Skip to main content

"Safe, legal, and rare!"

Rare???

NO!!!

Sign me up for ENOUGH for ALL WOMEN EVERYWHERE RIGHT NOW. The controversy over how to address the issue of abortion rights politically concerns differing untested beliefs, unexamined assumptions, and being lost without an accurate map from here to there, and that's a crap shoot. Does the way we hold the dice and throw them predictably influence which numbers are on top when they come to rest? Are we more likely to throw winning numbers if we talk to the dice or kiss them? How about standing in a certain pose? Throwing them behind our backs? Warming them in our hands before throwing? Should we let our "gut feelings" tell us to bet our whole stash on one throw if our guts have guts or faint-heartedly withdraw from the game if not?

I wish I could know before throwing.

I can't. It's impossible. But throw I must. Might lose it all! On one throw! Even that might be preferable in the long run to the current painful rotting and falling away bit by bit beneath the radar of public awareness.

I have no way of knowing with any certainty, but I believe abortion rights are still secure enough among the electorate, if not in the current Supreme Court nor in many legislative bodies, which is amazing in view of the prodigious extent to which abortion rights have been attacked while being so meekly defended and attests to the tenacity of their acceptance by most voters. Some of our strongest allies and advocates are to be found among the millions of women who were "pro-life" until they, or their daughters or sisters or wives or mothers or best friends, got pregnant. But available and accessible abortion care is not a top issue with many voters, especially in such times as these, and I believe that makes it a safe topic to forcefully endorse.

I just do not believe that a politician who would campaign on assertively and loudly telling the truth about abortion rights and abortion care would be taking as big a risk as they all seem to assume, if any.

What is the truth? Let’s briefly review what so-called "pro-life" politicians stand for:

The World Health Organization has estimated that in those parts of the world in which abortion is illegal, about 70,000 thinking, feeling, often desperate women and teenage girls die every year from illegal attempts to abort unwanted pregnancies. That is more than one every 10 minutes dead because they are prohibited by law from accessing safe, legal, professional abortion care. Many times that number are seriously injured and maimed for life.

In addition, every minute, night and day, no holidays or weekends off, around the world
one woman dies of complications of pregnancy and childbirth (every minute),
ten teenage girls undergo unsafe illegal abortions (every minute),
thirteen infants under twelve months old die (every minute),
fifty seven people contract an STD (every minute),
eleven people are infected with HIV (every minute),
and the already-burgeoned-beyond-the-planet's-capacity-to-sustain human population increases by one hundred fifty more people (every minute),

all sanctioned, encouraged, and even enforced by our callous right-wing-dominated government through international interference with and withholding of funding from worldwide reproductive health and sex education programs. all with the vigorous support and reinforcement of the  Roman Catholic Church.

Let's not forget the women brutalized and incarcerated by law enforcement in those countries in which the Roman Catholic Church has pushed for and won the criminalization of abortion and achieved that cruel piece of what they believe to be "God's will on Earth be done." In countries such as Chile and El Salvador women having not only induced abortions, but spontaneous abortions (miscarriages), are routinely subjected to police investigations and interrogation, arrested, and incarcerated. Many women having natural miscarriages are so afraid of such persecution and prosecution that they avoid seeking medical care in such situations, and some (many I would think) die.

Abortions are quite "rare" in those countries. Safe, professional abortion care is virtually non-existent and exists only underground in those countries, where finding and accessing it among the confused array of perilous incompetents is a crap shoot for life and health that women regularly and in great numbers lose. That is what so-called "pro-life" voters and politicians stand for. Have our values and compassion sunk so low that we can't oppose that? They won't stop until they succeed in creating conditions in this country mirroring those in the Third World and in nations such as Chile and El Salvador. Or until we stop them at the polls.

I defy anyone to define "rare."  Well, on second thought, I'll define it in its current political usage. MY definition is: rare: a transparently manipulative, completely relative and subjective adjective used by politicians as a weasel-word to evade meaningfully addressing the subject while pretending to be "moral" and a "good Christian" (two other concepts that defy definition). It's even worse (and less honest) than, "I support a woman's right to choose, but I'm personally against abortion." The latter statement is at least not as easily interpreted to be supportive of medically absurd  TRAP laws and other restrictions that are right now leaving a great many women and teenage girls out in the cold and blowing snow, more and more each day knocking at death's door.

Abortion rights are not even regarded as a "top issue." I think people just tend to forget, or just find it easy to ignore and deny, or for some reason just don't realize, just how big this issue is in importance, if not popularity. If we lose even parts of it, as we have been of late by the imposition of medically absurd restrictions that have put abortion care beyond the reach of many women (especially, of course, the economically disadvantaged, as always, but now also more and more those women who just can't jump the hurdles of inappropriate state-mandated restrictions), the results are unconscionably cruel. Women (each of whom is someone's mother, daughter, wife, or sister), right now, are sick and dying who don't need to be, the numbers of such women are growing as these TRAP laws are passed by more states, and Roe vs. Wade is hanging by a thread at the mercy of a SCOTUS already composed of a majority of anti-abortion Roman Catholics.

Of course, I could just be a wishful thinker, but I believe that abortion rights, IF only a strong message were delivered of the importance of abortion rights and of the extreme cruelty of the "pro-life" agenda, could be a winning issue. That, of course, would mean making it a "top issue." It would mean LEADING - doing what reality and human compassion demand: the right thing.

The democrats, I think, would profit by taking on this issue head-on with balls. By being loudly and unapologetically pro-reproductive freedom and saying why in clear and certain terms without following it with a disclaimer. By saying proudly "I am pro-choice and here's why . . . !!!"  Not "I'm pro-choice, (weasel, weasel) but I'm personally opposed to abortion," or "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." ("And I DO mean RARE," as Hillary said recently.)

