Daily Kos

Chairman Dean, A Plea for Common Sense ...

Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 07:27:09 PM PDT

with hope for the future from Liberal Street Fighter

Dear Governor Dean,

It wasn't that long ago that you thrilled so many of us with the following words:

Our history has been the story of change. The struggle to live up to our founding ideals—justice and equality—has been an ongoing one. When we have seen injustice and inequality in our institutions and our laws, the American people have risen time and again to challenge them.

When the majority of Americans awoke to the injustice of slavery, our citizens decided that no moral future existed for a Republic that allowed the ownership of our fellow human beings.

And once slavery had been abolished, the country went on to guarantee the rights of women.

As America developed its industrial potential, the work of many began to yield vast riches for the few. Industrial barons began to dominate the economic and political systems, subjugating the interests of the people to their own narrow benefit.

The people again rose to the challenge with the birth of the modern labor movement. They fought to put government back on the side of the people, and passed laws to allow the government to deliver a series of landmark reforms, including child labor laws, the forty-hour work week, worker safety laws, and the minimum wage. These measures brought new meaning to the concept of equality—an equality of opportunity.

Later that century, the people came together to fight against racial segregation, joining the Freedom Ride to bring down the barriers to voting, participating in countless demonstrations to protest injustice, and gathering for the March on Washington to hear the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. dream of a day when “the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.”

And now we enter a new era. After a few decades of relative peace and prosperity, we are beginning to see that our system is once again out of balance, and the interests of the people are not being served. It should not be this way; as Thomas Jefferson said, “Public offices were [not] made for private convenience.”

Our path for the future is clear: it is the path that generations before us have taken. It is to change America the only way it can be changed—through the people.

When our country goes wrong, it is our duty to set it right.

Many of us had hope that you would bring those ideals to the DNC as our Chairman. Your fifty state strategy is a thrilling idea. Paul Hackett's run in Ohio is just the latest example that an application of passion, of genuine commitment to our ideals can eventually help us take our party back. Many of us have allowed ourselves to hope that the Democratic Party CAN be an engine for change and a way for us to fight for our freedoms. You set that example for many of us.

Why, then, are we seeing signs that the pressure being applied by the entrenched interests of the party elite seem to be moving you away from earlier principled stands?

Why, Doctor Dean, do we hear things like this on "Meet the Press":

You know what I'd prefer to see, frankly?  I'd prefer to see medical practice boards around the country, state by state--because people do believe different things about this in different states.  I'd prefer to see medical practice boards around the country set ethical guidelines for abortion.  I don't have a problem with that.  You know, I don't know of people who do third-term abortions without a moral reason for doing it, which is to save the health and life of the mother.  So let them set some ethical guidelines.  But I think this debate ought to get out of the realm of having politicians standing up and grandstanding.

Dr. Dean, many of us understand that you are under a great deal of pressure from the rightwing of our party, but how can you, as a medical doctor, endorse such a terrible imposition onto the privacy of women in states where our party might not hold the majority?  As posted at Liberal Street Fighter, and crossposted at numerous other forums, Dr. Warren Hern makes the case that this is a terrible idea:

Your idea of setting up “medical practice boards” to decide who gets late abortions was ruled unconstitutional in Doe v. Bolton in 1973. Look it up. You have no excuse for not knowing this. It is also an invitation for the anti-abortion nut case doctors to take over the process. Terrible idea. Drop it.

Doctor, I know that some in our party are bringing rightwing funded trojan horses like Democrats for Life around in the vain hope of showing that the Democratic Party has "values." Who defines "values," Dr. Dean? Why can't we talk about values with religious folks who actually SHARE our values, like The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, folks who are proud to stand WITH those who know that a women's health choices are between her and her doctor:

Today, the Religious Coalition is an alliance of national organizations from major faiths, affiliates throughout the country, and the national Clergy for Choice Network, Spiritual Youth for Reproductive Freedom, and The Black Church Initiative.

While our members are religiously and theologically diverse, they are unified in the commitment to preserve reproductive choice as a basic part of religious liberty.

