It's Our Party and We'll Cry If We Have To ... how the Democratic Party is pushing women out

There have been many discussions here on Kos in the past several weeks about a woman's right to choose and the role this issue should have within the Democratic Party.  There have been many differing views but there has been one element of this discussion I have found to be alarming and particularly sad and frustrating.  Women have been supported but we have also been assailed for our steadfast resolve that this is a private decision that is not open for debate.  We are told to fuck off, we are told we are killers, we are told we do not get to decide whether an embryo or fetus is life or viability is or if we have the right to reach that opinion alone.  

It is a sad commentary that women are having the very same argument with other Democrats we have been having with the rightwingnuts for years.  It is beyond the pale that we are told an issue that is so personal needs to be framed and presented in a way that does not offend when we are offended over and over.  If this party wants our respect, it would behoove this party to start treating women with respect.  

More below the fold.

I have spent sleepless nights wondering where the voice of power for women has gone.  Nancy Pelosi's support of Timothy Roemer is one example of misplaced power.  It is also the lightning rod for me to stand up and say that's it, the gloves are off, bring it on.  It is time women stand up and scream until we can scream no more.  It is time to remember how many women have fought for decades for women's rights.  It is time we realize we don't want our legacy for our daughters and granddaughters to be the loss of rights instead of the rights that were gained under our watch.  It is time to stop bellyaching about the spine of this party and get an adjustment for our own backbone.  I, for one, have had enough.

When I have to defend my rights on Kos I know the pendulum has swung too far.  It is true there are many men here who understand and support women's reproductive rights and as appreciative as I am they are not the choir I wish to address.  I want to speak to those who think the fight is to maintain what rights we have left.  The people who need to listen are those that believe the fight is protecting Roe v. Wade as it stands now, in the year 2005.  The newsflash for me is we have been abandoned, our rights have been stripped, the pendulum has swung into the house of our party so much so that I want all my rights that have been loudly and stealthy taken away back.  

It is not abortion and Roe v. Wade in name only that will pacify me, it is first, second and third trimester abortion rights.  It is teaching my daughter and granddaughter how the hell they really get pregnant, it is all public medical facilities giving the right for a free flow of information to all women who need it.  It is teaching our doctors how to perform abortions, it is having facilities available in more than 15% of the districts across this country for women to get abortions.  It is funding for centers and agencies that provide planned family information.  It is equal funding and curriculum for family planning and abstinence training in our public schools.  

Women and girls stand to lose much more than the seats in the White House and the Congress, we will lose our lives and our souls if we don't take this fight to the streets of every city in every state in this country that is, by 53% rights, ours as well as theirs.

To that end here is a letter that is in response to an email I got from a friend that works on Simon Rosenberg's campaign for Chair of the DNC.  In my eyes it was fortuitous timing, in Chris' and Simon's eyes it could well be looked at differently.  It's time the leaders of this party know, without a doubt, women will leave in droves before we sacrifice one woman or child to backdoor abortions.  We will not go back it's as simple as that.  We will not go back.  

Hi Chris ... I'm not going to be in town for the event Thursday night. I'm very sorry I'm not going to make it.  Everyday I get more and more concerned with the direction our party is going in.  Frankly, I'm horrified Timothy Roemer is getting support from Nancy Pelosi. Roemer is beyond not being acceptable, he would alienate the women of this party more than anyone realizes.

In 1972 when I was finally old enough to vote I proudly became a Democrat because our values and our beliefs were so clear.  A woman's right to choose was a bedrock principle of our party.  We stood strong for the rights of others, civil rights, human rights, rights of gays, rights of children, rights of women and rights of the poor.  Our values are being eroded in ways I never imagined possible.  It isn't a question of who we become, it is so simple, we have to stand up for
the values we've always believed in.  Forced motherhood is not one of those values.

For the first time in over 30 years I will become a one issue voter. If our party decides that it is appropriate to have a Minority Leader that believes abortion should be criminalized and a Chairman of the DNC that is pro-life then I will leave this party.  I was pregnant and a teenager when backdoor alleys were the facilities open to us.  I knew girls who drank cleaning fluid, used knitting needles, threw themselves down stairs and had their boyfriends beat them so they would abort.   We cannot go back to those days.

I talk with scores of women daily that feel the same way I do and they all say abortion is the issue that will make them jump ship from the
Democratic Party.  Roemer says we need a bigger bus.  He is wrong. If we are forced to leave because of a misguided belief that we will stay simply because we have nowhere to go, this party is taking the wrong people for granted.   A bigger bus will be a dream of the past because you will no longer be able to fill the one you presently have. The Democratic Party will soon learn just how difficult it is to win elections without the votinng bloc of women.

Please let Simon know how serious women are about our reproductive rights.  Tell him not to shrink from the debate over abortion.   I'm not sure that the leadership of this party has a clue how women feel. To see our leaders react to the rightwing thugs who have never supported you and never will instead of standing firm for a woman's right to choose is reprehensible.   Women have much more to lose than an election, we have our lives to lose, the lives of our daughters and granddaughters.   We can't afford to give an inch because our party
has already given away too much.

I had a conversation with over 450 women last night, late into the night about our options and this party.   There were many views but the one constant is that we will leave, we will send our voter registration forms with declined to state marked to the DNC in mass to make the point that you thew our votes away because you didn't care enough to keep them.   Pander to the Republicans and you will lose more than 2005, 2006 and 2008, you will lose our respect and our votes for a lifetime.

Thank you for keeping me in the loop.   I look forward to hearing how the campaign is going.    Please, please take this seriously.   It will break many hearts if we have say we are no longer Democrats.

Warmest Regards,

My intent is certainly to be heard but it is also to galvanize and encourage the women on Kos to give comments and suggestions.   I know of no other group that is as powerful as women when we join each other in the fight for what we view as life, our dignity, our rights and the example we are so privileged to send around the world because of our birthright to call ourselves Americans.  It is true that our valor has been tarnished in this world but we still shine brightly.  Nelson Mandela says it is our power we are most frightened of, let's move out from the shadows and let that power shine as we say no more, we've had enough, we have given enough, we deserve better.  

•  Beautifully written...

  and very moving.  Thank you.  Recommended, definitely.  

  I, for one, will never stand for a Democratic party that does not support abortion rights.  I am all for slashing the abortion rate...through birth control, education, and family planning, NOT by forcing women into the back alleys.  

  by KB on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:02:08 PM PDT

  •  Response from Simon Rosenberg

    Thank you for taking the time to read this.  The feelings have been boiling up for weeks without a clear channel to put energy into.  The chance to write to Rosenberg and then the immediate response led the way.  Here are the replies by Chris, my friend on the campaign and Kristen, Rosenberg's womens rights advisory group person.  Hopefully, this correspondence will give us one way to have our collective voices heard here on Kos as well as the community of men and women who believe a woman's right to choose, in all ways, must be upheld and given back.

    I am going to send this to Kirsten Faulk who is taking the reins on a women advisory group for Simon and that might be a great place to contribute your energy.

    by caliberal on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:08:55 PM PDT

    •  Give Pelosi a break

      There's no way she would support a conservative like Roemer unless she truly believed that this party is on the ropes.  We need to get off of the ropes and fight with Republicans in all 50 states.  

      Caliberal's strategy would be great if California were the only state in the union.  Unfortunately for us, we have to deal with the reality that many church-going voters including Christians, Jews, and Muslims are put off by the "all-abortion, all-the-time" attitude of the Democratic Party.

