Daily Kos

Is It Time for Dems To Lay Low on Abortion?

by Cleveland Dem

Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 06:53:04 AM PDT

Now that Bush's October surprise has been revealed, we know that Miers, if confirmed, will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. I think it's time for Dems to sit down, take a deep breath, and think deeply about what abortion has done and will do for our chances in winning back the White House and Congress in the coming years. Clearly, the recent revelations about Miers and her Anti-Abortion stance means that abortion may well shape up to be the Republican wedge issue for the next election cycle. How should Dems respond? How do we keep from getting burned at the polls again due to a single issue? Flip...

I think it's time for Dems to try something new, something a bit extraordinary. I think it's time for Dems to lay low on abortion for a while! Don't get me wrong. This doesn't mean that we are giving up on Pro Choice. This doesn't mean that we are advocating a ban on abortion. This simply means that we are going to use the abortion issue to our advantage for a change. How, you ask?

First: Get Miers confirmed without much ado. Let her and Roberts vote to overturn Roe v. Wade as soon as possible. Once this happens, many Americans, especially those with moderate political views, will be so appalled that there will literally be an outcry over such an extremist move by SCOTUS. Remember, overturning RvW doesn't really ban abortion. All it will do is send the matter back to the states. Abortion will the assume the same status as gay marriage: a state matter.

Second: Once RvW is overturned by the Roberts-led SCOTUS, The issue will effectively lose any national significance as it becomes relegated to the states. The Republicans would then have stripped themselves of the one issue that has provided them with the most fodder for turning out their narrow-minded, bible-crazed, single-issue voters. Moderate voters, appalled by this Republican excess, will most likely turn to Dems to save the situation.

Third: Abortion will coninue to happen, regardless of the status of RvW. Just like there will always be women seeking to terminate their pregnancies for one reason or the other. Just like there will always be gays and lesbians among us. There is nothing the Republicans can do to make these issues go away. Let's get smart about these issues.

Today, homosexuals can legally get married in MA. CT and VT recognize them, and CA came close to doing so save Ahnold's veto. My point is, we win more by having abortion become a state issue instead of a national issue. This presents an effective way to neutralize the Republican strategy of using abortion as a wedge issue in election after election. Although it might be the noble thing to do for Dems to continue to support RvW, it might not help us win many elections. Let's get elected first, then we can really fight for our principles. The more we remain the minority party, the less likely we will ever have any meaningful implementation of Dem principles.

The Republicans know they are fighting a losing battle. Gay marriage is going to eventually become a reality in the future. So too is abortion. The progressive movement is going to be the dominant movement of the future. But to get there, we need to get back into power. We need not be afraid to play dirty every once in a while. The Republicans do it all the time with a lot of success. It's time to beat them at their own game. What do you think?

Update: I have changed the title of this diary from "Is It Time for Dems To Let Go of Abortion?" to "Is It Time for Dems To Lay Low on Abortion?" I am not advocating abandoning a woman's fundamental right to privacy and choice for political reasons. I am simply trying to provoke some debate on this issue amongst ourselves. Please don't take this too literally.

Tags: abortion, harriet miers, gay marriage (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 194 comments

  •  Please Recommend! (2.50 / 16)

    I think this issue is serious enough to merit a broader debate.

    "Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous" - David Hume

    by Cleveland Dem on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 06:52:25 AM PDT

    •  Hey (4.00 / 4)

      troll ratings aren't necessary, are they? I believe the diarist is misguided, his idea is nuts, he doesn't seem to factor in the real suffering that would ensue, his cavalier, unprincipled plotting might seem repellant - but I also think he offered it up for debate in good faith, without thinking it through first.

      Make it a good opportunity for vigorous discussion, and perhaps a mild rebuke, but he doesn't deserve to be troll rated into oblivion.

      Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

      by bumblebums on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:14:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Eh (4.00 / 2)

        I don't know - 1.6 is about right.

        It's a pretty marginal diary witb little in the way of info or insight.

        And it forwards an offensive idea.

        And on the politics is just plain wrong.

        Everybody dies alone.

        by Armando on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:17:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  agreed (none / 0)

          and the fact that you asked to be recommended is even more offensive.

          "Your momma is fat and she's a tramp"  RECOMMEND!!!

          by dc 20005 on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:18:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  But ClevelandDem (3.33 / 3)

          Has a good history, and has written worthwhile things in the past. Shouldn't that be taken into consideration?

          Ongoing List of Complaints Against George Allen

          by VirginiaBelle on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:21:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah (none / 0)

            Ok, raise it to a 2.0 then.

            This diary is marginal.

            Everybody dies alone.

            by Armando on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:23:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not as marginal as a LOT of others ... (none / 0)

              Look, I am not sure about the specifics re: the abortion issue, but in terms of the strategic orientation, I think the author is basically right on. Show BushCo and the Republicans who follow him no respect, personally or politically. But, more important, the Dems need to begin a period of deep reflection upon their most basic values and ideas. This is what Bill Bradley basically said in his "A Party Inverted" piece in the NYT back in March.

              David Caploe for Congress Independent, CA-08

              by Grok Your World on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 08:01:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's the way to show them (4.00 / 3)

                that we have principles.  Let's re-examine all of our positions in the context of whether we think they are political winners.

                What do Democrats stand for again?  Oh, yeah...politics.  Bullshit.

