Daily Kos

View Story | 98 comments

  •  VERY good diary... (4.00 / 4)

    ...and telling as hell.  This completely nails it for me:  NARAL has a noble mission/destination, but those at the wheel are delusional and don't know how to drive.

    The unbelievable tactical disconnect between political reality--even simple human nature--and the theoretical framework being expressed by NARAL leaders in this diary (and elsewhere) is stark and terrifying.  Their approach is beyond tactically foolish--it is suicidal to the position they claim to stand for.  Rabidly exaggerated and easily disproven claims used to prop up alarmism is the fastest way to lose any public credibility.  

    If this is the institution primarily charged with politically defending choice in this country, choice is dead.

    The DLC was created to prevent the takeover of the Democratic Party by Democrats.

    by Dracowyrm on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 05:04:00 PM PDT

    •  Exactly. (none / 1)

      I can't fault them for empowering their local affiliates to make endorsements.  That's laudable, and they are a non-partisan group.  They should seek to exercise as much influence as possible on their locals, to make sure they understand what is productive and not productive when it comes to endorsements, but local empowerment is a good thing.

      However, the ad was just stupid.  And their refusal to recognize that suggests the decision makers suffer from serious cognitive dissonance, hubris and ego.  

      Fortunately, NARAL is just one group.  Sadly for them, they are a group losing credibility among their constituents.

      by cityduck on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 05:08:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can't understand how ..... (4.00 / 2)

        .... Nancy Keenan believes that opposing Roberts will put abortion on the table. I think most independent/moderate/apathetic voters have heard pro-choice groups cry wolf once too often. Fairly or unfairly, the cries of pro-choice activists will be ignored by a majority of Americans.

        The best way to put abortion on the table is to put abortion on the table. By looking to the courts to uphold abortion rights, we are asking an unelected body to further our cause. This approach wouldn't be a problem if abortion rights didn't already have the support of a majority of Americans. As a result we have pro-choice groups locked into a (failing) judicial strategy when they could get what they want at the ballot box. The worst part about this approach to securing abortion rights is that the people upholding these rights (judges) cannot advocate their position to the masses.

        If you still believe that abortion-rights groups know what they are doing, consider the case of Lincoln Chafee. I have no problem with them endorsing Chafee. I think abortion rights benefit when Republicans can gain by moving to the left on this issue. I'd imagine that someone endorsed by NARAL wouldn't vote for an anti-choice justice. After all, aren't the courts the only thing standing between women and a jail cell? Turns out Chafee can do as he pleases. How he can vote for an anti-choice justice (Brown) and still claim to be pro-choice is beyond me? Isn't that like being pro-civil rights and voting for Strom Thurmond? Clearly this judical approach leaves a lot to be desired. The irony is that Langevin (opposed by NARAL) would have most certainly voted against Judge Brown.

        Pro-choice activsts have been fighting a losing tug-of-war battle with pro-lifers who are adeptly attacking access and confidentiality to stymie abortion rights in the country. Someday in the near future we are going to reach a breaking point. Abortion rights will be on the ballot soon. Why not make it sooner? We have a president no one can believe, a Congress seen a corrupt and self-serving and a religious movement seen as extremist (thanks to their opposition to stem cell research and the teaching of evolution). Could there be a better time to have the right to an abortion explicitly guaranteed by law?

        I think it is time to stop being afraid of the debate. Yes, we might lose. Is losing worse than not having the debate at all? Maybe. In that case, be prepared for more parental consent laws and more state legislatures witholding funds from institutions that counsel poeple on contraception and abortion.

        Making abortion illegal is one of those 'feel good' laws that accomplishes absolutely nothing good. A lot of people abhor the idea of abortion. The real question is whether they abhor it enough to put women and doctors in jail for seeking or performing abortions. The average, uninformed and apatheic American voter is new to things like consequences. When the right to an abortion is on the ballot, if we make the case that incarceration isn't the solution, we will win.

        'Feel good' laws banning abortion(like yellow ribbon patriotism) sound great until you have to deal with the consequences. End the fight once and for all!

        Obama/Gore '08

        by crazymoloch on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 06:32:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just one "small" question: (none / 0)

          Suppose, for a moment, we went the political route you here suggest.  And even suppose we won.  And suppose, even still further (contrary to likelihood) that we got 50 states (and DC and all the protectorates, etc, etc) to legalize abortion.  Do you think for ONE FUCKING MINUTE that the fanatical anti choice people wouldn't try to get the courts to strike down state supported abortion rights on some "originalist" (read: "bullshit") interpretation of the national constitution?  Are you screaming insane?  Or just retarded?
          If the court won't recognize privacy here, where will it?  When we finally have live video of Uncle Tom, er, Clarence Thomas watching videos of himself putting pubic hairs on women's drinks?  GET REAL.

          -7.88, -6.72. "Wherever law ends, tyranny begins."--John Locke IMPEACH THE BASTARDS!!!

          by caseynm on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 07:13:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well argued..... (none / 0)

            ..... I usually defer to people who call me a retard.

            In your hypothetical, we're in the same boat with one difference. Pro-lifers are pushing for 'activist' judges to overturn the will of the people. Now they will be pushing for an unpopular measure through autocratic means. What little sympathy they had among tepid pro-choice voters will be lost. Even if one isnn't anti-abortion, the charge that judges are overruling the people carries some weight.

            More importantly, abortion will be on the ballot in EVERY election. The threat won't seem as vague (to mainstream America) as it does now. Republicans, like all good politicians, will move to where the votees are. Or better yet, they will hold true and remain a permanent majority.

            I do think the worst consequences of the path I suggested is that women in the South and some plain states will be thrown back into the 1900s.

            p.s: Why don't you just troll rate me instead of wasting valuable space by calling me a retard?