      The Republican Party went out of its way last year to make sure that pro-choice Republicans felt welcome.

      We did nothing.  It was "my way or the highway" to pro-life democrats, just like in 2000.  If John McCain would've signed on with Kerry, we would've won.  And precisely because McCain is pro-life and not a liberal.

      Too bad.  We're on our way to becoming the next Whig Party, a historical footnote.  Pelosi is not trying to destroy the party, she's trying to save it.

      Think "big tent."  Not petty intra-party squabbles.

      by rayek on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 09:06:52 PM PDT

      •  not in my name

        The Republican Party went out of its way last year to make sure that pro-choice Republicans felt welcome.

        Right.

        By lying to them.

        Is that what you advocate? Lying to pro-life women to get their vote?

        Or do you advocate giving a little... i.e. well, if we just make certain kinds of abortion illegal the Repubs will stop there...

        by spiderleaf on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 09:33:37 PM PDT

        •  asdf

          I agree with the sentiment that Dems s/b unashamedly prochoice.

          But has the GOP really lied to their small cadre of prochoice voters? Beyond the piece o'crap partial-birth flim-flam, the GOP has done little more than pay lip service to the antichoice folks. Maybe they're still shopping for the perfect case in which to file a friend-of-the-court brief asking the Supremes to reverse Roe, but I'm not entirely sure that's really something they want to do. (It'd undo much of their own coalition.)

          Like many, many other things, the GOP's action bears only resembles their rhetoric slightly. I don't like the GOP. They're working on tearing what I understand to be the very fabric of our society asunder.

          Still, this issue seems to be a whole lot more smoke than fire. Tim Roemer is unfit to take a leadership role with the DNCfor this and myriad other reasons, but please, stop highlighting reasons for American Catholics to have trepidation about our party. We do need their vote, too, and, to get it, it's important that they notice the items they care about. The choice/life debate becomes a distraction.

          by wystler on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 12:35:30 PM PDT

          •  they aren't moving federally

            Why reverse Roe?  By and large, states are passing measures that either severely restrict abortion-access or chop away funding for places that provide it.  The measures passed by Michigan last year ... I cried when I read that legislation.  Repubs are leading the way for the pro-lifers by eroding at abortion rights on a state level.  Pro-choice RNCers are willfully blind - they tell themselves that as long as Roe stands, it's all good.  Denial is everything, baby.

            Meanwhile, millions of women across the country already can't get access to even INFORMATION about abortion.  We women have put up with enough.  I agree with Caliberal.  If this party chooses not to represent me, then I will find someone who will.  Its really amusing, and heartbreaking, watching people on Kos, even, telling women to suck it up, or telling homosexuals to suck it up ... telling us that we need to look at the big picture.  Well guess what, I AM looking at the big picture.  And the big picture is showing women as second-rate citizens, where pharmacists are even supported in their refusal to fill birth control prescriptions.  Why don't you start looking at the big picture?

            by rhapsaria on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 02:31:40 PM PDT

            •  party choosing to represent you

              the number of Democrats who are pro-life is so small.  Literally every single one of our Presidential candidates last year was pro-choice--from Massachusetts, North Carolina, Florida... even the pro-life guy from Ohio BECAME pro-choice just so he could have a shot at running a serious race.  We had a huge march on Washington in favor of choice and all the Democratic candidates spoke in favor of it.

              I am not in favor of Roemer, but I do note that the DNC chair position does not set policy on issues so much as run an organization.  I personally hope we have a pro-choice chair (I would be shocked if we don't), but I am kinda knocked out by the intensity of the language on this thread.  We are a vocally pro-choice party, and the idea that we aren't sewrious about the issue is, well... nuts.  The issue of access is a serious one that we need to work hard on, but I believe there are millions of abortions performed in the US every year (let me know if I am wrong). Is this evidence of women becoming second-class citizens?

              by Sheffield on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 03:57:09 PM PDT

              •  perhaps

                It's true that the DNC chair does not set policy on issues for the party.  But if Roemer is elected, then the two most visible faces of the DNC - Roemer and Reid - both will be anti-abortion.  You said it yourself, "the number of Democrats who are pro-life is so small" ... so then why put Roemer and Reid in these positions?  We are not talking about politicians who are personally pro-life yet politically pro-choice... they are both vocal in their anti-abortion stances.

                And if the Dems are really serious about the issue, then why has the right to access eroded so sharply over recent years?  Probably because it's not a priority to them.  Well, it's a priority to me.  And it will either become a priority to them - rather than the lip-service they usually give the issue - or I will look elsewhere to find someone to represent me.  So look at the increasing limits on access to family planning services and information about abortion, and look also at pharmacists denying birth control, and at the erosion of real, actual sex education of public schools ... and let's talk about the picture that paints.  Birth control has always been a central point in women's rights.  I don't think that I am being over-reactive here - I think that I am justified in feeling alarm of the current trends within the DNC.  They are seeking to distance themselves from issues that they consider to be "morally questionable" and/or "hot button" ... abortion and gay marriage are but two examples.  But who, then, will stand up for these rights in Washington, and at the very least halt the erosion that is currently taking place?  If they won't, then I shall look elsewhere.

                by rhapsaria on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 04:51:47 PM PDT

                •  Only Proper Response I Can Find

                  How can we have an impact at the state level, then?

                  I'm in Illinois. We're fairly blue here. We've had too many GOoPers running unopposed (we're working on getting them all opposed in 2006), but there's no real statewide threat to access based on the happenings in Springpatch that I've heard of.

                  You're in Michigan? Are you plugged into a local organization that's working on lining up votes? Letter-writing and posting commentary is all fine and good, but the way to beat this back is to get our kind of folks in position where they act on legislation.

                  You ask who will stand up in Washington, though you write that the problems are state level. If the problem is coming from Lansing, asking for the Feds to swoop in from DC (esp. given that it's currently BushCo who controls Justice Dept) is improbable. If there's no leadership in the state party (what the hell's wrong with Ms. Granholm? why aren't you complaining about her?), then locals need to take on the long-haul task of straightening it out through a grass-roots effort.

                  It's worth noting that the folks in DC typically have cut their teeth at in state-level politics. If Michigan's legislature is passing bad bills (and Gov. Granholm is signing them), what are you and others doing to replace them, or at least to elect more progressive Democrates to the legislature? (Perhaps I'm going out on a limb in guessing you're a Michigan resident ...)

                  Simple fact: Roemer's not going to be the DNC chair. It's disturbing that he receives words of support if you don't pay attention to the details. The key detail is this: that a reformer DNC chair will pull the plug on some of the institutional deadweight that folks like Reid and Pelosi(!!) have rubbed elbows with over their DC tenure. The beltway insider parasitic toadies who make a living kissing up to congresscritters don't feel comfortable about Howard Dean, Simon Rosenberg and even Donnie Fowler.

                  Additional traction is that there's an inside-the-beltway wonkish mindset that creeps into the heads of leadership, and builds sweet lies with statistics. In this case, the statistic is that the Catholic voter went for BushCo, and the sweet lie is that if Dems weren't so goddamned strident about choice, they'd have gotten enough votes to carry the day two months ago. (Guessing it sounds more convincing after the third martini and an hours worth of deep flattery.)

