Merkley's pro-choice ad

Karol Collymore

The first lesson I'm learning in the world of political acting is that sometimes you get left on the cutting room floor. Yup, my early wake up call and hours - ok minutes - reading the teleprompter will never make the light of day. That said, Jeff Merkley's ad about protecting a woman's right to make her own medical decisions is spot on.

A woman's right to make her own medical decisions is still something we all need to protect. With any vote or Supreme Court decision, I may not be able to choose birth control options, those options may not be covered by my insurance, and if an accidental pregnancy happened, I would have to cross the border if I chose abortion. Many other women wouldn't have that option but would make a choice no one would consider safe.

So yes, its a bummer that I don't get to be on TV, but it would be worse if I couldn't control my own body.

  • Larry (unverified)


    Have you considered that maybe it is because the color of your skin is black, and the skin color of some of the other people that Merkley did select is white?

    Maybe the Brady effect at work right her in Oregon with Merkley?

    Is not that the only reason somebody would not chose a black candidate (for president, for LA mayor, for a TV ad), because of their skin color?

    Or maybe not....

  • (Show?)

    Larry, I don't think so. I think I probably squinted too much in the light. It was really bright that day and I couldn't wear sunglasses.

  • RW (unverified)

    Sigh. Karol, I am assuming you answered a casting call and were SELECTED to screen for potential inclusion in a political ad? Congratulations. And apologies for those here who cannot focus on the very important issue that hangs always, for us women, upon the vagaries of election or judicial appointment; and upon the tyranny of location and financial assets. If you wanted to discuss ethnicity and inclusion viz telemarketing political views, I'm sure this would be part of what you just posted, right? That is a welcome topic too, but I'm finding it a challenge to keep my temper with "Larry", who just trivialized a profound concern for women on both sides of the right to control of one's own body divide...

    Meanwhile: odd moment of emotional stasis to understand that we will spend the rest of our lives caring about and fighting to protect this most basic tenet. As we leave behind our own childbearing years by dint of surgery or age, it is upon us to never forget our own privilege to choose so long as we had cash accessible, and the acculturation that allowed such thinking. It is upon us to work heartfully and without hesitation to maintain this for the girls and women who come after us.

  • (Show?)

    Rebecca, Because there are women who need their choices protected, I'm assuming that I squinted too hard in the sun.

  • RW (unverified)

    Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahah. Heh. I'm quacking over here. Ok, Ok: I shall endeavour to not-react. Won't even mutter the "T" word. Heh.

  • (Show?)

    We'll all just have to watch KOIN on Thursday for the VP debates to catch you....

  • (Show?)

    This is an interesting ad, to the say the least. I guess I missed all the times Smith voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. Can someone tell me the bill number or date of any of those votes?

  • Bill R. (unverified)

    @ Karol- Sorry we missed seeing you, but it is a great ad and a good counterbalance to the Elizabeth Furse betrayal ad.

    @ Jack You know very well that a Senator doesn't get to vote for Roe. V Wade, but a Senator does get to vote for Supreme Court Judges who do, and Gordon Smith has done precisely that. Gordon Smith has stated time and time throughout his political life that his position is that abortion should be criminalized. So it's utterly dishonest on your part to suggest otherwise.

  • (Show?)

    Jack, actually the votes were on the Harkin Amendment in 1999 and 2003.

  • (Show?)

    Sorry, Kari, but a vote against a nonbinding resolution expressing support for Roe v. Wade is not a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    As Bill R points out, Congress can't overturn Roe v. Wade and has never voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. Neither of the justices Senator Smith voted to a confirm has voted to overturn Roe v. Wade or indicated that he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    So I guess its fair to say that this part of the ad, approved by Jeff Merkley, is a LIE.

  • (Show?)

    it is a great ad and a good counterbalance to the Elizabeth Furse betrayal ad.

    Anybody besides me notice that Furse is the only self identified Democrat calling herself a liberal in this election cycle? The Republicans, on the other hand, have a brand so tarnished that the Washington Dems are suing Rossi to make him change out his "GOP Party" sign off with one mentioning the word Republican.....

    Back here in Oregon, I'm waiting for Smith's next one where Furse refers to The Democrat Party..........

    As for why Carol didn't make the ad cut, I'd blame that danged Genie Uebelacker who now has speaking parts in two Merkley ads so far.........Meanwhile, I only got my right hearing aid and the back of my bald head counting toward my own Andy Warhol time.....

    Dang it Genie, we want some of that there limelight too.....

  • (Show?)

    Jack, a vote against supporting Roe v. Wade is a vote against Roe v. Wade. Simple logic -- A and not-A, you know.

    Smith opposes Roe v. Wade. He says so and has cast votes that reflect that position when offered what opportunities the Senate offers on the subject. That's the plain truth. Your position is obscurantist and prevaricating.

    The Merkley ads reflect the truth of Smith's position -- He opposes Roe v. Wade. Merkley supports Roe v. Wade. The ad reflects that truth.

    Are you denying that Smith opposes Roe v. Wade?

    Life News says this:

    The state of Oregon has a close senate race with incumbent pro-life Sen. Gordon Smith seeing a challenge from State House Speaker Jeff Merkley, who is pro-abortion. Smith has been leading throughout the election but the last two polls showed him with just a one point lead.

    The lie would be to let Smith portray himself as more "moderate" than he is. If he gets the advantages of being strongly anti-abortion, making the truth about his position widely known to make sure he gets the disadvantages too is legitimate.

  • ColumbiaDuck (unverified)

    When the Smith campaign isnt even bothering to question the validity of the ad, you know the Merkley camp has them dead to rights. See Mapes yesterday. They aren't contesting the ads claims - just whining that they don't think it's fair to even bring up this issue. Well boo-hoo.

    <h2>Sorry Jack - you're off base with this one.</h2>

connect with blueoregon