            Obama/Gore '08

            by crazymoloch on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 07:46:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  OK, I admit 'retarded' was hyperbole (none / 0)

              Mea Culpa.
              HOWEVER
              If you render the rights given in the constitution into the hands of the politicians, you will have no rights in either the short run or the long run.  No quarter on the right of privacy--and, for that matter, religious belief (when DOES that thing , properly speaking, become a person?)--being loaded into the constitution/bill of rights.  IT'S IN THERE!  Your suggestion--intentional or otherwise--is that we concede that it isn't--and you are, I believe, just wrong.

              P.S.: Troll ratings are for TROLLS, not merely for people with whom I (or anyone else) vehemently disagree(s).  Liberals can be wrong (and "just wrong!" at that :=)) without being trolls....

              -7.88, -6.72. "Wherever law ends, tyranny begins."--John Locke IMPEACH THE BASTARDS!!!

              by caseynm on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 08:12:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  PPS (none / 0)

                I didn't call you retarded....I gave the option of insane or retarded.  Presumably you opted for "not insane", hence placing yourself in the "retarded" category....</snark>
                from: diary of a bored logician

                -7.88, -6.72. "Wherever law ends, tyranny begins."--John Locke IMPEACH THE BASTARDS!!!

                by caseynm on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 08:27:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think we should yield.... (none / 0)

                .... an inch on privacy either. The problem with the pro-choice argument is the premise that all discussions of abortion right must be limited to the issue of privacy. They completely dismiss any and all moral considerations. Atleast consider they such concerns exist.

                For abortion rights to be limted to a discussion of privacy rights, you HAVE to assume that the fetus is not a living being during pregnancy. You rightly contend that religion shouldn't dicate the government's answer to that question. The problem is that science can't answer that question either. Should America turn to you?

                Why doesn't a fetus in the second or third trimester qualify as a human life in your opinion?

                Obama/Gore '08

                by crazymoloch on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 08:30:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wrong terminology (none / 0)

                  It is a life, and a human life at that:  we ain't talking puppies or lizards, here....The question is whether it is in any meaningful sense a human person bearing rights.  And THAT is where the moral issue lies and that is where the court said there is no issue in the first trimester, only for the mother's health in the second trimester, and only to save the mother's life in the third trimester.  But, in the first trimester?  It's a larger or smaller clump of cells, with a heart and eyes even in the second month, but isn't in any meaningful sense a person--by my standards.  But--and here is the point--in the first trimester, you get to use your OWN religious standards (hence the invocation of the notion of privacy!)  Where does anyone come off telling my wife or daughter or sister what to believe about the personhood of that entity at that stage?

                  -7.88, -6.72. "Wherever law ends, tyranny begins."--John Locke IMPEACH THE BASTARDS!!!

                  by caseynm on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 06:48:48 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Where do I start? (none / 0)

          The real question is whether they abhor it enough to put women and doctors in jail for seeking or performing abortions. The average, uninformed and apatheic American voter is new to things like consequences.

          No, the real question is how we will cope after such a law is passed.  You discuss the consequences of criminalizing abortion in a way that makes me think you really don't understand how fundamental a change such laws will bring about.  It has nothing to do with putting pregnant women in jail.  Or doctors either for that matter.  What will happen is doctors will stop performing abortions when abortions become illegal.  That means that if you or your girlfriend or your daughter or your peri-menopausal mother get pregnant by accident, you will have no realistic choice but to bear that child.  If you are desperate enough, you will find someone to perform the abortion for you -- illegally.  If you do, you might be lucky and successfully abort the fetus without damaging or killing herself.  You may not be lucky.  In the meantime, you and/or your girlfriend will become parents whether you are 14 or 44.  Parenthood is a big deal -- ask anyone with kids.  Married, single, in high school or living in a hovel with your other 12 kids you are going to have another mouth to feed.  

          Abortion-criminalization laws are about as damn fundamental as it gets.  Before you start telling NARAL how to protect reproductive rights, educate yourself.        

          First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi

          by flo58 on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 07:57:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your assumption.... (none / 0)

            .... that anti-abortion legislation can be passed at the federal level is unrealistic. A clear majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade.

            The most probable scenario is one where a handful of states pass laws criminalizing abortion. I do not disagree that the scenario you depicted will play out in these states. However, this nightmare will be limited to these states. Yet women (a small percentage, no doubt) can still cross state lines to get an abortion. Then, states banning abortion can do one of three things:

            • Keep the ban without punishing women who cross state lines to get an abortion.
            • Keep the ban and prosecute women who cross state lines to get an abortion.
            • Life the ban altogether.

            I think we can both agree that option #1 and option #3 are highly unlikely. The only way these states can clamp down on the few women who cross state lines to get an abortion is by throwing them in jail.

            Even if you disagree with every letter of every word or every sentence I have written, you have got to see that NARAL is fumbling around with much of a clue.

            Obama/Gore '08

            by crazymoloch on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 08:54:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  But there has to be a national agenda for locals (none / 0)

        to then make the right choices about choice (all pun intended). To a Republican just because is not just stupid; it's self-defeating. In NYC, BEFORE THE PRIMARIES?!?! C'mon! It was completely uncalled for.

        In a recent study about the most liberal and conservative cities done by http://www.votingresearch.org , NYC ranked 21. FRIGGIN'21!! Unbealievable. And New York State, as a whole, had only 2 cities in the list. That can only mean one thing : NY IS TURNING INTO A REPUBLICAN STATE!

        There is no way NARAL can be left off the hook on their endorsement of Bloomberg. Nuh-uh.

        Blogging the revolution @culturekitchen.com & The Daily Gotham

        by liza on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 09:15:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

View Story | 98 comments