Those are the kinds of bridges we need to build for a better and brighter future for our people, our party and our country.

Chairman Dean,

We must ask you to consider just WHOSE Chairman you are. Is it the elected officials in Washington DC? Do you work for the consultants who've led us to defeat after defeat? We've all heard that it's not your job to set policy, but what if those policies serve only to appease Republican policies?

Mr. Chairman, it's not that those of us out in the roots expect you to save us. All over this country, newly energized Democrats and revitalized old-timers, inspired by your words and your exhortations that we have the power, are working hard to bring Democratic values back to power in our government, from the school board to the city council to state legislature to Governor's Mansions and eventually to the White House. We're ready to fight at your side, and the side of other principled progressives in our party leadership, to build a better and stronger and more compassionate and productive America.

We can't do that if entrenched interests continue to attack the needs of our party base to press some narrow agenda. We can't move forward if we are moving backwards on women's healthcare, or on full suffrage for ALL of our country's citizens. We, and you, are presented with a false choice in places like Pennsylvania, where party insiders and dynasties insist that there has to be a choice made between labor and women, between our core values and WINNING.

A recent poll shows that women are returning to Democratic Party, and it's vital that we don't give them reason for second thoughts.

We won't win if we don't stand together, for ALL of us. Please, Chairman Dean, take a step back from this course you're being led on. It doesn't help us to parse language on women's health care. We need to stand together, strong and committed, for ALL American's privacy and autonomy. None of us are truly free as long as some of us are held hostage to some vocal group's bigotries or religious beliefs. We can fight at your side, bring about a new, more progressive America, but know that we will fight, even if the party follows the exortations of our party's right, even if our party leaves us behind to fight for ourselves. If you continue on this course, if you don't find a way to say no to these relentless calls for the party to move right, to become more Republican, the party WILL split, and all of the hard work you, and so many others, have done will be for naught. We can build a new way, a way not old left, not right and certainly not "third." An American Way, with full freedom, autonomy and respect for all of us. Our party can live up to that ideal, and you can help us get there.

PHOTO SOURCES: Go here for the Common Sense historical marker.
Rally with Union Workers from Yale Daily News

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 56 comments

  •  The whole (4.00 / 2)

    "Third trmester abortion" stuff is just a straw man/argument.  Like Dr. Dean, I know of no one doing them.  It's not worth our time to make justifications for something that is virtually non-existent.
  •  Restrictions on late term abortions (none / 1)

    are fully allowed under Roe.  In fact, most, if not all states, already prohibit elective late term abortions (and i mean like 3rd trimester) and most abortion medical groups already consider it unethical to perform such abortions.

    Also, in the case you site, the site explicitly says that the medical approval part of the law was not struck down.

    •  yes, (none / 1)

      then why do we pander on things like the "partial birth abortion" ban?

      Dr Hern specializes in late abortions for fetal disorders. Even though these cases are very rare, why, if we are the party of freedom and inclusion, are we willing to play political games with the life and health of women?

      Why are we comfortable with allowing boards of doctors to sit in judgement of women and their choices?

      How can we claim to be an inclusive party if we are willing to sell short women's health and lives?

      •  there is no pandering about it (none / 0)

        many people, including myself, would probably vote for it, if it had a life of the mother provision, and was maybe a bit narrower than what the GOP makes them.
        •  yes, (4.00 / 2)

          As it stands, Roe v. Wade says;

          states cannot have any restrictions on the first trimester

          can have some restrictions during the second that don't cause an undue burden on the woman (e. g., Illinois bans abortion after "viability") and

          can ban abortions outright during the third trimester

          That is the current law.

          Now this so called "partial birth abortion" ban is stupid. "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term.  What the GOP'ers are trying to do is to outlaw a certain technique; (dialation and extraction); in short, they are playing doctor.

          Anyway, I think that Roe v. Wade gets it right and Dean doesn't appear to be backing down from that standard.