                The Best Anti-McCain Ad [-4.25, -5.33]

                by GTPinNJ on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 08:04:09 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What positions?! (none / 0)

                  Here is a quote from Vin Weber, a Republican consultant, from NPR a week or two ago: “The corruption issue, at this point, is the single biggest danger to Republicans. On the other issues that are negative for us, whether it’s gas prices or the war in Iraq or people’s perceptions of a weak economy, there really is no Democratic position. But on the issue of corruption, you don’t need to have something to say, other than that you’re not the party in power.”

                  So this is where I am coming from on the strategic importance of introspection. I am NOT saying that the Dems should have a mid-term convention and publicize their utter cluelessness (if you thought 2004 was bad, imagine Kerry and Hillary and Biden as headliners). But, while the Republicans, like Vin Weber says, are supremely aware of the lack of a Democratic program, it seems that many Democrats think there is a program hidden in a lockbox somewhere that just has not been circulated yet.

                  David Caploe for Congress Independent, CA-08

                  by Grok Your World on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 11:17:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  So from now on, (4.00 / 2)

              Can I rate every marginal diary 1.6 or 2.0..because, face it, 70% of the diaries every day are marginal?  But no one troll rates them.  I don't agree with the diarist here, but he has a decent record, and rating him low because Armando thinks the diary is "marginal" is not right.  Armando, how about you add a comment to every diary from now on and let us know whether it is marginal or not?  Thanks.

              by Sanjay on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 08:13:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What's your beef again? (none / 0)

                Tip jars are for rating the diary.

                I toook that comment to be his tip jar.

                What do you do in a tip jar?

                I rate the diary.

                I give a lot of 4s.

                Don't want your diary rated? Don;t put out a tip jar.

                As for my opinion, I get to express it even if it does offend you when I do.

                Everybody dies alone.

                by Armando on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 08:20:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Bad diary? Yes. Why? (none / 0)

          Because he didn't call for anything except dialogue of the concept of removing abortion as an issue for Democrats.  Not good around these parts, and a non-starter.

          However, there does need to be a discussion of how the political impact of this issue can be minimized for Democrats (polls of majority support for abortion rights are deceptive, they don't show the fact that most Americans want to reduce abortions).

          Political impact can be minimized by CONSTANTLY working on reducing abortions.  Every.  Single. Day.

          Otherwise, it will serve as an albatross, polls be damned.

          Women's rights, minority rights, and lower-income rights are the absolute most important rights to protect, but not at the expense of losing rights for those groups due to dogmatic, knee-jerk, emotional reactions, but because of a well thought out strategy of protecting those rights.  

          Equal protection under the law should be the mantra.  And reduction of of abortions should be the mantra of Democrats (and, in this "discussion," it is sorely missing).

          Jesus: "Destroy this Temple" - Gospel of John

          by The Gnostic on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 09:31:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Called fro dialogue? (none / 0)

            And? What else? Wy do you leave out the rest?

            You have a way of telling halftruiths. I noticed it in your comment above - proclaiming your strategyas anathema to pro-choice folks when it is rihgt in line with it.

            Everybody dies alone.

            by Armando on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 10:32:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Like I said.. (none / 0)

              ..his diary nor his prescription only offered getting rid of the issue.  No good.

              My prescription is having Dems adopt a different strategy:  taking on the issue on everyday with abortion reduction policies, and denouncing counterproductive strategies such as planned parenthood's "I had an abortion T-shirts."

              As great of an organization that they are, that is a good example of a BAD strategy for helping out Dems win in politics and with helping keep abortion safe and legal.  No?

              Any clearer?  I am simply calling for better politics on this issue, not for stopping protection of abortion or stopping discussing it, but rather the opposite, talking about it and fighting to reduce it until it is no longer an albatross... right now, we are lost in the fog.

              Jesus: "Destroy this Temple" - Gospel of John

              by The Gnostic on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 11:03:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Haven't we already had this debate? (4.00 / 3)

      And your position was roundly criticized as being both offensive to the principles of the Democratic Party and a strategic catastrophe.

      The Best Anti-McCain Ad [-4.25, -5.33]

      by GTPinNJ on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:43:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Okay - Let's debate: (4.00 / 2)

      Why change a key platform?  Kerry "lost" by a very small margin.  The MSM coverage of just a small amount of Bush corruption has swung the polls strongly against the Republicans.  The Democratic Party is in a strong position.  Most analysts write that the Democratic Party's next move is to define their policies and broadcast them.  By removing the pro-choice plank, the Democratic Party looks like their pandering, flip-flopping, and weak in their convictions.

      by MyPOV on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:48:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If You Were Studying Under a Zen Master... (4.00 / 2)

      this is the point where they would hit you on the head with a stick.

      Please rethink.

      This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

      by Mr X on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:50:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Are You Suggesting The Democrats... (4.00 / 2)

      treat women's rights like they treat voting rights?  Sadly, the national party already is "laying low" on both.

      "You can tell the truth but you better have a fast horse." - Rita Mae Brown -8.38, -5.54

      by majcmb1 on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:55:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Let me tell you where you went wrong.. (none / 1)

      ..calling for discussion isn't good enough.

      Despite what others might say, it is not a "winning" issue for Democrats.  Polls do show a majority of Americans supporting abortion rights but that doesn't tell the whole story.

      I have been savaged on this point myself so I empathize with you, and understand that you are just trying to help Democrats, as was I.