                  For Reid to have supportive words for Roemer is not entirely surprising, since they have similar stances on the issue of choice. What should be far more disturbing, but seems to be downplayed, is that Ms. Pelosi is ignoring her own beliefs in promoting the DLC's latest darling. Thanks, Nancy!

                  by wystler on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 10:09:44 AM PDT

                •  Free-floating indignation

                  Who are 'the Dems" who are not serious about this issue?  I mean, there are somewhere's around ten thousand elected Democrats in this country, most of whom have no idea who there counterparts are outside a 100-mile radius from where they live.  As it is, most of us Dems, rank and file on up, are pro-choice.

                  I agree with you 100% that Roemer is the wrong choice for chair.

                  Limitations on access or public education has so much to do with where you live and what laws are passed by your state legislature and county/city government.  The idea that the DNC chair or even the US Senate minority leader has a big effect on those things is... well, they just don't.

                  This is a huge issue for the Republicans on a national level and they've made precious little progress on this in terms of national policy. On this level, we are winning!  So you're blaming the big, brand-name national Democrats for the failures of local Democrats in only some areas... it's like getting angry and indignant and firing your plumber because the lights aren't working at your office.

                  I live in New York. There is plenty of access. The "partial birth" abortion ban that the Republicans try to pass in the state leg gets killed every year.  Birth control availability was a big part of the 2002 Women's Health and Wellness Act, and making sure that HMOs offered coverage of birth control was a big issue as well. These are serious issues, and we are not denying women their rights here in
                  NY.  What I don't get is how the US Senator from Nevada gets the rap for whatever the local electeds in your area are doing.  Maybe the reason acess is eroding is because Republicans are in charge.  Who is to blame for problems with abortion access where you live?

                  You never respond to where I wrote there are millions of abortions performed every year in the US. This suggests that access problems are not stopping women from using their reproductive rights.

                  Tim Roemer is one candidate for chair who will hopefully not win. Every other canidate is (I believe) pro-choice.  If you want to "look elsewhere" because we're not protecting the erosion of choice on some issues, go ahead, but it's probably more useful to advocate your position to your local electeds so we can move forward rather than carping about how only 90% of Democrats agree with you and demonizing the other ten percent, whom, after all, we don't want to see go and join the Bush team.

                  by Sheffield on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 10:45:26 AM PDT

      •  Way off the mark.

        To the extent that the Dems are "on the ropes," it isn't b/c of abortion.  Yeah, there are lots of people who feel strongly on that issue and vote Republican as a result.  Do you think they'll vote Dem b/c some Democratic candidates start compromising?  Wrong.  The Republicans will always own this issue for those voters, as they will always go further in restricting abortion rights.

        Meanwhile, as you read above, a great number of pro-choice women will be disaffected and look elsewhere if they don't feel their rights are supported by the Democrats.

        If the Democrats go the way of the Whigs, it will be because THEY FORGET TO STAND FOR ANYTHING.

        Btw, the phrase "all-abortion, all the time" is so offensive and such a distortion that it makes me doubt your sincerity.

        by wont get fooled again on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 11:49:10 PM PDT

        •  Careful framing

          First of all, I happen to agree with the author and the sentiment that this is a principle on which the Democratic Party should stand. However:

          Btw, the phrase "all-abortion, all the time" is so offensive and such a distortion that it makes me doubt your sincerity.

          That's not an implausible reading of "I want first, second and third-trimester abortions to be... available in every district in the country."

          For what it's worth, there aren't many countries where you can get a third-trimester abortion without a compelling (usually doctor-certified) reason. It's a hard sell for a lot of people to go along with a woman wanting to terminate a fetus which could be put up for adoption in a few weeks.

          We need to forumlate a rationale and principle which is based around empowering women rather than aborting fetuses.

          by Outlandish Josh on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 02:21:00 PM PDT

          •  Please name just one

            For what it's worth, there aren't many countries where you can get a third-trimester abortion without a compelling (usually doctor-certified) reason.

            where this is possible. People have been claiming that women can get 3rd trimester abortions at will and for frivious reasons and yet I've never found any evidence (or been provided with any) of one place in the country where this is true.

            by colleen on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 03:43:59 PM PDT

          •  I don't disagree that there are better and worse

            ways to frame this issue, nor that we should be sensitive to the feelings of people who are genuinely concerned about fetal life.

            Still, maintaining that you want the rights to be unrestricted doesn't mean that you actually want to promote abortion.  And what one individual says also doesn't define the Dem Party's position, which is already a good deal more cautious than that.

            To me, the phrasing "all abortion, all the time" just sounds like a gross caricature of what Democrats--both the grassroots and the DNC--say.

            by wont get fooled again on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 06:59:57 PM PDT

      •  Okay, checked out your other comments.

        You must have gotten lost--this is a Democratic blog.

        You're perturbed because we are pro-choice, want to keep social security, and want verifiable elections.  Hello--we're DEMOCRATS.  

        I'd like to hear one position on which you agree with the Party.  If there aren't any, hey, maybe you're not really a Democrat?

        Not that there's anything WRONG with that--unless you are not honest about it.  Man, I can't stand people taking this false "for the good of the PARTY, you need to change ALL of your positions" line!  Insincerity is base.  Anonymous insincerity is just cheesy.

        Listen up, people:  from now on, when you hear this line, look at the messenger closely before you entertain the message.  

        by wont get fooled again on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 12:10:39 AM PDT

        •  Seriously. Take a look at the comments!

          Anti-gay rights.  The country is 85% Christian, the Dems mustn't take a secular view.  "The left wing is for losers."  "The DNC only spreads for $$$"  "No more dorkywindsurfers . . .  We need a macho man."

          I'm really not trying to persecute anyone for holding a contrary opinion.  I LIKE respectful debate.  I'm just saying that, from time to time, we have, er, "visitors" who make a show of being Democrats while advocating one DNC talking point after another.  And then everyone gets all caught up debating them on the assumption that they're honestly trying to help the Democratic Party when they're not.  And I really don't like that at all.

          by wont get fooled again on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 01:11:52 AM PDT

          •  Hah! That SHOULD be "RNC" talking point

            See how they get you confused?!

            by wont get fooled again on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 01:13:30 AM PDT

          •  And look at the ratings

            Here is a comment that rayek troll rated:

            Why (3.85 / 20)

            Because it is my body, and you can't even begin to talk about my rights if I don't have control over my body.

            You are correct.  We will never agree on this issue.

            Doesn't sound like a troll to me.

            by Aguas de Marco on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 05:52:54 AM PDT

            •  You're right--rampant ratings abuse:

              a slew of troll ratings for benign posts-- including a "1" rating for an "I love georgia10!" comment.

              Now, who doesn't love georgia10?

              by wont get fooled again on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 03:24:30 PM PDT

      •  I disagree

        I think if we abandon abortion rights it will be another example of how the national Democratic party stands for nothing, but instead waits to see how to react.  Our party needs to stand for important issues that delineates us from the Repugs.  It's wonderful that there are pro-life Democrats out there and their voice should be heard as a part of the debate, but the core of our party should be pro-choice.  The leader of our party should be pro-choice.  I would contend that the future of our party depends on us sticking with our ideals and spreading it far and wide.  I would also contend that voters will stick with you if 1) they like you and 2) they believe that you believe what you are saying, even if they don't agree with you (look at the exit polling on Bush and the war).

        My .02

        by SoccerMomDemocrat on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:57:28 AM PDT

      •  What does "Welcome" mean?

        People who do not like abortion are welcome in the Dem Party.  People who do not support abortion up to the moment of birth are welcome in the Dem party. People who support parental consent are welocme in the Dem, party.  Some of them are even elected officials in the Dem party (Harry Reid, anyone?  Dennis Kucinich before he ran for Pres?)

