCRIMINATORY POLICY
AGAINST STOCKING PLAN B®
, ALSO CALLED THE “MORNING-AFTER” PILL.

In addition to the work done at the federal level,
advocates, lawmakers, and activists have worked
together to advance prevention-related measures
in state legislatures across the country. Their work
is creating examples of change and progress that
are inspiring others to take action.
NARAL Pro-Choice America provides extensive
technical support, from legislative analysis and
research to message and member-mobilization
strategies.
The progress is clear. The number of Prevention
First measures states enacted in 2007 increased
89 percent from 2006, when states enacted nine
Prevention First measures. States enacted a
record 17 Prevention First measures in 2007,
with Minnesota and Oregon (states with NARAL
affiliates) leading the way. NARAL Pro-Choice
America released a complete analysis of these
prevention-related gains in January 2007 with
its 16th edition of Who Decides? The Status of
Women’s Reproductive Rights in the United States.
The following examples include key Prevention
First victories from 2005 to 2007:
• Connecticut, Minnesota, and Oregon enacted
laws that ensure that sexual assault survivors
receive information about and access to
emergency contraception in emergency rooms.
• Arkansas and Colorado enacted laws that help
to ensure that sexual assault survivors receive
information about emergency contraception in
emergency rooms.
• Oregon enacted a law ensuring that health
insurance plans cover birth control in the same
manner as other prescription drugs.
• California enacted a law that requires
pharmacies to inform consumers of their
legal right to access prescription contraception
without delay.
In 2007, many states, including Colorado,
Iowa, and Washington, also improved their
sex-education laws, underscoring the increased
awareness of the need to ensure that young
people receive medically accurate information
that helps them prevent unintended pregnancy
and avoid sexually transmitted disease.
Demonstrating Ways to Win
The NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation has
channeled more than $4,645,000 in grants to state
affiliates for prevention-related initiatives. Each
state faces a different legislative environment,
but regardless of whether a state legislature is
strongly pro-choice or is under hostile anti-choice
control, state affiliates are achieving success with
Prevention First.
Colorado
NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado launched the
Prevention First Colorado initiative in 2006.
In partnership with a diverse bipartisan coalition,
the initiative has developed into a multifaceted
research, public education, policy, and advocacy
program designed to advance prevention-related
measures in that state. Through the initiative,
NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado has carried out
groundbreaking social science research that will
be used to launch a social-marketing campaign
targeting women at risk for unintended pregnancy
and to produce public-policy recommendations to
reduce unintended pregnancy in Colorado.
IV. SUCCEEDING IN THE STATES
19
OREGON ENACTED
A LAW ENSURING
THAT HEALTH
INSURANCE PLANS
COVER BIRTH
CONTROL.

NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado’s political action
committee used the prevention framework to train
candidates to incorporate reproductive health care
issues into their campaign platforms in 2006.
Following the election of a pro-choice legislature
and a prevention-oriented governor that year,
NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado and its partners
celebrated the enactment of key prevention-
oriented measures in 2007, including a law
requiring health-care facilities that treat sexual-
assault survivors to provide information about the
availability and use of emergency contraception.
This was the first pro-choice bill to be enacted in
Colorado in more than a decade and passed with
the support of traditionally anti-choice legislators
who were able to cast affirmative votes for a policy
to reduce unintended pregnancy and the need
for abortion.
Oregon
For 16 years, NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon and its
coalition partners worked with state lawmakers to
advance legislation requiring insurance companies
to cover prescription contraception. However,
anti-choice politicians controlled the House of
Representatives and blocked a vote on the measure.
That all changed in the 2007 legislative session.
Voters in Oregon replaced the anti-choice leadership
with a pro-choice majority, and Oregon became the
27th state to ensure equitable insurance coverage
for birth control after the Legislature passed the
measure and pro-choice Gov. Ted Kulongoski
signed it into law on May 30, 2007.
The law also scored another victory for women’s
health. In addition to the insurance provision,
the measure requires hospital emergency rooms
to provide rape survivors with access to and
information about emergency contraception.
Minnesota
In 2007, Minnesota showed how changing the
composition of the state legislature could lead
to pro-choice gains for women’s health and
accurate sex education for teens.
NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota mobilized its
activist base and worked with lawmakers to
advance prevention-based measures. In 2007,
the state enacted three, including a law that
requires hospital emergency rooms to provide
rape survivors with access to and information
about emergency contraception.
The public support for these initiatives was
strong enough to convince anti-choice Gov.
Tim Pawlenty to sign the measure into law.
Montana
In 2006, Montana Attorney General Mike
McGrath issued a legal opinion that said
excluding women’s birth control from insurance
coverage violates a long-standing state law
prohibiting discrimination in insurance plans
based on gender, and the state’s Human
Rights Act.
This was a huge victory for NARAL Pro-Choice
Montana, which has led the effort with legislators
to pass a bill that would require insurance plans
to cover women’s prescriptions for birth control.
The bill got entangled in the legislative process,
but the affiliate director, Allyson Hagen, refused to
give up. NARAL Pro-Choice America was proud
SUCCEEDING IN THE STATES
20
CHANGING THE
COMPOSITION OF
THE STATE
LEGISLATURE
COULD LEAD TO
PRO-CHOICE GAINS.

SUCCEEDING IN THE STATES
21
to work with her and provide legal and policy
guidance on how to request this opinion from
the attorney general.
The attorney general’s decision stands as law,
unless the legislature seeks to overturn it or it
faces a legal challenge. Montana’s largest insurer,
BlueCross/Blue Shield, recognized the broad
public support for this fair-minded policy and
won’t challenge it in court.
NARAL Pro-Choice Montana had worked with
then-State Senate President Jon Tester to submit
the legal inquiry that set this decision in motion.
With NARAL Pro-Choice America’s endorsement,
Tester ran for and won election to the U.S. Senate
in 2006.
Ohio
In 2006, the overwhelmingly anti-choice Ohio
General Assembly’s health committee held a
hearing on a bill that would ban abortion and
subject providers to criminal penalties. This
egregious action sparked outrage among pro-
choice activists, but Kellie Copeland, executive
director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, refused to
follow the anti-choice script. Instead, working with
pro-choice lawmakers, Copeland devised a strategy
to put the backers of the abortion ban on the
defensive.
Copeland and her team worked with pro-choice
legislators to introduce the Putting Prevention
First Act as a commonsense alternative to the
abortion ban. Pro-choice activists and their allies
could clearly communicate their opposition to
the abortion ban and reaffirm the belief that
politicians shouldn’t interfere in this personal,
private decision. But the prevention alternative
also illustrated for the public, the media, and
other key constituencies how the state’s priorities
would be different if pro-choice leaders controlled
the General Assembly. The question for the
anti-abortion lawmakers: Why won’t you support
prevention measures?
NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio devised a media
outreach plan that earned coverage in major
newspapers, including the Cleveland Plain Dealer and
the Columbus Dispatch. The Akron Beacon Journal was
among the publications that ran an editorial that
reflected the pro-choice message: “An Ohio House
bill would turn doctors into criminals. There are
better ways to reduce the number of abortions.”16
NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio engaged its Choice Action
Network and recruited hundreds of pro-choice
voters to attend the hearing and pre-hearing rally.
The Associated Press reported that pro-choice activists
outnumbered anti-choice opponents. In fact, the
anti-choice committee chair closed the hearing
before 60 pro-choice supporters had a chance to
testify against the ban.
Although anti-choice politicians controlled the
process, NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, in partnership
with pro-choice lawmakers, coalition partners,
clergy, and activists successfully put the opponents
of legal abortion on the defensive since they
wanted not only to outlaw abortion, but also
refused to support commonsense, common-
ground ways to help prevent unintended
pregnancy and therefore reduce the need
for abortion.
NARAL PRO-CHOICE
OHIO SUCCESSFULLY
PUT THE
OPPONENTS OF
LEGAL ABORTION
ON THE DEFENSIVE.

