New York Times reporter Amy Chozick profiled Stephanie Schriock, the current president of Emily’s List, the PAC that supports only Democratic pro-abortion women. Hillary Clinton spoke at their 30th anniversary dinner on Tuesday night.
Schriock replaced the group’s founder, Ellen Malcolm, and Chozick strangely recycled a quote comparing Malcolm to....Moses. (I don't think abortion is what he meant by "Let my people go.") It's no match for Netanyahu citing Moses in his address to Congress. It went like this:
Ms. Schriock cuts a very different profile from the group’s previous leader, Ellen Malcolm, an heir to an I.B.M. fortune who started Emily’s List in 1985, naming it for the saying “Early money is like yeast.” One Democrat compared the transition to trying to replace Moses.
The headline was "Leader of a PAC Built to Elect Women Faces Biggest Test in 2016." Apparently the "pro-choice Democratic women only" part didn't fit. But then, the liberal media imply that the only real women are the liberal, pro-abortion feminists. The pull quote inside the paper was "Trying to capitalize on donors' fervor for a Clinton candidacy."
Chozick suggested Schriock might be candidate material in her home state of Montana, but her ultraliberal resume -- from abortion campaigning to jobs with Howard Dean for President and Al Franken for Senate -- might make her a tough sell in Big Sky country.
The only negative passage in Chozick’s largely positive profile came from the left, from abortion advocates who think Emily’s List doesn’t talk about abortion enough (just as it came up on MSNBC), leading to Schriock's attempt to stretch the already nebulous “pro-choice” label across the liberal agenda:
But Ms. Schriock’s transition to the public face of a feminist movement has not always been smooth. She sometimes seems uncomfortable in interviews, reverting to cautious talking points or bromides like “Democratic women are the future.”
Some liberals, too, have accused Emily’s List of de-emphasizing abortion rights at a time when they are under siege in many states. Ms. Schriock will barely utter the word.
“What we want to talk about is what voters want to talk about,” she said when asked about abortion. “That’s equal pay, and minimum-wage increase, and access to health care, and paid sick leave, and the list goes on.”
When pressed, Ms. Schriock did not relent, arguing that “pro-choice” should mean “women having the ability to make choices in their lives to be successful, to have economic opportunity and to raise their families.”
Unless they decide to have an abortion to prevent families from happening....
This passage (starting at paragraph 20) carried a single use of each "feminist" and "liberal," words they don't like to use at the Times. (They weren't in the headline, certainly.)
Beyond the vague mention of "losses," Chozick never specified how the 2014 midterms went for Emily’s List. Instead, Schriock’s “pace” was praised:
Ms. Schriock’s pace has been unrelenting: She spent 109 days away from home last year, recruiting and fund-raising. Emily’s List reached three million members, and raised more than $60 million in donations in 2014, up from 500,000 members and $38 million in 2010.
Their endorsed female pro-abortion candidates had 22 wins, 15 losses. The pro-lifers at the Susan B. Anthony List reported they won 70 percent of their head-to-head races (except SBA List also support male candidates).
Chozick mentioned “a dinner last month to welcom nine newly elected Democratic congresswomen to Washington,” but failed to note only one of them (Gwen Graham) defeated a Republican incumbent. Most of these endorsed candidates were running in open seats previously held by Democrats.