      I have started asking my Dem collegues to find a way to deal with this albatross issue by simply addressing it, everyday if necessary, until Americans understand that Dems are not pro-abortion, but pro-women's rights:  no one likes terminating a life, it is just necessary sometimes for a variety of reasons, and equal protection under the Constitution demands that right for women.  By addressing this issue non-stop, by trying endlessly to reduce abortions, we can help take the sting out of the politics of abortion and its effects on Democrats.

      This is a HOTbutton issue and we as Dems, the only protectors of abortion rights, are the only force in America stopping religious zealots from imposing fascism on America. The libertarians are nothing more than a repub front group posing as protectors of individual rights:  they are fakes.

      I am willing to take some heat with you bro in order to get Dems to address this issue non-stop.  So, please Kossacks, try to stop being so emotional about this and let's join together and try to address the political ramifications of being the protectors of abortion rights.

      Jesus: "Destroy this Temple" - Gospel of John

      by The Gnostic on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 08:59:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But (none / 0)

        you say nothing any pro-choice person would not agree with.

        Sheesh.

        Everybody dies alone.

        by Armando on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 10:30:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I hate arguing with you on this Armando.. (none / 0)

          ..but I swear that you did in fact say something to the effect that this IS a winning issue for Democrats.  I humbly disagree on that point.

          The other difference I see is that, while most pro-choice people feel the way I described, they don't necessarily express that.  

          They don't say "the proper discussion for Democrats in regards to abortion is working to reduce abortions" or "let's lobby planned parenthood to discontinue (if they haven't already) the "I had an abortion" T-shirts" etc. etc. etc.

          Unfortunately, a lot of well-intentioned people just get all wound up and don't ever discuss solutions to a huge albatross issue for Dems.

          Jesus: "Destroy this Temple" - Gospel of John

          by The Gnostic on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 12:11:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Totally disagree (4.00 / 14)

    Could not disagree more.

    Why? For all the reasons I have stated this year.

    Everybody dies alone.

    by Armando on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 06:52:48 AM PDT

    •  Correct. (4.00 / 5)

      Should we let go of the rest of our Constitutional rights? I think not. So, why this one? For political expediency? What would that make us?

      "I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control, I didn't even know there was a war." -9.75, -8.41

      by RonV on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 06:57:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (none / 0)


        There are definitely some things that we as progressives should not budge on, allowing women to have safe and legal abortions is one of them.

        -5.38 / -6.21

        by EKM on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:48:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't lay low....REFRAME the issue! (none / 1)

          I think that it would behoove the Dems if they stopped addressing abortion as a singular issue.

          If the Dems addressed abortion as one of MANY issues that confront women, they may be more successful.  This way, they could have the opportunity to say that they are respectful of "women's rights" wherein the issue of "equal pay for equal work", "privacy in making medical decisions", "abortion", and all other women's issues that escape me right now, could all be addressed.

          Any political figures on the dem side can rid themselves of the "stigma" of being labelled "pro-abortion" or whatever.  They can simply say that the bigger issue is for women to have equality in America....and if allowing them the right to choose on abortion is a part of that, then so-be-it.

          Perhaps a good platform for Dems would be for them to state that they need to TRUST American women to make the right choices in all aspects of life.  Nobody requires them to choose a certain profession, or which car to buy, etc....and if we don't trust them to make the right choices, then how can we trust them to raise a functional member of society in their (unborn) child??

          GWB + GOP = WMD

          by Shaking the Tree on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 08:20:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Republicans (4.00 / 4)

    don't really want to let go of abortion.  That's their cash cow in riling up the masses.

    Visit RemoveRepublicans.com and follow every 2006 Senate race.

    by AnthonySF on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 06:55:08 AM PDT

  •  Nope. Nope. Nope. (4.00 / 11)

    First of all, as a resident of a red state that would illegalize abortion if Roe v. Wade were it overturned, I resent your implication that it doesn't matter that it's sent back to the states. It does matter a great deal. It means that whether or not you have a basic right of privacy afforded to you depends on whether you live in a plains state or a blue state.

    Secondly, I would not call one state have legal gay marriages much of a victory. Better than zero? Yes. A horrible mess that will eventually end up in the Supreme Court? Yes. A continual repressing of rights? Yes.

    Lastly, I don't think it's a bad idea to lay low on social progressivism and speak to economic populism and progressive policy. Win back some of those Reagan Dems, etc. But what you're advocating seems to me to be more rolling over than laying low.

    Ongoing List of Complaints Against George Allen

    by VirginiaBelle on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 06:57:14 AM PDT

  •  Wow. (4.00 / 19)

    I hope I don't actually need an abortion during the years that it takes for your little chess strategy to play out, that's all I can say.

    I know there will be plenty of women with fewer resources and fewer dollars than I have, who do need them during that time.

    It's funny what people will propose when the consequences are entirely theoretical for them.

    Obama Everywhere!

    by kismet on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 06:57:19 AM PDT

  •  How completely unprincipled. (4.00 / 16)

    To view abortion as a fundamental right, and yet not defend it.

    by Elwood Dowd on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 06:57:27 AM PDT

  •  Not standing up for what we believe in (4.00 / 9)

    has worked real well for us over the last few years hasn't it?

    by Dr Colossus on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 06:57:45 AM PDT

  •  Americans support abortion rights (4.00 / 11)

    end of story. The fiction that these are issues on which we're in the minority, or that they can use effectively against us, is fiction. Their fiction. Don't buy it.

    by timelad on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 06:57:58 AM PDT

  •  yeah (4.00 / 10)

    Abortion will coninue to happen, regardless of the status of RvW

    Yeah, In the alley behind the Dairy Queen. I dont want that. The majority of Americans support Roe, while they might also support aprental notification/late term abortion ban, they stil support Roe. Demcorats need to stand up for that.

    by jj32 on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 06:58:25 AM PDT

  •  Extremely saddened to see the title of this diary (4.00 / 5)

    Let's be honest.

    by diplomatic on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 06:58:46 AM PDT

  •  If Roe v Wade is overturned (4.00 / 6)

    many people in states that will prohibite abortions will suffer.  laws in states that allow abortions may be challenged and people will suffer.