In November 2006, as over-the-counter Plan B®
was being shipped to pharmacies across the
country, NARAL Pro-Choice America launched
the Plan B. Where’s Yours? campaign to educate
women about the medication’s availability and
call on national pharmacy chains to adopt
policies requiring their stores to stock Plan B®
.
As Nancy Keenan told the Associated Press,
“We’re not seeing many TV ads for it, like you
see for Viagra. Folks have to know it’s there.”17
This campaign leveraged the grassroots power
of NARAL Pro-Choice America and its affiliates.
More than 35,000 activists contacted
national pharmacy chains to stock
Plan B®
. After this initial action,
NARAL Pro-Choice America
asked its activists to call
their neighborhood
pharmacies to ask the
pharmacists on duty
if they stock EC.
In the case of the
Kroger Co., a
corporation with
1,900 stores in 31
states, 21 percent of the pharmacies contacted
by volunteers indicated that they did not stock
the product.
Moreover, the Kroger Co. became even more
central to our goal of ensuring access to EC when
Carrie Baker, a 42-year old mother of two, shared
her experience of being unable to obtain Plan B®
at her local Kroger pharmacy in Georgia. Unable
to speak with the store manager, Carrie turned
to NARAL Pro-Choice America for support.
Not only did Carrie call her state legislators
and speak out at a press conference in Atlanta
in support of an EC-related state bill, she
also came to Washington, DC to stand with
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) to promote the
Access to Birth Control Act, which would require
pharmacy chains to stock and dispense all forms
of legal contraception.
After Carrie’s story garnered media attention,
we wrote a letter to the Kroger Co. that read,
“We believe major national pharmacy chains like
those operated by the Kroger Co. should stock
Plan B®
and dispense it to women on site
without delay or harassment.”
IN AUGUST 2006, THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCED THAT THE
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE PLAN B®
WOULD BE AVAILABLE OVER THE COUNTER. EVEN
THOUGH THE FDA’S MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANELS OVERWHELMINGLY
SUPPORTED THIS DECISION, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S INSISTENCE ON PLACING POLITICS
AND IDEOLOGY OVER SOUND SCIENCE AND WOMEN’S HEALTH DELAYED THIS DECISION
FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS.
INSPIRING PEOPLE TO TAKE ACTION

The additional press coverage raised the
visibility of the issue, putting pressure on the
Kroger Co. to be more explicit in guaranteeing
women’s access to Plan B®
in its stores.
In December 2007, after negotiations
with NARAL Pro-Choice America and media
coverage of the hard work of our activists,
the Kroger Co. said it would require all of its
pharmacies to stock Plan B®
and have an on-site
employee to dispense it to any customer who
asks. In addition, Kroger Co. officials provided
a contact and phone number for customers
who experience any difficulty accessing Plan B®
at their pharmacies.
This wasn’t just lip service: a NARAL Pro-Choice
America survey conducted after Carrie’s story
became public found that only 4.6 percent
of Kroger Co. pharmacies were not stocking
Plan B®
. That’s down from 21 percent when we
first asked our activists to take action in the
spring of 2007.
Nancy Keenan joins Rep. Carolyn Maloney
(D- N.Y.) and Carrie Baker of Georgia at a
Capitol Hill news conference in support of
a bill protecting pharmacy access.