          When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

          by onanyes on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 08:12:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  he needs (none / 1)

            to stand w/ women and their doctors, and not submit to pressure to move right in order to appease anti-women voters.
            •  Maybe (2.50 / 2)

              Maybe we need to look at Dean's comments as a symptom of what is happening within the party.  Dean's primary role, and I think he is morphing into this with time, is to project the party platform.  Dean's statements are no longer his own, but the crafted message the power brokers have decided.  Dean is reading from the script, the new playbook, and as head of the party that is his role.  Realistically, the days of off the cuff remarks and stark, unrehearshed honesty may be in short supply.  Dean is immersed in the apologetic mentality that permeates this party. Maybe we ask to much of Dean to remain the independent maverick we are accustomed to.  Sadly, the crap we are hearing seems to go with the job, and Dean is playing the loyal foot soldier.  He's wrong, and it could be because Dean's role necessitates that he spend more time with strategists and insiders, instead of the grassroots- could this be a sign of detachment?

              Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you. Jean-Paul Sartre

              by Stevo on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 08:30:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  well, thats why i was saying narrower (none / 0)

            in reality, a bill that i would support would hardly do much since it wouldn't cover but a very small sliver of abortions.  my theory is kind of that if you don't get it in the first trimester...unless you have some sort of extinuating circumstances, personal responsibility has to take over some time.  However, in reality a huge majority of abortions are done in the first trimester.
          •  If I may piggy back... ;) (none / 1)

            This is a good place to link to Roe v Wade, the full text.
          •  Excellent Post (none / 1)

            I remember discussions of the Roe Vs Wade court decision in classes many years ago, and this is exactly what I understood from those classes.  

            It seems like Howard Dean is merely endorsing the idea that state medical boards will clarify the ethical obligations of doctors under Roe Vs. Wade and applicable state laws that comply with the court decision.  Really, I don't understand why that is controversial -- unless someone wants to argue that Roe Vs Wade was an overly narrow court decision.

            Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

            by TexasTom on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 08:38:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Umm... (none / 0)

        Gov. Dean has stated in no uncertain terms and time and time again that "partial birth abortion" is a farce.  He condemned Conrgess for passing it, saying that Congress and the President ought not be practicing medicine.  Please get your facts straight.

        "The Power to change this party, and the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine." - Gov. Howard Dean, MD

        by deaniac83 on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 09:11:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  My biggest diappointment with Dean's (4.00 / 2)

    appeasement of the radical right is that they truly want much more than Roe thrown out the window when it comes to women and their inherent rights.

    Internet, n., A series of tubes invented by Al Gore; not a truck. "I mailed an Internet to my friend."

    by Viktor on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 07:37:33 PM PDT

    •  Dean is appeasing the radical right (none / 0)

      since when?
      •  Since he became DNC chair (none / 1)

        While I backed Dean for President, I didn't support anyone running for DNC chair because I thought it was a crappy job and this is one of the reasons why.   Dean's been going around the country and in various speeches citing bogus statistics that the number of abortions is rising under Bush when in fact the it is still falling, but at a slower rate.  Trying to out anti-abortion the Repubs has led to a general sloppiness on this issue.

        Internet, n., A series of tubes invented by Al Gore; not a truck. "I mailed an Internet to my friend."

        by Viktor on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 07:57:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you for the thoughtful diary. (4.00 / 3)

    That aside and on a personal level, I can not understand why anyone would allow this one issue to be so singular, so all inclusive.

    Yes, I know but read my words. Even if this issue was the only issue that created my decision I would as always keep such thoughts unto myself.

    Religion, pro-life and a couple of  other issues are to me very private, very personal.

    Dr. Dean has broadcast a number of thoughts of late that cause me, for one, some concern.

    Frankly, I'm somewhat amazed. Time will tell.

    Reality is best served in small portions and only to others.

    by 0hio on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 07:48:07 PM PDT

  •  This diary (3.50 / 2)

    is so unfair to Dr Dean. Your grandstanding at the expense of what exacly? Saying Dr Dean is pandering to the religous right because he thinks it's unproductive for the dem party to take a controversial stand on a virtually non-existent procedure? This is such an irresponsible and ill concieved dairy. Like Dr Dean said, he doesn't pander to the right OR LEFT wing ideologes....he's a pragmatic progressive, like me.