    I don't believe for one second that we should stop fighting on this issue so that we have a better political future.  Number one what happens in the future is unknown, we can't count on anything.  I don't like the idea of people "getting abortions anyway" because that could mean illegal abortions which are often dangerous.

    www.DowningStreetMemo.com

    by Mikecan1978 on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 06:59:33 AM PDT

  •  All the women and girls (3.93 / 16)

    who will bear children they don't want because they could not access an abortion thank you from the bottom of their hearts.  If they resort to illegal abortions, become septic, and are rendered sterile or dead, they might thank you even more.

    Ugh.  Your callous dismissal of the real lives of real women is appalling.  

    I prefer this brand of Socratic inquiry, actually: WTF is wrong with you?

    by lightiris on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:01:08 AM PDT

    •  Abortion in the abstract (4.00 / 4)

      Your callous dismissal of the real lives of real women is appalling.  

      Agreed.

      If one can only talk about this in the abstract, why are they bothering in the first place?


      There is only one "bug killer" that will work on "Oil Maggots"-- Hydrogen. -- edscan

      by Plutonium Page on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:03:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  By definition (none / 1)

        men can only talk about abortion in the abstract.

        By definition.

        I can't know if the diarist is one, BTW. I'd take bets though.

        by timelad on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:07:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think that's true. (4.00 / 2)

          How hard is it for a man to understand that if you get a medical procedure done outside of the carefully controlled environment of a hospital and without clean surgical instruments, your could easily become very sick and/or die?  

          "You can't expect people to have the virtue of purity when they are poor." -Bob Dylan

          by tryptamine on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:12:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Men can understand that in the abstract (4.00 / 4)

            because it can also happen to them. Pregnancy can't.

            My point was that men can't understand what it means to be forced to carry a child you shouldn't have and to give birth to it against all good judgement.

            If men could get pregnant, I swear this would not be an issue.

            by timelad on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:15:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I understood your point. (4.00 / 2)

              Of course a man will never fully understand the psychological impact of pregnancy (wanted or unwanted).  What I meant was that talking about the physical aspect of it in a way that anyone can understand would probably be better at convincing people to support the right of choice.  And then we don't sound like we're always saying men can't be part of the conversation.

              "You can't expect people to have the virtue of purity when they are poor." -Bob Dylan

              by tryptamine on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:33:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  In my experience (4.00 / 4)

            it's hard for people to whom having a child poses no big problem (people who have been married for a while and forget about the unstable state of singleness and the difficulty of finding a partner you can trust, men with wives who stay at home, wives who stay at home with husbands who make a family wage, rich people who can afford nannies, etc) to understand that being forced to have a child you haven't planned is a BIG problem when you don't have those resources.

            I think people understand the dangers of septicemia.  What they don't understand or remember is that not all stages of life or income levels or personal inclinations support childbearing.

            Obama Everywhere!

            by kismet on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:20:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I disagree (4.00 / 2)

              that married people in a stable relationship can't understnad.

              There have been two times in my life where I contempalted abortion. In the fiurst, I ws single. False alarm. Second time, I was married, had had to leave a teachign job ,and we couldn't live on my husband's salary alone.  I miscarried before the prgnacy even got confirmed 9back in the 70s, there were no early pregnacy tests you did at home; youw aited weeks, then saw a doctor). I only knew becamsue when I described the much worse than usual cramps and the heavy clotting to themdiwife, she verified it was probably an early spontaneous abortion. I think quite a few peopel can find themsleves faced with a pregnacy they;literally cannot afford--especially if theya re struggling tomake ends meet and need thats econd income deperately.  This is especially true for those who have no chocie but to lvie paycheck to paycheck.  

              What I ahve foudn with soem men is a refusal to take responsiblity for their own role in conception. EVERY woman has run into at elast one guy who won't use a condom  despite the possiblity of STDs (he wouldn't do it with a woman who woudl be the type who has HIV or chlamydia or syphiklis, is the reasoning) let aloen as birth control. To thsi guy, birth control is strictly a female responsibility--even though he'll pay child support for 18 years if he turns out to be the father.

              I don't think men are the priamry vicitms in unwanted pregancy--they may pay child support but many have little or no contact with the child  at all. Themtoehr is the oen who does the 2 am feedigns, changes the diapers, RAISES the kid, in most cases.  

              The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

              by irishwitch on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 08:40:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  ehh, I don't let men off the hook (none / 1)

          Men ought empathize and understand. I fail to understand the idea that men aren't affected when girlfriends or wives or sisters or daughters become pregnant and need an abortion.

          True, they think of it less realistically, and probably have never had a late period or the knowledge that abortion often isn't a choice, it's the only option. But it takes two to tango.

          To quote Kanye West: "Eighteen years. Eighteen years. She got one of your kids got you for eighteen years."

          Ongoing List of Complaints Against George Allen

          by VirginiaBelle on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:18:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Off the hook wasn't my point at all (none / 0)

            I'm surprised anyone is misunderstanding this.