Challenges and opportunities lie ahead as NARAL
Pro-Choice America looks to the next phase of its
proactive strategy.
ASSESSING THE LANDSCAPE
Despite significant electoral gains in 2006,
anti-choice politicians control many statehouses,
and the outcome of the 2008 presidential race
will determine whether Bush-like policies will
continue. At the state level, slight gains or losses
in the makeup of legislatures or the outcome of
a gubernatorial race will continue to determine
the tone and focus of this debate.
This publication demonstrates how NARAL
Pro-Choice America, its affiliates, and its coalition
partners may use innovative and savvy prevention-
related tactics to advance pro-choice policies or
defeat anti-choice attacks.
WORKING WITH DIVERSE PARTNERS
As we move into the next phase of this proactive
plan, we are committed to strengthening our
relations with organizations that represent a
broad range of women and their experiences,
and implementing internal policies that reflect
this commitment. We move forward with the
knowledge that the reproductive rights community
has struggled to embrace the perspectives and
insights of diverse leaders. The pro-choice
community will only realize its potential in
the 21st century if there is a constructive and
consistent dialogue and working relationships
based on respect for the values, experiences, and
perspectives among all women in this country.
BUILDING A NEW GENERATION
OF ACTIVISTS
NARAL Pro-Choice America has embarked on
an aggressive outreach effort to bring younger
Americans into the pro-choice movement.
Anecdotal evidence, backed up by traditional and
new methods of research, confirms that younger
Americans, namely the millennials born between
1980 and 1995, become engaged in the choice
issue in much different ways than the generations
who remember women’s lives before the Supreme
Court’s landmark decision in Roe v. Wade. They may
become involved because of birth control access
or sex education. For example, affiliates saw their
campus-organizing efforts grow in 2007 and 2008
when a technical mistake in a federal
law caused birth-control prices to skyrocket
at campus health centers. NARAL Pro-Choice
America ran Facebook ads that connected this
audience with a call to action for Congress
to fix this problem. This issue illustrated how
government policies could, in fact, infringe upon
their ability to make personal, private decisions.
Much like contraception, sex education is a
principal concern for this audience, especially
after a decade of failed “abstinence-only” policies
that censored teachers’ ability to provide medically
accurate and age-appropriate information in
the classroom. Recent studies confirm that
“abstinence-only” programs do nothing to delay
sexual activity among teens, and research confirms
that young people and parents alike want honest,
fact-based information about sex, not politically
motivated propaganda.
V. MOVING FORWARD
24
THE REPRODUCTIVE
RIGHTS COMMUNITY
HAS STRUGGLED
TO BE INCLUSIVE
IN THE PAST.

STRENGTHENING RELATIONS WITH
KEY POLITICAL AUDIENCES
NARAL Pro-Choice America’s Prevention First initiative
continues to earn attention from new and traditional
media and leading political figures. This progress
did not happen overnight. That’s why sustaining it
will require a long-term investment in public-opinion
research, coupled with ongoing examples of success
in the political context. Elections are always about
the future—and the same principle applies to
policy changes and grassroots mobilization.
ADDRESSING THE MORAL COMPLEXITY
OF CHOICE
In a 2008 speech celebrating the 35th anniversary
of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in
Roe v. Wade, Nancy Keenan paid tribute to Sarah
Weddington, the attorney who successfully argued
the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, on the
campus of the University of Texas at Austin, where
the Roe case originated. At an event cosponsored
by NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, the University’s
Center for Women’s and Gender Studies, and
other organizations, Keenan reaffirmed our
organization’s unwavering commitment to protecting
safe, legal abortion. But her speech also called
on the pro-choice community to reclaim the moral
high ground in the debate over reproductive rights.
Keenan addressed the apathy many people feel toward
the abortion debate, especially since the topic has
been a heated one for more than three decades:
“Why has this happened? In part, people must
worry about so many other pressing problems.
It is also natural for folks to lose interest when
they’re busy raising families, and working hard.
So, yes, apathy has played a role. But there’s
something else: As positions on both sides of
this debate have hardened over the past three
decades, they have also grown more distant from
the lives of everyday people. The slogans and
bumper stickers that paint this issue in black and
white no longer touch the profound complexity
most people feel on the issue of abortion…
“Being pro-choice is a moral position. It is time
for us to reclaim that ground. We can no longer
fight this fight without talking about our faith,
our values, and our morality.”
Will Saletan, a writer for Slate magazine who authored
a book about the abortion rights movement,
described Keenan’s speech as including “the kind
of language that makes people wake up and listen.”18
CONCLUSION
The pro-choice community must recognize
that a range of factors (changing demographics,
tenuous control of the legislative process, and
the public’s focus on important matters like
energy costs and the economy) will continue
to influence the contours of this debate. NARAL
Pro-Choice America’s core principles and mission
remain constant, but the way in which we
communicate these values and engage the
public will change as the state of the debate
changes. With the Prevention First initiative, we
have secured multiple victories. This success
relies on the integration of three principal parts:
people power, policy innovations, and political
strength. This integration, and the determination
to be bold and innovative in the way we work
within all three arenas, represents the best
way to secure women’s freedom and privacy
in the future.
MOVING FORWARD
25
MANY PEOPLE
FEEL APATHY
TOWARD THE
ABORTION
DEBATE.