    "The truth may be puzzling. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true." -Carl Sagan

    by astronautagogo on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 07:58:52 PM PDT

  •  Cheers to you, Madman... (4.00 / 2)

    All medical decisions need to be left to the person who is going to get the medical treatment, period. Dean needs to stop trying to appease the right.

    If a woman is equal to a man, then she should have the right to make her own medical decisions, just as men do.

    •  Thanks (4.00 / 2)

      that's exactly it.

      We need to make this clear to any party leader who will listen.

    •  that's wrong (none / 1)

      You can't mean that "all medical decisions need to be left to the person who is going to get the medical treatment." For one, some people are not in their right minds and cannot legally take responsibility for their decisions. Are you suggesting children be given ultimate authority on what procedures are done to them? It is the parents who should decide, or the guardians in many cases.

      For another, an abortion is not a medical decision in the way that getting a hernia operation is. Pregnancy is not a disease.

      I'm 100% pro-choice, but I also recognize that nothing magical happens as the fetus/baby leaves the birth canal and enters the atmosphere. It isn't as though a soul is breathed into it when it hits daylight and at that point it is blessed with rights.

      To give a different moral status to the killing of a newborn (infanticide) and the termination of a fetus (abortion) requires a stronger justification than a right to privacy or the right to do what one wants with one's body. It requires the assumption that the fetus has no right to live a life, and that the woman's right to do with her body as she desires trumps any rights the fetus may have.

      You can make that argument. What you can't do is justify abortion on the assumption that everyone has the sole authority to decide what "medical treatments" are done to their bodies.

      Abortion is not an easy subject, and both the pro-choice and pro-life positions are HARD to justify. I used to teach philosophy, and I hardly ever saw a student respond effectively to even the most basic objections to their position (it didn't matter which side they chose). I know in the heat of debate it is tempting for people on both sides to dig in and take simplistic positions, but I think when we do we cheat ourselves. I guess this is why I don't write political slogans for a living.

      "We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet." Al Gore

      by jd in nyc on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 08:45:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  to be clear (none / 0)

        In case there is any question, I did not mean to suggest that the typical adult woman is not fit to make standard medical decisions about herself. She certainly is. I meant that people have the right to make these decisions on the basis of their ability to adequately reflect and make rational/reasonable decisions. I also argued that abortion is not a normal medical decision, and cannot be treated as such.

        "We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet." Al Gore

        by jd in nyc on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 08:55:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  wow (4.00 / 2)

          and you're going to decide when a woman is "adequate?"

          If not you, then who?

          Why is this so hard to understand, and how arrogant to assume that women aren't "in their right minds" when they make these decisions.

          •  wow (none / 0)

            Who are you to tell the rest of the world not to make distinctions between a person who can make a responsible decision and one who can't? You make such distinctions regularly. A drunk 16 year-old girl has sex with a 30 year-old man. Do you think I'm being chauvinistic or patronizing to doubt that she was in a position to make a responsible decision, and that the man took advantage of her? Would you blame them equally? If not, then you also have the audacity to decide that some people are not in a position to make responsible decisions.

            Don't give me those idiotic arguments that go "who are you to decide?" We ALL have a right to make ourselves heard and to say that some are not in a good position to choose. And the state has the "right" to legislate such judgments. Hopefully, it makes the right judgments and puts them into law, but we all know that there are serious risks of error.

            If we don't have the gall to make judgments about others, we cannot fulfill our responsibility to look after the well-being of each other. Are you now denying that this responsibility exists? Is that patronizing? If it is, then being a liberal is patronizing.

            I think you've taken a totally self-defeating and absurd line of argument here. It really doesn't make sense when you think it through, and it isn't a progressive line of thought at all.

            "We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet." Al Gore

            by jd in nyc on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:09:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fortunately in this (none / 1)

              country, for the moment, we still hve the right to refuse medical treatment. AMA, but the right is recognised. Mainly due to long abuse of patients determined unable to make decisions when indeed they could.