            Men have to understand that it's by definition an abstract issue to them. I didn't say that this means they have no responsilbility, or need to think or act or etc about it.

            A lot of men tell women what to do with their bodies. These men don't face the same consequences women do around the issue, which seems awfully arrogant to me. And I'm male, BTW.

            by timelad on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:23:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I understand that (none / 0)

              But I also think that a lot of men sorta sit the issue out under the premise of "I can't get pregnant, it's not my deal." And that I can't agree with. It IS their deal, because, practically, they suffer the majority of the practical consequences of outlawing abortion. Sure, they don't have the emotional turmoil, and I would never advocate that they have equal say in the decision making process (e.g. if a woman wants an abortion and the man does not, man best step aside, likewise for the reverse).

              But it irks me when guys who would advocate abortion for their college girlfriend, because otherwise their lives would be ruined, would take a back seat in the fight to protect that right because it's "her" deal, not his.

              Ongoing List of Complaints Against George Allen

              by VirginiaBelle on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 08:30:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think we're agreeing (none / 0)

                in a very weird way.

                Men should take responsibility for everything in their lives, including partners and etc. And yes, abortion will affect their lives too.

                To say that it will effect their lives exactly the same as women though is not true, I don't agree.

                Thus men who preach to women about what to do with their bodies are particularly abhorent to me. That's really all.

                by timelad on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 08:55:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Were you under the impression (none / 0)

                It IS their deal, because, practically, they suffer the majority of the practical consequences of outlawing abortion.

                that a majority of men actually contribute to the support of the OOW children they have been just as responsible for bringing into the world? Because you might want to do some research on who gets court ordered child support and the compliance rates for child support. I think you'll find that a majority of OOW births have no court ordered child support and that of those that do the compliance rate is something like 37%.
                Even with Roe, the state pays the health care costs for the vast majority of pregnancies. The people who suffer the majority of practical consequences for OOW births are primarily the mother and incidently the taxpayer. I cannot imagine this cultural trend will change dramatically if Roe is overturned.

                by colleen on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 09:09:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Which is exactly what we need to be talking about (none / 1)

      rather than playing doormat as the diarist suggests.

      In a recent debate about abortion, I kept returning to the issue that illegalizing it would cause women to die, and that would mean two lives lost instead of one (for those who consider the fetus a separate person).  No one could argue with that.  If the Repubs can call us baby-killers, we can just as easily call them woman-killers.

      "You can't expect people to have the virtue of purity when they are poor." -Bob Dylan

      by tryptamine on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:06:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You know I didn't mean it that way... (none / 0)

      I too am pro choice like most here. I simply think this deserves some debate, that's all. Eventually, we are going to have to figure out how to start winning elections again. I will gladly admit I'm wrong here once we start beating the Republicans...

      "Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous" - David Hume

      by Cleveland Dem on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:09:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But don't call yourself pro-choice (4.00 / 6)

        if you are advocating what you say in your diary.

        That's dishonest.

        Say you don't care.

        As for winning elections, abortion has lost us none and can win us future elections.

        Do some thinking and research before throwing this out. You really are speaking from ignorance and saying dangerous things.

        Everybody dies alone.

        by Armando on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:18:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Debate about what? (4.00 / 3)

        Do you really think that we are not winning elections because we are pro choice? I think we are losing elections because we are running around scared like chickens with our heads chopped off screaming the sky's falling the sky's falling ... we have to rethink choice, privacy, abortion (or whatever you want to call it.)

        If you think we've (the Dems) have troubles, what boat do you think the Republicans are in? Let's face reality here. We are making problems where they don't exist, imo ... playing into the hands of the enemy.

        Maybe we should find ourselves a candidate that we  can rally around and stick to the platform. I don't think you will see choice erased.

        by misscee on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:42:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, (none / 0)

        If my comment makes you uncomfortable, then that should be a signal to you that your suggestion is utterly untenable and indefensible.  Real people are affected here; this is not an abstraction.  In fact, I'd like to be there when you tell a female that  her unwanted pregnancy needs to take a backseat to your vision for winning elections.  Sorry, you're gonna have to stay pregnant and delivery a baby because my plan to win elections requires that I not advocate too loudly for your rights at this time.

        I prefer this brand of Socratic inquiry, actually: WTF is wrong with you?

        by lightiris on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 10:52:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I disagree. (4.00 / 5)

    Our party should be about protecting the rights of everyone including the right of each woman to choose what happens in her own body.

    I think most of us here agree that to have more women in positions of power in this country would be a good thing.  How can we expect women to govern a state or country when she doesn't even govern herself?

    Laying low on the choice issue = Republican lite.

    -8.88; -8.62 Republicans for Voldemort

    by kaus on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:03:15 AM PDT

    •  By the way (4.00 / 5)

      What we really need to focus on (among many issues) is raising people out of poverty.  Poverty leads to desperation, hunger and a poor education on all fronts (not to mention sex ed).  

      If we want women to have a real choice, how about we provide for the basic welfare of all Americans so pregnant poor women don't feel like abortion is thier ONLY option?

      This will not end abortion but might make it a rare occurrance.

      -8.88; -8.62 Republicans for Voldemort

      by kaus on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:14:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Losing issues (4.00 / 12)

    Absolutely.  We need to dump abortion and the rest of our losing issues.

    We also need to give up on minimum wage, affirmitive action, public transit, public schools, environmental protection, health care and public safety.  It's all dead weight.