        But we are talking about the FACE of the Dem Party.  The point person; the one who heads the organized party.  You don't see the Repubs making Giuliani the RNC head.  The PARTY AS A WHOLE has to support the principle that reproductive rights are a health issue that is between a women and her doctor, and that no woman or her doctor should ever go to jail or be fined because of a decision to abort a fetus.  That is a bottom line.  So is support for contraception and scientifically accurate sex education.  So is support for education period for young women.

        The Dem party can impose discipline on a very few issues.  Reproductive rights MAY not be one of these (like Social Security), but the position of the PARTY has to be that we understand that many do not like abortion, and the party platform of accurate education, ready access to contraception and safe, legal abortion if those fail, combined with economic and educational policies that give real opportunities to young women, will both reduce the incidence of abortion and promote life better than any scheme that criminalizes women or their health care providers.

        by Mimikatz on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 10:24:07 AM PDT

  •  Amen to that...

    
    and here here...I bet this fucker could learn something from reading this...

    by ContrarianAlexis on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 07:59:37 AM PDT

  •  Exactly!

    Forcing women into back alleys does not slash the abortion rate.  It only raises the amount of deaths and injuries by slashing the women who choose to abort a pregnancy.

    by kaus on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:22:26 AM PDT

•  I Hear You

  Personally I can't even begin to understand where the accomodation crowd is coming from.

  What sort of party would we be if we had backed down from Civil Rights?  We gave up a huge block of Southern Democrats in that fight because it was the right thing to do.

  What sort of party would we be if we didn't stand up for equal rights for our GBLT community?  Sure, some people might be alienated, but TOO BAD because it is the right thing to do.

  What sort of party would we be if we allowed the rights of women to be set back over 30 years in the name of accomodation?  If we lose voters on this issue, then they weren't really on our side to begin with.

  This is about me being able to have control over my body, how much more basic can it be?

  by Sychotic1 on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:05:18 PM PDT

  •  Gnashing of teeth

    I blame the media and their ridiculous (and now discredited) spin that "family values" was why Bush won the election.  

    I sat and debated this one internally, before realizing that it didn't matter why we lost, because frankly, there are some principals you don't compromise.

    I am a white, not very religious, happily married middle-aged man with a couple of kids.

    First of all, I think Dems need to realize that the anti-gay, anti-women rhetoric actions of the Republican Party are nothing more than canaries in a coalmine.  What they really want to do is return us to a fantasy, Ozzie and Harriet world, where men and women only have sex as a result of marriage, only for procreation, and while the menfolk can have their affairs, the women will shut up and fix dinner.  It's about a basic hatred for women and gays, not about any higher moral calling.

    I will never believe that the government, or worst still, private insurance companies will ever do a better job of making the right medical and spiritual decision with an unwanted pregnancy than the woman involved.

    Similarly, I will never believe that what two committed adults do is any business of the government's.

    I will not compromise my beliefs that fighting for women's rights and gay rights and civil rights are the right thing to do.  I will continue to fight for those principles even if we never win another election.

    That being said, I think we need to reframe the debate a bit.  Republicans are pro-life from conception to birth.  AFter that, they could care less about the resulting human being.  They punish the poor, women, the unemployed, minorities, working families, children, the innocent in other countries, and they will not hesitate to kill the same people in adulthood (or as teenagers) if they can get away with it (death penalty).  For any Republican to say they are pro-life is nothing but an utter and despicable lie.  We need to call them out this strongly on it.

    by WussGawd on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 06:14:26 PM PDT

    •  the media loves to perpetuate wedge issues n/t

      by SonofFunk on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 08:47:04 PM PDT

      •   WEDGE issue is the Key

        Many Repugs really do not give a shit about abortion. They use it for securing votes. Remember ex-Congressman Bob Barr? One of his wives had an abortion which came out during the Clinton Impeachment- and guess what- He didn't get re-elected.

        I would be willing to bet that many rich repugs have many abortions done by their private personal well-paid physicians.

        Getting pregnant in HS was like the worse stigma any family could suffer and I'm certain Rich girls have just as much unprotected sex as poor girls.

        It is mostly a ruse. Just like the homosexual issues. It motivates the bible-thumpers. Maybe if we stopped responding to it with so much clamor these two issues would fade away.

        I'm not saying we stop fighting for our civil rights, but maybe we tone it down and work quietly behind the scene.

        "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

        by roseeriter on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 02:21:43 AM PDT

        •  WARNING WARNING

          Danger Danger Willimena Robinson...The Republicans are working quietly behind the scenes. Look at the bill that Maura uncovered in Virginia. It was only by screaming and yelling that it was stopped. We have been quiet while much of our rights were eroded. In rural areas of states that have passed laws protecting the religious freedoms of medical professionals and pharmacists, it is becoming more and more difficult to get birth control.
          Without the Internet and women speaking up loud the Republicans who believe that life starts at conception will completely eliminate what once were considered commonplace women's rights.

          by ricardo4 on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 06:25:06 AM PDT

        •  Failing to recognize sincere beliefs

          That oppose one's own is a foolish political stance to take.

          _Many Repugs really do not give a shit about abortion".

          You don't win minds and enlighten voters by telling them that their beliefs aren't real--nor by suggesting that politicians generally do what they do because of tactical convenience rather than conviction (why can't the exact same cynicism be applied to the positions of Democratic positions?)

          The fact is that, wrong as we both believe they are, millions of Americans sincerely believe that abortion is murder--and, for many politicians, this is their raison d'etre (and, for others, representing the will of their electorate is what they were elected to do).

          By pretending that it is all a "ruse", we

          a) reduce our vigilance toward sincere, and sincerely dangerous, intent to overturn Roe v. Wade, because we will cynically believe that theocons don't "really" care about "actually" implementing their agenda, so we don't "really" need to worry about it (an argument I hear frequently on this site), and

          b) we reinforce the message of the opposition, that liberal elites condescend toward "sincere patriotic Americans", that we on the Left are incapable of understanding what "real believers" hold dear.

          Both ways, it is a poor strategy. As for your conclusion from this fallacious assertion - that we should "tone things down and work behind the scenes"---you should read Martin Luther Kings' "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", particularly this part:

          I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

          by galiel on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 06:46:11 AM PDT

          •  There's a framing op here

            Calling George Lakoff! While abortion is not murder, it's a difficult point to argue. The way to get the other side on the defensive is to call for minimizing unplanned pregnancies, which have much more to do with the abortion rate anywhere than legality. If you can do that, then the other side has to start talking about how to minimize unplanned pregnancies, and any honest right winger is going to have problems defending abstention (by itself). And if they try to claim that it should carry the death penalty then they are not the people we are trying to win over. If they try to claim that making it illegal is more important, than you can claim they are not truly interested in the law than in saving fetuses.

            by Doug in SF on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 10:12:36 AM PDT

            •  There are multiple framing ops here

              which we're not taking.  There's the privacy/birth control framing op.  There's the bad baby/tragedy framing op. There's the teen pregnancy as victims rather than harlots framing op.  There's the forced birth framing op.  There's the pro-birth versus pro-life framing op.  There are many.  The real question is how do we get them off this board and into the community.  I've tried to, with a little bit of success.  In a diary recreated below, I've invited others to join and do the same.  If you think it of value, perhaps a recomment will get it back to the front and we can really brain-storm the issue.