              In some states pregnant minors are automatically "emancipated", others can go to court and petition.  

              Many responses to these "debates" (or whatever they are, open and honest debate is rare around here, it mostly is managed and truncated) would be different if the pro-life stance were not a white, religious agenda.  A lethal one.

              LOL. When the white righties are done with women, they will be coming for other groups.  The damage will spread.

              This is not such an alternative universe.

              •  got off track (none / 0)

                My main point originally wasn't about women's agency. I certainly agree that there is a disturbing tendency to discount it among some on the right, and there is an even stronger tendency to adopt a paternalistic (as opposed to maternalistic) attitude in general.

                In charicature: the state is daddy, not giving out much empathic nurturing but strong and ready to punish for transgressions. "Because I say so" is a perfectly good reason.

                "We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet." Al Gore

                by jd in nyc on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 07:25:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Abortion is in fact (none / 0)

          a medical decision. In some cases, it is the only option to save the life of a woman. I don't see any difference between an abortion and removing a wart, or a tumor, or a mole.

          Later on in a pregnancy, once the fetus has developed a brain and the child can survive outside of the womb, then no, it isn't quite the same thing as a tumor. However, late term abortions (from my understanding) don't take place unless the life of the mother or child is at stake. At this point, I still believe that the decision should be left to the woman whose body is effected. It isn't MY job or anyone else's for that matter to tell another person how to deal with their medical issues.

          A quick story: When I was in Philosophy class in college, the Prof showed a video in which a woman who was 7 months pregnant won a trip to Europe. In order to take her trip she had to go within 6 months. She didn't want to travel Europe 7 months pregnant, and she didn't want to give up the trip, so she apparently got an abortion. This woman was not an American, I don't recall where she was from. Anyway, she had the abortion and went on the trip. The Prof asked us whether we thought this decision was morally wrong or not...and should people be allowed to make decisions like this.

          My response was, well, I personally don't agree with her decision, and I don't believe it was a morally or ethically good decision. However, I don't believe that it is MY right, or anyone else's to tell this woman what to do with her body. So, yes, I think she should be able to make her own decisions even if I disagree with them.

          Most people would probably want to make sure that women couldn't do any such thing. However, most late term abortions take place for reasons that are very different from this one. I stand by my point. If that woman feels regret for her decision, then that is what she feels. If she doesn't, who am I to tell her otherwise...it is her body.

  •  a personal account (none / 0)

    from the bad old days of "medical boards" ...

    [new] Back in the good old days (4.00 / 12)

    If you were pregnant, you might be able to get an abortion if you were lucky enough to be come from a family that had enough money or connections to pay for an illegal abortion. This assumed you had the connections to find a "good" abortionist or travel out of the country. The other option was to try to prove that your health was in danger or that you would have a total breakdown if forced to go through with the pregnancy. Neither option was readily available to most women.

    In 1969, my sister was raped. She was one of the "lucky" ones. Through connections she went before the committee of doctors at the state teaching hospital that had the power to decide if she could have a legal abortion. A friend of the family, who was a doctor and friend of those who served on the committee, arranged the hearing.  
    Among the questions asked:
    Were you a virgin?
    Did you try to fight him off?
    Why didn't you try harder to fight him off?
    What were you wearing?
    What did you do to lead him on?
    How can we be sure that you are not emotionally able to continue this pregnancy?
    Remember this were questions from a "friendly" panel!

    Only after a humiliating and degrading hour of questioning, was she was granted permission to have the procedure.
    Many who had to endure the same kangaroo court were not so lucky. I have always suspected they granted permission, because the rapist was not white .To this day, the shame and humiliation of the five or six old men asking intimate details about the rape haunt her.

    No, I won't go back and neither will my sister or my daughter.

    by Ckntfld on Sat Aug 6th, 2005 at 12:36:43 CDT
    [  |   | Parent | Reply to This ]

    Let's NOT help bring back those days. Dr. Dean should know better.