    We need to focus on moral outrage over video games.
    Then will WIN!

    by dc 20005 on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:03:27 AM PDT

  •  Absolutely not! (4.00 / 4)

    As far as I'm concerned, letting go of this issue just kicks open the door for to the erosion of a basic right to privacy standard.  

    Let go of this - and then what?

    by Aquarius40 on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:05:36 AM PDT

  •  One big flaw (4.00 / 6)

    You assume that there will be outrage among (elusive) moderates, if abortion is made illegal !? I don't think so. Your strategy solidifies the Republican base, because they get what they want and destroys a significant portion of the Democratic base - progressive, pro-choice people.

    If Dems flip on this issue it further confirms their weak image. Who is left to vote for Dems? The moderate middle ?!? As if they really care about abortion. Only if it comes home to them. But how many are in this position? IMO, its like gay civil unions. Supposedly the moderates in the US are for gay civil unions but when it comes to vote, they don't care and stay home and the ones who do care go and outlaw all legal recognition for gay couples. Thats how it will be with abortion. The ones who care on the right will keep voting R (because they delivered) and the ones on the left will curse the  D's forever for chickening out and giving in.

    You can't win elections without a passionate fan base. After sacrificing gays and pro-choice people, economically disadvantaged and other minorities, why would anybody be passionate about the Democratic party?

    How many times have you heard people that they hold their nose and vote for D because its the lesser evil - and you want to make them smell even worse ??? With this strategy, I don't see success for the Democratic party in the near future. And if they abandon the pro-choice folks, say goodbye to the Democrats...

    by galore on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:08:16 AM PDT

  •  Get with the program (4.00 / 4)

    ...abortion may well shape up to be the Republican wedge issue for the next election cycle...

    The rnc talking point and shiny bauble de jour (for the media) in 2006 and 2008 is "illegal immigrants". Please be sure to circulate that meme in your next diary. That will be all. Thank you.

    543,895 votes

    by paradocs on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:09:10 AM PDT

    •  Actually (4.00 / 5)

      Dems should want it to be the wedge issue as the majority of Americans SUPPORT aboriton rights.

      Everybody dies alone.

      by Armando on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:15:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes (none / 0)

        Yes, but individuals who support choice, in comparison to those who do not, have a tendency to not be single issue voters. That's why the republicans can and do exploit the issue in a tactical sense. If they succeed in eliminating choice it will be a strategic error on their part - their goal is not to limit or eliminate abortion, their goal is to peel voters away from the opposition using wedge issues so that they can have power. The elimination of choice would possibly motivate pro-choice individuals as a group to become single issue voters. The republican industrial complex does not want that to happen.

        543,895 votes

        by paradocs on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:45:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think that is a myth (none / 0)

          frankly.

          Everybody dies alone.

          by Armando on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:59:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Polling (none / 0)

            If you can get your hands on any good opinion research take a look at the crosstabulations for a Likert Scale question on abortion (the scale allows for a gage of intensity). In my experience, those who indicated strong opposition to abortion (a small minority in every case I've seen) overwhelmingly indicated they were voting for the republicans without any apparent regard for their own expressed opinions on other issues. Those who indicated weak support or opposition for choice, as well as those who indicated strong support for choice, were all over the map.

            Haven't we had this discussion before?  

            543,895 votes

            by paradocs on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 08:37:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  NO (4.00 / 3)

    No, no, no.  Not in your lifetime.  

    <Is almost too outraged to speak>

    "Republicans are poor losers and worse winners." - My grandmother, sometime in the early 1960s

    by escapee on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:11:21 AM PDT

  •  Cleveland Dem is maybe one-third right... (4.00 / 2)

    It is true that the abortion issue has, in recent decades, been damaging to the Democratic cause in numerous elections, most notably the Reagan and Bush national victories. Why? Because, as most serious legal scholars will tell you, if perhaps only after a few drinks, Roe v. Wade, much as we all support the personal right that the decision produced as a practical consequence, was, as a matter of Constitutional interpretation, probably wrongly decided (i.e., do we now want a conservatively tilted Court to take the same degree of liberty with constitutional interpretation that the liberal Warren Court did?). As a consequence, a matter that should have been decided legislatively -- i.e., hashed through as a people -- was instead imposed by fiat and become a rallying cry for a generation of conservative Republicans. As Cleveland Dem notes, if by some chance Roe were overturned, it would cause enormous damage to the Republican cause. All national elections are won in the middle -- by taking the moderate swing voters in places like, well, Cleveland -- and an overturned Roe could not possibly have any other result than pushing moderates in Ohio et al into the Democratic camp.

    Does all that mean that we should actually hope to see Roe overturned, though? Of course not. The freedom to choose one's biological destiny is too primal to play politics with and we cannot wish it taken away for any American citizen, just as we cannot wish away civil rights for African-Americans, even though LBJ's signing of the Civil Rights Act turned the South against the Democratic Party and led directly to the era of Republican dominance which, let us all hope and pray, oh please dear lord, is now ending.

    Still. The story of Roe over the past generation is a lesson in the unintended consequences of judicial activism. This cuts both ways, of course. Justice Roberts, are you listening? Personally, I believe Roberts understands this, which is why, although I believe it is certain that Roberts considers Roe a bad decision, I also believe that Roe is safe for a long time to come.

    "Sorry this is such a long letter, but I didn't have time to write a short one." -- Rudyard Kipling

    by Reviser on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:11:41 AM PDT

    •  Fallacy (none / 0)

      Abortion has not cost Dems a single election. Nt a one.