              Abortion Action Opportunities

              by dhonig on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 10:44:01 AM PDT

              •  I frequent the political board

                on the University of Texas athletic site (don't ask how I got there), and there's a huge spectrum of people there. I pretty much got the resident wingnut to advocate murder raps for doctors and mothers. That argument is detestable by an overwhelming majority in this country and needs no further rebuttal other than disgust.

                by Doug in SF on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 11:04:48 AM PDT

                •  Talking about "criminalization" is key

                  It reveals the true face of the Right, which repels most people.

                  by Smallbottle on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 02:02:05 PM PDT

            •  more than just contraception at issue

              I've posted on this line before, but one framing op we need to take - this isn't just about women who carelessly neglect their birth control.  Abortions are had for reasons that strike a lot closer to home for some conservatives.  My idea for some of these framing ops:

              A series of ads, showing a woman raped, then she and her husband being informed she's pregnant by the rapist?  A happy mom of two who's told by her doc that serious health complications from pregnancy threaten her life, pan to the dad and kids who'd be left behind if she were forced to continue the pregnancy?  A happy young couple being informed the fetus is grossly deformed?  A young girl who's the victim of incest?  A terribly poor woman, barely scraping by in a roach-infested apartment in a neighborhood with distant gunfire, who's just been abandoned by the father and is facing a table full of bills and already a mouth or two to feed?  

              I live in a red state, unfortunately, and it's all about framing the debate.  People will stone you for talking about "choice."  Let's start talking about necessity, about untenable situations, and the very real dilemnas faced by women.

              by milton333 on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 04:39:01 PM PDT

              •  I love those ideas

                How can we get those ads made?  I think they'd be very powerful.  

                by Margot on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 08:24:52 PM PDT

              •  These ads are a brilliant idea

                They put a face on abortion that has been sorely lacking.  It would be difficult to see them and not feel compassion or see the humaness that is inherent  in the decision to end a pregnancy.  Nessity is a perfect word to use.  Brilliant.  

                 

                by caliberal on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 10:44:36 PM PDT

    •  Values Issues

      "Want to live in tolerant secular Republic, not wingnut theocratic tyranny" IS A VALUE.

      Some voters may have voted that way or its opposite.  The poll does not tell you.

      The poll in question did not appear to settle which values people cared about.

      by phillies on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 05:47:25 AM PDT

    •  I've always been appalled

      that the same group that cuts well-child programs, Head Start, WIC, and welfare-to-work programs are the same people who tell me that once I get pregnant, I must give birth, regardless of any quality-of-life issues or endangerment of my health.  These are the same people who vilify welfare mothers as lay-about good-for-nothings pigging out at the government trough.  

      by eunichorn on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 11:46:13 AM PDT

      •  It's Easy to Understand ...

        ... by applying the Rockridge Institute's STRICT FATHER model that dictates that moral, upstanding folks do not have these kind of problems, while immoral people bring them upon themselves, and thus, deserve what they get.

        This is really a piece of FRAMING 101 curriculum. By using our values, and the NURTURANT PARENT model, it becomes easier to flip the flippable, though we're still waaaayyy behind in building the institutions necessary to give our model proper support. It is entirely possible for somebody who is personally opposed to abortion to work this model, btw ...

        by wystler on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 12:49:42 PM PDT

  •  Litmus Test

    People seem to be *very afraid* of the word "litmus test":

    Questioner: Do you use reproductive rights as a litmus test for approving a candidate for a position?

    Politician (sputtering): Oh lord, no. Jesus no. Hell no. We do not use a litmus test. Ack, I'm gagging.

    For me, the answer to this question is simple:

    Questioner: Do you use reproductive rights as a litmus test for approving a candidate for a position?

    Politician: Damn straight.

    People may point out that the Democratic Party needs to moderate its views, or whatever, but I also seem to recall people complaining that we have lost our moral compass and our values.

    Reproductive rights is a principle worth fighting for and, yes, it is a principle worth losing for. The reason it is so hard to be principled is becomes sometimes you must take really hard knocks for your stand, and if Democrats aren't willing to take those hard knocks, they deserve to lose, in a way that is shameful rather than noble.

    by Bald Peanut on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 06:29:41 PM PDT

    •  Call abortion what it is

      "Reproductive rights" is a misnomer.  Whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, no one is disputing that women have the right to reproduce.  The issue is abortion.

      Using euphemisms may help you feel better, but it does not help to clarify what the subject is.  If you're for abortion, just say you're "pro-abortion."

      Saying that you're "for reproductive rights" does not help to clarify what your position on abortion is.

      That's like a right wing tax cutter saying that he's "for economic rights."  If he's against taxes, he should say that he's against taxes and not beat around the bush.  That's all.

      by rayek on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 09:12:31 PM PDT

      •   If you are aganst women...

        Rayek.. if you are against women having control over thier own boides, just say... "Fuck You!... you are of mind to do with as YOUR bodies as you please!!..And I send YOU and your Doctor to prison for life."

        by Felicia on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 09:26:08 PM PDT

      •  Common Misconception

        I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice.

        I don't like abortions, just like I don't like capital punishment. But I don't believe the government should be able to dictate this decision for a woman. I believe it is a moral choice she must confront, with no interference from the government.

        What's interesting is that this misconception (pro-abortion vs. pro-choice) is a misconception held by conservatives.

        by Bald Peanut on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 09:28:18 PM PDT

      •  Reproductive Rights

        I have the right to receive complete, accurate information about all forms of birth control.  This is a reproductive right.  I have the right to use any form of birth control I wish.  This is a reproductive right.  If the condom breaks, I have the right to prevent pregnancy by using emergency contraception.  This is a reproductive right.  I have the right to decide when, how, and with whom to bear a child.  This is a reproductive right.  I have the right to receive a safe abortion by any method, without being given false information, without a waiting period, without notifying anyone.  This is a reproductive right.  I have the right to receive an abortion if my pregnancy will damage my future fertility.  This is a reproductive right.  I have the right, if I choose, to deliver a baby as I desire - vaginally or by Caesarian.  This is a reproductive right.

        Reproductive rights as a term is not limited to the right to reproduce, in the same way that civil rights are not limited to the right to be treated civilly.  I will call myself pro-abortion the day the other side begins calling themselves pro-forced-motherhood.

        The ability of a woman to control her own destiny is contingent on reprodutive rights.  In this sense, reproductive rights are human rights.

        by courtreport on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 09:37:04 PM PDT

        •  Thank you

          and how in the world have be allowed the conversation about reproductive rights to be framed in term of "litmus test?"

          Would we allow the first amendment to be framed as a "litmus test?" No. Both are the law of the land.

          This topic should be framed as whether a judge supports stare decisis, or the age old precedent of the American legal system honoring precedent.

          Bottom line, if a judicial nominee or judge doesn't support stare decisis, every court decision is in jeopardy. It's high time we point that out.

          by Cordelia Lear on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 12:35:14 AM PDT

          •  Stare Decisis

            I do not know what "stare decisis" means. Could you educate me?

            Also, I really liked your comment on "litmus test". What is the history of this term? How the hell did it become such a bogeyman word?

            by Bald Peanut on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:21:52 AM PDT

            •  Stare decisis

              It's a Latin term (lawyers love using them) referring to the traditional reluctance of courts to overrule earlier decisions, as doing so would make the law less predictable. Justice Clarence Thomas has reportedly said that he doesn't believe in stare decisis--quite a disturbing thought.

              by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:39:30 AM PDT

              •  Thanks

                Thanks to both of you folks for answering :).