1
Adam Nagourney. “Democrats Weigh De-emphasizing Abortion as an Issue.” New York Times.
December 23, 2004 at A15.
2
Lake, Snell, Perry, Mermin/Decision Research. “Memo: Recent findings on support for prevention.”
June 7, 2005.
3
Rene Sanchez, “New Arena for Birth-Control Battle,” Star Tribune. May 3, 2005 at 1A.
4
Angela K. Brown, "Woman says pharmacist denied her birth-control prescription." Associated Press.
March 30, 2004.
5
Rob Stein, “Pharmacists’ Rights at Front of New Debate,” Washington Post. March 28, 2005 at A1.
6
Harrison Sheppard, “Bill Would Require Birth Control Sales,” Daily News Of Los Angeles.
December 31, 2004 at N5.
7
Judith Graham, "Abortion foes' new rallying point; conservatives take on contraception." Chicago Tribune.
September 24, 2006 at C3.
8
“Large Majorities Support More Access to Birth Control Information.” Wall Street Journal/Harris Interactive
Healthcare Research. June 22, 2006.
9
“Editorial: Senate Bill Doesn’t Protect Teens.” Denver Post. July 28, 2006. Page B-06.
10
Bara Vaida and Neil Munro, “Reversal of Fortunes,” National Journal. November 11, 2006.
11
Marie Cocco, “Abortion foes overstep… and pay for it,” Herald News. November 22, 2006 at B9.
12
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner. “Winning the Pro-Choice Swing Vote.” November 30, 2006 at pg. 3.
13
Shailagh Murray, “Democrats Seek to Avert Abortion Clashes; Leaders Back Bills to Increase Aid for
Family Planning, Pregnancy Support,” Washington Post. January 21, 2007 at A5.
14
Marcus Kabel, "Wal-Mart relents, will stock morning after pill." Associated Press. March 3, 2006.
15
Misti Crane, “Some still refuse to dispense Plan B; Ohio consumers denied contraceptive,” Columbus
Dispatch. January 15, 2007 at 1A.
16
“Extreme measure; an Ohio House bill would turn doctors into criminals,” Akron Beacon Journal.
June 13, 2006 at B3.
17
David Crary, “Plan B Pill Now Readily Available,” Associated Press. December 7, 2006.
18
William Saletan, “Good Judgment,” Slate Magazine. January 22, 2008.
THE ENDNOTES
26
NARAL PRO-CHOICE AMERICA MISSION STATEMENT
To develop and sustain a constituency that uses the political process to guarantee every woman
the right to make personal decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices, including
preventing unintended pregnancy, bearing healthy children, and choosing legal abortion.
NARAL PRO-CHOICE AMERICA FOUNDATION MISSION STATEMENT
To support and protect, as a fundamental right and value, a woman's freedom to make personal
decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices through education, training, organizing,
legal action, and public policy.

naral_prevention_first_report

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to naral_prevention_first_report

naral_prevention_first_report