    •  cheap shot (none / 1)

      Dean wasn't talking about boards to decide on individual abortions, he was talking about boards to set statewide ethical guidelines.

      Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

      by brainwave on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 08:40:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  By the way, context is good (4.00 / 3)

    MR. RUSSERT:  One issue where the Democrats seem to be changing their thinking is abortion.  Here's Howard Dean on April 17:  "I think we need to talk about abortion differently...  Republicans have forced us into a corner to defend abortion..."  And then, April 21:  "If I could strike the words `choice' and `abortion' out of the lexicon of our party, I would."

    DR. DEAN:  Absolutely.  I'm not advocating we change our position.  I believe that a woman has a right to make up her own mind about what kind of health care she gets, and I think Democrats believe that in general.  Here's the problem--and we were outmanipulated by the Republicans; there's no question about it.  We have been forced into the idea of "We're going to defend abortion."  I don't know anybody who thinks abortion is a good thing.  I don't know anybody in either party who is pro-abortion.  The issue is not whether we think abortion is a good thing.  The issue is whether a woman has a right to make up her own mind about her health care, or a family has a right to make up their own mind about how their loved ones leave this world.  I think the Republicans are intrusive and they invade people's personal privacy, and they don't have a right to do that.

    Let me tell you why I think we ought to--why I want to strike the words "abortion" and "choice."  When I campaigned for this job, I talked to lots of Democrats.  And there are significant numbers of pro-life Democrats in the South.  And one lady said to me, you know, "I'm pro-life.  I don't like abortion.  I would never have one.  I would hope my daughter would never have one.  But, you know, if the lady next door got herself in a fix, I'm not sure I should be the one to tell her what to do."  Now, we call that woman pro-choice, but she thinks of herself as pro-life.  The minute we start with the "pro-choice, pro- choice, pro-choice," she says, "Well, that's not me."

    But when you talk about framing this debate the way it ought to be framed, which is "Do you want Tom DeLay and the boys to make up your mind about this, or does a woman have a right to make up her own mind about what kind of health care she gets," then that pro-life woman says "Well, now, you know, I've had people try to make up my mind for me and I don't think that's right."  This is an issue about who gets to make up their minds:  the politicians or the individual.  Democrats are for the individual.  We believe in individual rights.  We believe in personal freedom and personal responsibility.  And that debate is one that we didn't win, because we kept being forced into the idea of defending the idea of abortion.

    We'd like to make abortion rare.  You know that abortions have gone up 25 percent since George Bush was president?

    MR. RUSSERT:  But...

    DR. DEAN:  We need to reduce the number of abortions in this country.  There is common ground between us and pro-life Democrats, and we ought to find that common ground.

    MR. RUSSERT:  But, Governor, the problem for Democrats has been that many request abortion on demand.  When there are attempts to say that there should be parental notification for children under 18-- to be notified with a judicial bypass, if there's a spouse--a parental abuse situation.  Many Democrats oppose it.  Third-trimester abortion, "partial-birth" abortion, Democrats opposed it.

    DR. DEAN:  Tim...

    MR. RUSSERT:  President Clinton vetoed it.  Every time there's a vote to restrict abortion, the majority of the Democrats seem to vote against it.

    DR. DEAN:  Tim, first of all, President Clinton vetoed the third-term--late-term-abortion ban because the Republicans refused to make an exception for the health and the life of the mother.  Now, it--I don't think that there is an ethical doctor in America who will do a third-term abortion without there being a reason like the health and life of the mother.  I don't think it's ethical to do third-term abortions, unless-- just to save the health and the life of the mother.  I don't think that's unreasonable.  Shouldn't this be a realm where doctors and women make up their minds instead of politicians?  What do politicians know about practicing medicine?  Not very many of us have an MD.

    MR. RUSSERT:  Well, the--but several heads of the American Medical Association endorsed banning third-term abortions because they said life of the mother is one thing but the health is a much different issue.  It can be defined in so many different ways, it was a major loophole.