      National security has.

      But not abortion ever.

      And it can win the ones coming up.

      Everybody dies alone.

      by Armando on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:15:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Abortion does cost Dems voters (none / 0)

        Many Catholics and other Christians feel they cannot vote for a Democrat precisely because of the abortion issue. There is a case for abortion rights based on Catholic theology, but we never make it because Roe v. Wade has immunized us from talking about the merits of our position. Now we just shout "it's my fundamental right!" and ignore the fact that many people do not see how we can have a fundamental right to commit murder.

        by Cat1133 on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:22:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And gains many voters (none / 0)

          Dems have NOT lost a single election on abortion.

          Not one.

          Everybody dies alone.

          by Armando on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:24:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nah. They just lost a generation of Catholics. (none / 0)

            But not a particular election, so not to worry.

            by Cat1133 on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:34:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Lost wha? (none / 1)

              You just make shit up or what?

              BTW, do a majority of Catholics oppose abortion rights? No they do not.

              So deal with facts and instead of making shit up.

              Everybody dies alone.

              by Armando on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:38:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Here are facts (4.00 / 4)

              Among American Catholics, 56 percent of non-Hispanic Catholics and 59 percent of Hispanic Catholics oppose making it harder for a woman to get an abortion, according to the Pew Research Center. Support for additional restrictions increases among Catholics who attend church at least once a week, with 50 percent of non-Hispanic Catholics favoring further restrictions and 43 percent of Hispanic Catholics.

              Everybody dies alone.

              by Armando on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:41:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Here are facts (none / 0)

                CBS News Poll. May 20-23, 2004. N=923 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample).

                "Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted."

                             Catholics
                Generally    
                Available     34

                Stricter
                Limits        37

                Not
                Permitted     28

                Unsure        1

                by Cat1133 on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:50:10 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  See my post above "You want nubmers?" (none / 0)

              Themyth that MOST Cathoklcisa re anti-chcoie is false.  

              The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

              by irishwitch on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 09:05:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Armando, how on earth can you say this? (none / 0)

            Are you really going to sit there and claim that the abortion issue hasn't cost the Democratic Party voters since Roe in 1973? Are you going to claim that the abortion issue hasn't been a tremendous fundraising issue for the GOP since the pro-life movement heated up in the 80s? Are you going to claim that "pro-life" wasn't a relevant plank in the Reagan platform in 1980, and then in every GOP national campaign since then? Do I have to back and find the % of Catholics who voted Dem in the 50s and 60s and compare that to the % who vote Dem today? And must we compare those numbers to the numbers of how many Catholics believe/don't believe in abortion rights? Dude, if you seriously think this issue hasn't hurt the Democratic party over the past 30 years, I gotta say, you're living in a dreamworld.

            Doesn't mean I don't support abortion rights. I do, and will, forever, just like I support civil rights even though they've torched the Democrats since the 60s, and gay marriage rights, even thought they have the capacity to torch us yet again. Too bad; comes with the job of being progressive. A little realism, though, please.

            "Sorry this is such a long letter, but I didn't have time to write a short one." -- Rudyard Kipling

            by Reviser on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:47:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ELECTIONS (none / 0)

              Helps if you read.

              Everybody dies alone.

              by Armando on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:48:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  i do read... (none / 0)

                ...and I find your arrogance pretty irritating, in a big fish/small pond kind of way...

                "Sorry this is such a long letter, but I didn't have time to write a short one." -- Rudyard Kipling

                by Reviser on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 08:17:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Irritating (none / 0)

                  was your lecture when you did not even read my comment.

                  ELECTIONS not voteers.

                  WTF? Do you think I am an idiot?

                  We gain voters on choice too.

                  Everybody dies alone.

                  by Armando on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 08:23:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  well, you're making a semantic point, but... (none / 0)

                    ...not one with any on-the-ground significance, to my mind. Abortion, as I'm sure you'll agree, has been THE galvanizing issue behind the rise of the Christian Right. And I'm sure you wouldn't argue that the rise of the Christian Right hasn't cost us any elections. How then can you argue that abortion hasn't cost us any elections? That's a highly counter-intuitive statement the logic behind which really escapes me.

                    "Sorry this is such a long letter, but I didn't have time to write a short one." -- Rudyard Kipling

                    by Reviser on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 08:35:52 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Irrelevant if it really has (4.00 / 2)

              cost us some votes.  Civil rights cost us the South.  So let's reintroduce Jim Crow?  No way.

              by corvo on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:49:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  You want numbers? Here they are. (4.00 / 2)

              *Onkly 23% of American Catholics think abortion should be ilelgal in all cases
              (CBS Poll 2000)

              Only *9% of Catholcis think abortion is so important that they would vote against a candidate who disagreed with thgeir opinion.
              CNS poll 1996

              *A majority of Catholci WOMEN (52%) prefer a hosptial int heir area to perform abortions

              77% of Cahtolcis say it is not appropriate for church leaders to tellthem how to vote.
              CBS poll 1996 (a simialr percentage was foudn at the item of the election of the current pope)

              75% of Catholcis think abortion should be avialabel as it is no, under allcircumstances, while 48% think ti should be avialbel but with stricter limits. Thsi is pretty close to what Americans in general believe

              Nu,bers taken from ana rticle clled: "The FActs Tell a Story: Catholcis and Pro-Chcoie" at thsi site
              http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/lowbandwidth/aboutus.htm