                -bp

                by Bald Peanut on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:55:25 AM PDT

            •  lkjho

              linked text = stare decisis

              by MojitoChica on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:43:16 AM PDT

      •  Wrong

        Sorry, but just plain wrong.  This debate is about far more than abortion.  

        1. Privacy. The wing-nuts don't want to undo Roe, they want to undo Griswold, which enunciated the right to privacy. With that goes birth control, and could literally recriminalize a Doctor talking to a married patient about birth control.

        2. Birth control availability.  You've not been paying attention if you failed to note the statutes being passed around the country giving a pharmacist the "right" to refuse to dispense birth control pills.  Fine if you're in New York, but how about if you're going to the only pharmacy in Wherethefuck, Idaho?

        3. Education.  For the wingnuts, pregnancy is a punishment, and abortion is an undeserved reprieve.  It's intimately tied in to the entire celibacy as sex ed debate.  This is particularly poisonous in the AIDS debate and related to foreign aid.

        4. Women's rights, ALL of them.  The birth control pill gave women the ability to control their bodies.  Take away abortion, birth control, and scientific education, and you are not stepping onto a slippery slope, you're sliding down one, and it leads to servitude.  If a woman can't control her body she can't control her future.  And if your response is "then don't have sex," you're on the wrong board.

        Many more, but that's enough to start.  I'm sure my compatriots will join in and add the many I've not thought of.

        by dhonig on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 10:50:27 AM PDT

        •  THe pill gave women the ability to control

          their bodies? I don't get it. Couldn't a woman be in control of her body, even if she doesn't use birth control? Unless by control you mean using an artificial substance to interupt the body's normally occuring functions.

          by Groper on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 10:55:17 AM PDT

          •  I think

            I'll let some of the women on the board respond to this absurdity. I don't think I could do it the violent and vituperative justice it deserves.

            by dhonig on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 10:57:09 AM PDT

          •  are you serious?

            Being able to avoid becoming pregnant gives women control of their lives.  

            How easy is it to leave an abusive man when you've got dependent children?  How easy to support yourself and one or more mouths to feed when you face a gendered wage and education disparity that already starts you off way behind a man just for being a woman?  

            How many women missed out on college, careers, curing cancer, writing poetry, winning Olympic medals, because they got pregnant and entered a two-decade sentence of prioritizing another life over their own?  

            I'll say this - I work with victims of domestic violence, do volunteer legal work, and a woman's children are her biggest weakness, believe me abusive men exploit it, and having children and inadequate financial resources keeps a lot of women trapped in dangerous and depressing circumstances.  

            Can anyone honestly argue that unplanned pregnancy does not derail one's life and compromise one's dreams?  Why should men, by accident of biology, escape any repurcussions from unplanned pregnancy, while the entire course of a woman's life is altered?  Birth control is essential to women's freedom.

            by milton333 on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 04:49:35 PM PDT

        •  THe pill gave women the ability to control

          their bodies? I don't get it. Couldn't a woman be in control of her body, even if she doesn't use birth control? Unless by control you mean using an artificial substance to interupt the body's normally occuring functions.

          by Groper on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 10:56:03 AM PDT

        •  Oh, and the birth control pill

          is also really nifty to control insanely long and/or irregular periods.

          by AuntiePeachy on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 07:14:19 PM PDT

      •  "pro-abortion"?

        that's not right, either. if you want to break it down

        pro-choice - "pro legal abortion", all abortion should be 100% legal, and not regulated by anyone other than the mother.
        pro-life - "anti legal abortion", all abortion should be 100% illegal, and subject to criminal law.

        of course, there are side issues too, like parental-notification on one side, and crimes against the fetus on the other.

        by colorless green ideas on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 10:55:19 AM PDT

    •  Oh just give it a few more years...

      ...with the way science education is going, no one will even know what a f***ing litmus test is.

      by Doug in SF on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 10:15:25 AM PDT

  •  They are sellouts, not acommodators!

    Sychotic1...

    Here's the deal. Some people... in fact most... that work for the Democratic Party or a Labor Union these days... do not have a backbone. In fact, it is part of their job description that they do not.

    In the late seventies I interviewed for a union organizing job... I had been an active member for five or six years. There were three interviewees in this group interview. We all knew each other casually. The other two were in their forties and they told the Division (5 state) president how much their father's pension meant to them and other mealy-mouth crap.

    I was 23 and a hothead. And perhaps not the best choice, but certainly exponentialy better than this sellouts for their own certitude and security. I talked about how the union at that time, 1978, was selling out workers rights in their contracts, and how I would represent worker complaints to management. I also gave a background of union history, which the other two MEN hadn't a clue.

    Who got the two positions?

    It is a metaphor.

    Those in power identify with those in power, not with those plebians they represent. And the Union President wanted to know he would not be hearing any dissent.

    The Union President eats lunch and golfs with management. He lives in the same suburb. He, and it is always a HE, gets paid - the IWW and UFW are an exception to all of this - closer to management salaries.

    by Felicia on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 07:51:45 PM PDT

    •  If it wasn't clear...

      The Dem reps identify more with their Rep colleagues than you or me.

      by Felicia on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 07:52:42 PM PDT

  •  They think they know what's best for everyone.

    Not only do they not choose it for themselves, but they want to take away the right to choose for everyone else. We see it in schools when parents object to their children participating in various activities & think that means no one else's children should be able to participate either because those parents aren't as informed.
    I agree with caliberal, I tired of it coming from this side.

    by unemployedschoolcounselor on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 08:05:11 PM PDT

  •  Women have supported civil rights

    Harriet Beecher Stowe supported an end to slavery.   Her brother preached several times at a church in my town, in the 1840s I think.

    We finally got the right to vote.

    I am Caliberal's age almost, and I will not let MY RIGHTS be swept aside to make way for a win.
    A win for who, for fuck's sake?  Not women.  

    Did the world turn inside out and it's the goddam 1950s again? Am I wearing pearls and a housecoat while vacuuming..?  NO.  
    What the hell is wrong with people, thinking they can leave us to bleed and die, and we won't notice, we won't care?  

    by Margot on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 10:28:37 PM PDT

  •  You can't imagine?

    48% of women voted for Bush. Clearly one of two things is true

    i) A bare majority of women support a woman's right to choose
    - If this is the case, I'm not so sure that a lack of support of abortion rights should be a deal breaker in the democratic party.

    Or

    ii) Not many women thought that Bush would get anywhere near outlawing abortion (more likely).
    - If this is true, why are we even talking about abortion? If not enough people see abortions-rights under threat, then why wouldn't you support a pro-life democrat? Does it matter that he's pro-life if he can't do anything about it?

    One of the two cases is true. Eitherway, I don't see why every democrat has to be pro-choice.

    by crazymoloch on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 10:55:25 PM PDT

    •  asdf - women mislead

      I think many women who voted for Bush believe that most abortions in this country are late term abortions. They say they are pro-life but they are in favor of first trimester abortions. These women have not woken up to the reality that all abortions are going to be outlawed and that we are dangerously close to having life defined as beginning at conception.
      

      by ricardo4 on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 06:46:17 AM PDT

      •  not so sure

        I think that there are an awful lot of pro-choice people who voted for Bush on the assumption that, for all the sound and fury of the right, nothing much will happen; they think that Bush is just fooling the wingnuts.  These are the types who vote Republican mainly because they don't want to pay taxes and want to bomb the crap out of "the terrorists".
        

