Emily's List Turns 20
The pro-choice political action committee Emily's List is celebrating the 20th anniversary of its founding this week. Chris Cillizza has a piece in today's Post about the group's successes over the years in supporting pro-choice women candidates.
Read the story: "Emily's List Celebrates Clout as It Turns 20."
By Chris Cillizza |
October 18, 2005; 7:51 AM ET
| Category:
PAC Watch
Previous: Monday Roundup: Senate GOPers Catch a Break; New Polls in Ala. and Ill. Gov. Races |
Next: N.J. Senate: Corzine Succession Watch

Get This Widget >>

Posted by: Liz | July 25, 2006 1:32 PM
Good site
Posted by: Dublin Accommodation | March 22, 2006 9:51 AM
I am in total agreement with Judy. Your use of the term "pro-abortion" is misleading and simple NOT true. None of the EMILY's list members, myself included, or candidates are for abortion - who in their right mind would be - we are for the freedom to have control over OUR bodies and OUR lives. In the future please use the correct term.
Posted by: Pat | October 19, 2005 6:22 PM
In truth, every person should and does have the right to control decisions related to their physical persons. To say Emily's List is concerned with some overall purpose of protecting our rights to our bodies is disingenuous at best. I have never had anyone try to force me to have a surgery or prevent me from going to the dentist, have you? Only on the abortion issue is there ever any question, due to the fact that there are TWO persons involved in the decision - the mother and the unborn child. To say Emily's List is an organization which is "pro-abortion-rights" is absolutely accurate and clearly reflects the main purpose and philosophy of the organization.
Posted by: Anne | October 18, 2005 1:23 PM
Your continued use of "pro-abortion-rights" in your article is inaccurate and only perpetuates a misleading label. Emily's List and the candidates supported by Emily's List are PRO-CHOICE Democratic women. The labels are not interchangable. Pro-choice advocates are concerned with a woman's right to control all decisions related to her physical person, especially health care.
Posted by: Judy | October 18, 2005 11:41 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
![[Iowa map]](http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/primaries_45x35.gif)
![[Quiz]](http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/quiz_45x35.gif)








I was very happy to make a contribution to Emily's List in the 1990's as I support the organization's purpose. However, as a result of making my contribution, my mailbox (not email inbox) is perpetually full of mass mailings from entities ranging from Planned Parenthood to political candidates. I am not opposed to these groups, but I am opposed to having my contact information sold or otherwise transferred to third parties. Given recent privacy legislation, I am sure Emily's List now requires you to check a box consenting to having your information shared, but no such mechanism existed when I made my contribution in the mid to late 1990's. It is a shame, for I would love to direct my political dollars to a cause such as theirs, but refuse to do so since it seems that they are already getting a pretty big bang from my first buck.