    DR. DEAN:  You know what I'd prefer to see, frankly?  I'd prefer to see medical practice boards around the country, state by state--because people do believe different things about this in different states.  I'd prefer to see medical practice boards around the country set ethical guidelines for abortion.  I don't have a problem with that.  You know, I don't know of people who do third-term abortions without a moral reason for doing it, which is to save the health and life of the mother.  So let them set some ethical guidelines.  But I think this debate ought to get out of the realm of having politicians standing up and grandstanding.

    It is an incredibly difficult area.  It is an area which is conflicted.  I don't know anybody who ever had an abortion who feels, "Oh, boy, this is just great.  I can't wait to have another one."  That's not what this is about. This is a very difficult, horrible choice.  Does the government make that choice or does the individual make that choice?  There are ethical constraints around the issue of abortion.  There is no question about that.  I think those ought to be done state by state.  And I think doctors ought to have a lot more say about it than they do now.

    MR. RUSSERT:  Both parties have tried to use it politically.

    DR. DEAN:  I agree with that, and I think that's unfortunate.  I think it is time now for pro-life Americans and pro-choice Americans or Americans who believe in individual freedom to get together, and we have common ground.  The common ground is we'd all like to reduce the number of abortions.  But put aside the rhetoric, the difficulty and let's work to reduce the number of abortions.  That's something we can agree on.  I don't think we're going to get there with abstinence-only education.  I don't think we're going to get there if we condemn contraceptions or condom use and all that kind of thing. But let's see what common ground that we have.  There are a lot of very reasonable Americans who call themselves pro-life.  There are a lot of very reasonable Americans who believe in individual choice and personal responsibility.  I think we can work together.  There are not many of us who want to see the abortion rate continue to go up as it has under President Bush.

  •  Dr. Dean and Abortion 3rd Trimester (none / 0)

    This article is all about nothing.  Third trimester is done only when life of mother at stake.  The Republicans do not make this clear at all, delibertately.

    Why beat a dead horse?  The horse not being the woman, fetus or Roe--the dead horse is the Christian Coalition, who mistakenly call themselves pro-life:  because if they were, they would understand Choice stands for the life of the woman, who makes the decision on whether or not to carry the fetus.

    Dean is clever.  He's putting out in the article that states can have say in this issue by medical boards setting up ethics on 'abortion'. This goes nowhere which becomes clear.  It sounds good.  He's skilled in including all kinds of people  in different parts of the country in various issues.  His efforts for inclusiveness are noteworthy because he operates on tolerance, but in no way negates his stands.

    •  Life and health of (none / 1)

      the mother.  Tho from McCain last month on Hardball LOL health is debatable.

      The old medical boards were ruled unconstitution under Doe v Bolton, 1973.  

      •  Reply (none / 0)

        I don't understand.  Are you giving McLain some kind of authenticity on this subject?  Could you please explain what you meant?
        •  She likely meant (none / 0)

          that McCain now has joined the ever-swelling chorus that feels severe and permanent damage to a woman's health is unimportant when weighed against the primacy of fetal rights.

          As Rep. Will Hartnett of Dallas said when railroading our almost certainly unconstitutional new law through the Texas Lege, "We can't take a chance on killing Einstein just because a woman might have some organ damage." Hey, she can always get a transplant later if she needs one.

  •  Is the tea still in the harbor? (4.00 / 2)

    November 2003.  "Common Sense," "The tea is in the harbor!" It was a manifestation of a revolutionary spirit within a partisan political race.  That's rather unusual to say the least.  The shallow straits of American politics being what they are, this was no doubt to the campaign's detriment.  On the other hand, it was also the period that ensured that the movement that blossomed around the Dean campaign would survive in some shape or other.

    I was as outspoken as I could be about Dean's run for DNC chair, as against that as I was for his presidential campaign.  There was one simple reason.  It's not because I don't think he could be a great Democratic chair--who better?  But WE weren't ready.  How many Deaniacs and Kucitizens are on the DNC?  Or are career workers on its staff?  How many state parties are run by progressive reformers?  What is the institutional embodiment of fighting grassroots liberalism/progressivism within the Democratic Party?  I don't see any of those things.