        That's particularly true of the Republicans from around where I live (California).  They are pro-choice but loathe paying taxes.  Arnold (who feels the same way) is their god.

        by Joe Buck on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 03:24:27 PM PDT

        •  well

          A lot of people thought it was impossible that Bush would deliberately lie to the American people about his rationale for war.  A lot of people are awfully naive...

          by milton333 on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 04:54:49 PM PDT

        •  Well if that's the case....

          ...... why do our standard bearers have to be brazenly pro-choice.

          by crazymoloch on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 05:27:54 PM PDT

          •  Why do they have to be

            "brazenly pro-choice."
            That's a good question, I'm glad you asked.
            First, the word  brazen:
            bra·zen
            Function: adjective
            Etymology: Middle English brasen, from Old English bræsen, from bræs brass
            1 : made of brass
            2 a : sounding harsh and loud like struck brass b : of the color of polished brass
            3 : marked by contemptuous boldness
            - bra·zen·ly adverb

            Let's replace "brazenly pro-choice" with "brazenly pro-civil rights."

            It means that much to me.  I will speak loudly, or softly, but I will speak. I expect  the party of my choice to speak for me and to have a meeting of the minds on this matter.

            by Margot on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 06:36:06 PM PDT

            •  Thanks for the lesson....

              ....and way to be an ass about it. The post I was replying to made the comment that a large number of pro-choice women vote republican because no longer see a threat to reproductive rights. So let me take this opportunity to rephrase my response to that post - Why does every democrat have to be pro-choice?

              Apparently many women don't see any threat to reproductive rights. Why does it matter that the democrat we're running is pro-choice or pro-life?  

              Clearly, emphasizing their support of abortion rights isn't winning them any votes in the pro-choice community (those damn pro-choice republicans). However, being so outspoken on this issue is costing them votes in the pro-life community.

              by crazymoloch on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 12:38:58 AM PDT

              •  I apologize

                That was not a nice way to answer you.  I  was pissed off to begin with, and  that usually does lead to making an ass out of myself if I speak in anger.  

                by Margot on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 04:34:09 PM PDT

              •  The sad fact

                is that people tend not to think about the rights they have until they need to exercise them.  My guess is that the majority of women are unaware of the perilous state of reproductive freedom in this country.

                About the Dems' pro-choice stance costing them votes in the pro-life community: it's a grave mistake to take this election as an example of the Dems losing because of their stand on abortion.  The "moral values" thing that the media keeps shoving down our throats was debunked shortly after the election when the poll results were more carefully analyzed.  In reality, Iraq and the "war on terror" were by far the most important issues on voters' minds.  No surprise there.  Yet some people keep nattering on about how we have to "reach out to people of faith" etc.

                What I'd like to know is this: what would it take to woo those pro-life voters over to the Democratic side?  I've seen some ranting in this thread about how horrible it is to support the right to late-term abortions.  OK, let's say that the Dems disavow that and say they're only going to support first- and second-trimester abortion rights.  Does anyone really think that this is going to appease the pro-life voters?  Come on.  These are people who think that a fertilized egg is the same thing as a baby.

                by hrh on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 09:33:22 PM PDT

    •  Or a 3rd type of woman Bush voter...

      iii) They may not think that reproductive freedoms apply to them.  I know a woman who voted for Bush; she is going thru menopause, and she likely thinks that this debate doesn't apply to her anymore.  

      We have to make the fight to take back our reproductive rights relevant to women who feel that the fight doesn't apply to them -- women who are past child-bearing age, certainly, but also women who don't have any problems with filling their birth control prescriptions at the pharmacist; women who don't have children in school being taught abstinence only...  

      For me, this issue is so important -- but for some women, it's not even a blip.  Those are the women to whom I think we have to make the case.

      by durhamowl on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:02:03 AM PDT

  •  I'm Afraid

    That very soon you are not going to have a "choice." Democrats don't do very well with the business of code. I think that we need to make this an issue about the rights of physicians to treat their patients. If we have to sacrifice certain voluntary late-term procedures in order to frame the issue properly than so be it. I don't like it but it may have to happen.

    We talk about Civil Rights like the Democratic Party = Martin Luther King. It's not exactly true. Sometimes you have to play politics and I agree with the above poster. Even MLK understood the concept.

    The clock is ticking.

    by TheChanMan on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 11:42:33 PM PDT

    •  Aha

      You said the magic word: code.  Where had I heard that before?
      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/9/16460/5820
      When Bush talks about Dred Scott, that's code for Roe vs. Wade.

      Quoting from Kynn's diary: 'When Bush made reference to "Dred Scott" he was assuring his anti-choice constituents that he would indeed only appoint Supreme Court justices who would remove abortion rights.'

       

      by Margot on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 11:54:55 PM PDT

  •  Apparently, some of them are coming from the other

    party!  (See above.)

    by wont get fooled again on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 12:11:57 AM PDT

•  Excellent

  I'm recommending for the title alone!

  "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

  by Dood Abides on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:06:41 PM PDT

  •  Do you think

    Nancy Pelosi could do this ? There's still time.

    "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

    by Dood Abides on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:09:45 PM PDT

•  My problem

  is that women's rights and abortion are synonomous in liberal circles. I happen to be a pro-life liberal, and this somehow translates to a lack of respect for women. THere is a lot more to women's issues than just abortion. Women still don't make as much as men for the same work. WOmen all over the world have much bigger problems than getting ris of an unwanted baby. (Female genital utilation, for instance, is still common around the world, as well as the widespread practice of forcing women to cover themselves in public.) The point being, women are about much more than abortion, but it's all you ever hear about when it comes to women's groups. (Please don't flame me for being pro-life, I've heard it before, adn you're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yous.)

  by Groper on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:11:41 PM PDT

  •  Why

    Because it is my body, and you can't even begin to talk about my rights if I don't have control over my body.

    You are correct.  We will never agree on this issue.
    

    by Sychotic1 on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:16:59 PM PDT

    •  you have removed yourself

      from the conversation, and killed your ability to shape the debate with this comment. Projecting your rage onto an issue only makes you a less effective. If you have no interest in understanding how others look at it, you are less likely to have your way.

      disclosure: this comes from a pro-choice male who believes abortion prevention policies should be championed by pro-choice people as much as abortion freedom.

      by SeanF on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 06:10:58 PM PDT

      •  Why do so many men

        feel they have the right to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies?

        It never ceases to astound me.

        The arrogance.

        You can oppose abortion all you want, if that is your personal philosophy, but why, oh WHY??? would any person think they have the right to impose their personal belief on someone else?

        If you are not a woman, this is NOT your issue- or your right.

        If you don't approve of abortion- don't have one.

        by wild salmon on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 07:10:05 PM PDT

        •  uh...lady

          i'm for abortion rights.

          i didn't ask to be circumsized. my body. i didn't ask for midwesterners to dictate whether i can marry. my life. I didn't ask to be denied healthcare because i don't have a job. my body and my life.

          there's lots of issues that affect "my body" where others have a say. Until you disenfranchise male voters and defrock all of them with any power, this is one too.

          by SeanF on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 07:23:01 PM PDT

          •  who says I am a lady?

            My point is that you are entitled to your opinion, as am I, but the issue of choice (with regards to reproductive rights) is a Women's issue.

            Healthcare (although it should be) is not a right in this country, it is a priviledge.

            Circumcision is a good issue for men to take up. That is something that is within their purview as it is about their bodies. Take it up with your parents, I guess, since they approved the procedure. Personally, I consider it an abominable procedure.