              The peopel we are lsoign voted form are the Christian RIght,a nd they are unlikeLy to vote Dem anyway because of other social issues like gay marriage and prayer in the schools and sex education and the whoel range of first amendment issues (includign any contnet above PG on TV, free speech, etc).
              Cbs poll 2000

              The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

              by irishwitch on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 09:05:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  The trick is (none / 0)

          not to "shout" but to engage them in rational discussion.  And if we lose them, I refuse to worry about it.  I'm not going to convince Dobson that homosexuality shouldn't be recriminalized either.

          by corvo on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:25:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What rational discussion? (none / 0)

            I know that I believe abortion is not murder and I try to discuss that with the pro-lifers I come across. In our public debate though, I have yet to hear a pro-choice advocate address the issue head-on. They go on about women's rights without ever addressing the issue of the fetus's rights. This kind of talk may rally the liberal base, but it cannot persuade people who are hearing from their ministers that abortion = murder. I am worried that we lose them because our arguments are so tangential to their concerns, not because they are unpersuadable on the merits.

            by Cat1133 on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:33:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly what rights (none / 1)

              does a fetus have, and according to whose ethics, morality, and laws?

              And for those of us who have been listening, there's plenty of discussion as to whether fetuses have consciousness, feel pain, etc., and at what stage of development.  

              by corvo on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:36:25 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "For those of use who have been (none / 0)

                listening"?

                I haven't heard this because I'm not listening? Really? I doubt it. I get a lot of literature from pro-choice groups and I can't remember ever seeing any mention of the moral status of the fetus. Come to think of it, I can't remember ever having heard anything of the sort from a Democratic leader either.

                by Cat1133 on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:52:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Can't respond to (none / 0)

                  the beginning of your commentary--well, I could, but you're already making my point.  I will agree, however, that "Democratic leaders" have not been doing their job.

                  by corvo on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 08:04:31 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Murder vs. Killing (none / 1)

                   I respect life.  I respect others right to self-determination.  This leads me to fervently support choice while also accepting that abortion is a killing.

                  People kill others.  It's legally wrong to varying degrees (murder to involuntary manslaughter) unless it is justifiable (self-defense, the defense of others).  This gradiation is, IMO, also morally true.

                  Pro-life supporters scream "murder" inappropriately to push emotional buttons in an argument that they have lost.  It is not "murder" for any person to choose abortion even if I would not make the same choice.  I don't think there's any moral cowardice in this.    

                  "You can tell the truth but you better have a fast horse." - Rita Mae Brown -8.38, -5.54

                  by majcmb1 on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 08:23:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  My mother-in-law is religious (4.00 / 2)

          and doesn't agree with abortions.  She was saying for awhile that she thought they should be illegal, until my husband had a talk with her and helped her understand that illegal abortion will cost many women their lives.  She still doesn't agree with it, but she at least understands that making it illegal is not going to help anything.  This is what we need to do for everyone who objects to it on the grounds that it is killing a life: help them understand that it could be two lives lost instead of one if it is made illegal.

          "You can't expect people to have the virtue of purity when they are poor." -Bob Dylan

          by tryptamine on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:42:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  give me a break (none / 0)

        in the South, we can't even field candidates as "Democrats" because they are so closely tied to abortion on demand national Democrats in DC.

        by ihlin on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:38:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Give me a break (4.00 / 2)

          We can't win in the South because of race.

          National security.

          Abortion is the cherry on top.

          Actually, you make my point, where we CAN win, abortion is a winning issue.

          Everybody dies alone.

          by Armando on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:43:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And Because Certain Votes Won't Be Counted. (none / 1)

            "You can tell the truth but you better have a fast horse." - Rita Mae Brown -8.38, -5.54

            by majcmb1 on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 08:26:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  MO, KS, NE, SD and on and on (none / 1)

            all states where a pro-choice position won't win you shit. you have to win on the other issues.

            i am pro-choice in policy, pro-life at heart and understand completely why so many people are turned off to Democrats because of their abortion rhetoric. from Catholic latinos, black protestants, first-generation immigrants, blue collar union workers, THIS IS an issue among core constituents in the Party. i'm not suggesting "selling out", but i am, suggesting a more inclusive and respectful position for progressive pro-lifers (Sojourners types) who do not feel at home in either party.  

            by ihlin on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 08:38:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  That's bullshit (none / 1)

          It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.  "Oh...we can't win in the south as a democrat"
          Maybe if the candidates we ran weren't fucking babies and afraid to take a position they might actually look like someone worth listening to.
          I just wrote a diary about Georgina Beyer.
          A transgendered, former sex worker who was able to turn a rural, agricultural district of 30,000 in New Zealand from the conservative party to a 32% advantage for the liberal party.  After she left office it went right back to the conservative party.
          She did it by standing up for what was right and not being a spineless wimp.
          If you can get a bunch of farmers to vote for her, then you can get a bunch of southerners to vote for some white christian democrat.

          by dc 20005 on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:47:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  We can field candidates in the South (none / 0)

          We currently have Democratic Gov's in North Carolina, Virginia, Louisiana, etc.

          But that's not even the point. We lost the South due to Civil Rights, and the South has always, ALWAYS, been a loyal bloc. So when the South switched, you are suddenly dealing with stubborn voters who vote party line, period.

          Ongoing List of Complaints Against George Allen

          by VirginiaBelle on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 08:35:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Don't make such claims (none / 1)

      as 'most legal scholars believe Roe was wrongly decided' without providing links or citations to back them up.

      by Elwood Dowd on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:18:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]