    Dean was inevitably going to be isolated in precisely the culure which it was our task to overhaul.  There would be no institutional base of support for him within the party structure.  My instinctive reaction, based on the bitterness of the tactics in the primaries, was that they would immediately move to the daggers.  The memory of the internal party savaging of Jimmy Carter for trying to reform the DNC sticks with me.  I quite overlooked the obvious first recourse of a dominant culture which was to attempt to co-opt him.

    I've always known Howard wasn't of the same stripe I am politically.  Still, I'm surprised that he's caving on abortion.  I know he was active in Planned Parenthood, if I'm not mistaken he was president of his local chapter for a while.  That always gave me confidence that he would be rock-solid on abortion rights.  I note that some of the most outspoken people on his direction on the issue are longtime supporters.  I wonder if those voices are being heard.  The vertical structures of DFAs 1.0 and 2.0 have always been highly overrated for their communications skills.  The remarkable flood of communication in the campaign was in largest part through horizontal structures that the activists created.

    Today the grassroots remain diffuse; although there is a great deal of penetration into local party committees and some representation on state committees in some places, all are in some degree subject to local versions of what Dean is experiencing at the national level.  Without an organizing, policy and communication center of, by and for progressive activists that establishes itself as an institutional presence with its own clout, there will be no larger force to secure people locally as well as leaders like Dean nationally against both co-optation and the daggers.

  •  Yes, but.. (none / 0)

    I know, everyone hates this kind of a headline.

    Let me first say that I agree with some substantive matter with the original poster.  I don't think medical boards sitting around in a beaurocratic manner trying to decide when abortion is ok is a good idea.

    Nonetheless, just because Dean supports such boards does not make it so that he is succumbing to right wing pressure, or pandering.  That charge is outragious and out of line.  Let's look at what he says: he prefers to see medical practice boards set ethical standards.  NOT legal standards.  You could interpret this that individual physicians would be free to follow or not follow these guidelines especially given extraordinary circumstances.  But even if not, doctors drawing ethical guidelines are not only better than politicians doing the same, it may be useful sometimes.  As Dean says, legislatures and Congress should not be practicing medicine.  But would it be wrong for a medical board to set some ethical standards?  For example, that somebody ought not to be able to get an abortion because of the sex of the fetus (if that is the specific purpose), or because of a certain disability like deaf or blindness (but not a disease or disorder that will end the child's life eventually), or if it were possible to say, there is a 33% or higher likelihood that this child will be gay (I know we are ages away from determining  this last one, if ever)?  I was born in a country where poor women regularly make use of abortion services if they find out they are about to have a second or third or fourth daughter instead of a son.  I am being wacky here for a reason: the fact that standards may be set is not the scary part.  We just have to make sure the standards themselves aren't wacky.  And if they are made, they ought to be made by medical doctors boards - doctors who have to deal with this stuff everyday, not politicians who are grandstanding from Washington DC or Austin, Texas.

    One thing should be understood here: when I gave some situations up there, here is what I mean, that it would be unethical to have an abortion because of those reasons; if those facts are unknown and the mother wants to terminate her pregnancy, there ought not be an ethical issue.

    Secondly, so-called "pro-life"" Democrats are not in general bad people.  They are not ideologues like Rick Santorum.  And as Dean says, they really do care about the living.  They support pre-natal and post-natal care, early childhood intervention, healthy start and head start, universal pre-school, public education funding, pell grants, and other programs designed to help make it easier for parents to raise children.  There is no shame in welcoming these people into our party, since these are values we all share.

    So yes we can disagree with Dean.  In fact, most of Dean's supporters during his campaign didn't agree with him on everything.  Nobody will ever agree with you 100% of the time but yourself.  But that doesn't mean that Howard Dean is selling us out or pandering to the right wing.  That is a disgusting suggestion.

    "The Power to change this party, and the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine." - Gov. Howard Dean, MD

    by deaniac83 on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 11:51:24 PM PDT

Permalink | 56 comments