            I still think it is a gross display of arrogance for men to think their opinion is relevant to issues of women's reproductive rights. Support if you are so inclined, but this is the right of WOMEN, not of men.

            by wild salmon on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 07:36:18 PM PDT

            •  you're actually going to dismiss my support

              because I'm a man?

              good luck winning

              by SeanF on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 07:41:54 PM PDT

        •  Guess what?

          It's not just he men that are pro-life. In fact, it seems to be mostly women. Sure the male politicians are mostly the one's passing the laws, but it's because their constituents <sp> demand it (at least in the reds states) Abortion isn't a fight about men trying to oppress women, no matter how hard you try to frame it that way.

          Do you feel it's right to impose your personal philosphy on people through the law? HOw about hate crimes? Do you think it's fair to give someone extra time because their motivation for murder was more offensive to you than someone else's motive? Pretty much all of our laws are someone imposing hteir poin f view on some oneelse.

          by Groper on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 08:39:50 PM PDT

        •  If you're against...

          And by the way, I'm sick of "if you're against abortion, don't have one."  Keep your bumper sticker slogans on your car. If you're against raping hte environment for profit, don't work for Haliburton, but it's not my land that their raping, so I guess I shouldn't care. If you're against child abuse, don't beat your children, but stand by and idly wathch while someone beats the shit out of their kid in the mall parking lot. If you're against the war in Iraq, don't sign up for the army, but it's not my country their invading, so I guess I shouldn't care. If you're against murder, don't commit it, but turn a blind eye while others do?

          by Groper on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 09:00:57 PM PDT

          •  asdf - point when life begins

            until you carry a child inside your body and know what that feels like. Until you have had multiple miscarriages at 2 months, 3 months, and 7 months gestation, until you have been pregnant and not even known it for 3 months don't even try to tell me that you know when life begins. I don't and have had all the experiences described above. Only my God knows when life begins. I can only make the best decisions with what I know based on my health, the information provided by my doctor and the love and support of my partner.
            I do not want you or the government to make those decisions for me because of what you believe.
            Don't call it murder when you can't possibly know when life begins.

            by ricardo4 on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 06:56:36 AM PDT

      •  I hate it when people say

        you've "killed your ability to shape the debate." It's easy - it's not your body, you don't get to decide. The problem is others don't look at the issue from any vantage point but their own.

        by unemployedschoolcounselor on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 08:09:44 PM PDT

        •  nod

          Sounded a lot like, "Simmer down, little lady."

          Perhaps women shouldn't raise their voices or be aggressive, it's just not ladylike.
          /sarcasm

          by nephthys on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 10:00:34 PM PDT

          •  oh yes

            that's exactly what i meant.

            by SeanF on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:43:39 AM PDT

      •  Whoa--where do you get "rage" from?

        There's no rage in her post.  There's quite a bit of conviction.  Not the same thing.

        by wont get fooled again on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 12:14:33 AM PDT

        •  rage in the sense

          that the poster was trying to shut down anything other than what she wanted to hear. not interested in any discussion - she was laying down the law.

          kind of an odd attitude for a blog.

          by SeanF on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:27:48 AM PDT

          •  you don't get it

            She's not saying you have no right to an opinion.  What she is saying is that she has no rights at all if she doesn't have the most primal, fundamental right - control of her own body.  

            And if you don't understand that, don't understand that this is the right from which all rights spring, then you don't understand the concept of rights at all.  Don't talk to me about my rights as a woman if you can suggest I have some rights even if I don't have a right to control my body, because it's empty talk - any "right" is meaningless without the most fundamental one.

            by milton333 on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 05:01:35 PM PDT

            •  blah blah blah

              listen to yourself talk

              by SeanF on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 03:56:34 AM PDT

      •  I think you're wrong on a number of points

        first being that I didn't detect any rage in the post you responded to.

        Second, you have framed the issue as if women should welcome a debate on Reproductive rights.  Fact is, this issue has been debated, and debated, and debated to the point where most pro-choice people recognize that the anti-choice position rarely involves anything approaching a rational argument and certainly is not based on the recognition of women as autonomous human beings deserving of the ability to determine their own destiny.

        What a lot of people in this thread are saying is that to us, there is no debating this issue.  Either you perceive women as humans deserving of the ability to determine their own destiny or you don't...it's that simple.  

        People who suggest that the right to an abortion should be the subject of debate are taking the issue back to territory women have already traversed...it's asking for a debate about taking rights AWAY that women have already won.  And this is not acceptable to a lot of women no matter how you attempt to frame the issue otherwise.

        Third you suggest that strong emotion on an issue is, by necessity, a bad thing which makes the individual with the strong emotion ineffective.  I beg to differ.  Righteous anger directed in positive ways can (and has) achieved a lot.  It's what motivates people into the streets to protest profound challenges to their rights that discussions like removing support for a woman's right to choose represent.  

        The last pro-choice march I attended in DC was attended by 500,000 people.  Let the Dems think about that.

        by terriersmith on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 04:10:04 AM PDT

        •  when righteous anger

          stifles discussion and attempts to kick people out of a community, I have to disagree.

          no one here wants to read what I write. They want to react and feel their feelings. Which I am slowly getting.

          I am not debating abortion rights. I'm trying to shape how we talk about it to strengthen abortion freedom. When the response to that is, "you don't know what your talking about, your a man" that hardly seems the point. Men are largely the audience you need to reach!

          If this is how pro-choice people approach this issue, the last thing I'll ever do is to go out of my way to further the cause.

          i leave you all to your own folly. And what do I really care - I'm a man!

          by SeanF on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:24:45 AM PDT

          •  I certainly don't want to

            kick people out of a community.  And if you'd like to discuss how to strengthen abortion rights and other reproductive rights within the context of the support which has already been obtained through Roe that would be great.

            I think the objection that many people here are expressing is to a perceived attempt to placate the right wing by throwing over support for Roe which 1. has worked, 2. is all we have, and 3. is all we're likely to get as long as the debate is whether or not women deserve reproductive rights at all.

            I understand that you support pro-choice ideals.  I certainly have not suggested in any way that men can not or should not contribute to a meaningful discussion about reproductive rights. I think women are stronger with support from their "other half" no matter what the topic just as men are stronger if women join in on issues often identified as "male" like the draft. (although that gender classification may change)

            But I do think that it is objectionable that Dem leaders...not you...Dem leaders, have started a discussion that picks up where discussions occurring in the '50's left off.  People who are pro-choice have correctly identified the fact that this "debate" is not pro-woman...it is NOT a discussion of what we can do to further the reproductive rights of women...instead it is a blatant sell-out of protections that have been in place for 30 years.

            by terriersmith on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 10:44:38 AM PDT

        •  No Problem With ...

          ... shutting down debate on whether Roe v. Wade should stand. (it should)

          I've a huge problem shutting down debate on how we can increase the number of folks who truly understand the nature of the pro-choice position, the privacy and public health issues, and the personal spiritual/religious nature of the question over when life begins. Seems to me that we need all the help we can get here, and for some women to claim that men should not be permitted in such discussion is counterproductive to the goal of electing a government that will assure that Roe will continue to stand.

          So take your "Men have no business ..." attitudes to the chiropractor for an adjustment. Please. We need to win, so we need to educate. To educate, we need to discuss.

          (and, as a reminder, before the ultra-activists flame or troll-rate, imo, Tim Roemer is not my kinda Dem, and the chair of the DNC should be a strong pro-choi