I don’t care how many abortions there are. I just want there to be enough to meet the needs of women and teenage girls not to be forced into carrying unwanted pregnancies to term against their wills and despite possible devastation of their lives, their health, their hopes and dreams, their employment and careers, their families, and their general well-being.

I strongly believe that defending abortion rights and other issues targeted so irrationally and callously by religious extremists are [1] issues of far too heavy import to ignore or whisper about and [2] winning issues politically if addressed rationally and assertively.

And any politician would certainly improve his/her image as a leader in that manner as compared to ducking and running every time abortion rights are mentioned.

Toss the damned dice!

Originally posted to Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:35 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip jar (39+ / 0-)

    Seven come a better world!

    No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

    by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:40:24 AM PDT

    •  Outstanding Post, Beket!!!! (9+ / 0-)

      You took the words right out of my mouth!

      I get so sick of Pro-Choice politicians (mostly Democrats) act so apologetic about being Pro-Choice by constantly prefacing their position by saying that they "believe" abortion is "wrong", "tragic", that it should become "rare", etc. By doing this, the Democrats continually allow themselves to be put on the defensive by religious right, Anti-Choice Republican politicans.

      Yet this could EASILY be a winning issue for the Democrats and the Democrats could easily put Anti-Choice politicans on the defensive by asking Anti-Choicers the following questions:

      1.  "Sir, if we should adopt your position that abortion is "murder", then you need to explain why we should not shut down every fertility clinic in this country since thousands of '"unborn lives' are destroyed in such clinics every year, just like in abortion clinics." Democrats should go on by saying, "Sir (or madam), since you advocate "protecting" unborn life from the moment of conception, then your position requires that fertility clinics be outlawed as well, since tens of thousands of embryos are destroyed each year in these clinics. If we accept your premise that all unborn life needs full legal protection, then this requires outlawing fertility clinics as well." In other words, put THEM in the position to defend the absurdity of their positions instead of allowing them to put US in the position to defend ours. Of course, the vast majority of Americans won't stand for having fertility clinics shut down but we need to educate the public that the so-called "Pro-Life" position requires this. By boxing the Pro-Lifers in on this crucial point which exposes the absurdity of their position, we clearly come out ahead in the court of public opinion which then strenghens our legal position in many parts of this country.
      1.  We should challenge the Pro-Lifers to clarify what punishment should be inflicted upon women who would get illegal abortions should Roe vs. Wade get overturned and abortion inevititably becomes illegal in at least some places (which is completely unacceptable anywhere because women's lives are at stake). If abortion is indeed "murder" like these "Pro-Lifers" continually charge, then women who get abortions are murderers and should be treated no differently from any other murderer and punished accordingly. We should challenge these "Pro-Lifers" be be consistent in their positions that abortion is murder by forcing them to say that we should round up our friends, aunts, neighbors, aunts, daughters, cousins, mothers, colleagues, etc., haul them off in handcuffs, put them on trial for murder and throw them in prison (or give them the death penalty). This picture will horrify the vast majority of Americans but this scenario is the inevitable result of the consequences that would follow a "Pro-Life" position that abortion is indeed, murder. If the "Pro-Lifer" then says that they only want to prosecute the doctors and not the women (as the leaders of the Anti-Choice movement say), then we should point out that they are inherently accepting the premise of the Pro-Chooice position that killing an already born person is materially different from aborting a fetus. Afterall, if a women hires a hitman to kill her four year old, everyone agrees that she should be prosecuted and put in jail. This is what happens if we murder an already born person and rightly so. Yet the Anti-Choice position holds that there is no material difference whatsoever between "killing the unborn" and killing already born people. But so many of them also turn around and say that women who get illegal abortions should not be prosecuted but that only the doctors (& whoever else helps them) should be prosecuted. We should put them on the defensive to explain why they completely undermine their own premise that "abortion is murder" when they actually accept the Pro-Choice premise that killing already born people is completely different from aborting fetuses (as mentioned) because they don't want to prosecute the woman who is actually a contract killer under their own reasoning. Afterall, this woman hired someone to "bump off" her "unborn child" under the Anti-Choice premise. If the Anti-Choicers remain consistent in their position by stating that women who get abortions should be prosecuted & imprisoned, then we should run T.V. ads showing sympathetic women being hauled out of their homes in handcuffs, humiliated in the courtroom, tried for "murder" and then rotting in prison while their children at home have to endure life without their mother there to care for them.

      Afterall, this is the invevitable consequence for women who get illegal abortion under the Anti-Choice position. WE SHOULD HOLD THEM TO IT. BY DOING SO, WE IMMEDIATELY GO ON THE OFFENSIVE BY PUTTING THEM ON THE DEFENSIVE WHICH THEREFORE MAKES THE PRO-CHOICE POSITION A WINNING ISSUE FOR DEMOCRATS.

      Now, If we can just convince these wimply Democrats that Choice is a winning isse.

      If Not Us, Who,..... If Not Now, When?

      by VirginiaBlue on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:01:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Great diary, beket! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rebecca, megaera

      A private gyn office offering full gyn services including abortion care to 18 weeks.

      by william f harrison on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:31:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My understanding (21+ / 0-)

    of the usage of "rare" by Democrats was that they encouraged contraception usage and responsible sex ed in schools so that you wouldn't have unplanned pregnancies to begin with.  That said, you make a valid point about the vagueness of the word and the potential danger in not being explicit.

    Three things cannot long be hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha

    by zenbowl on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:44:42 AM PDT

    •  Right -- "rare" = "largely unnecessary" (12+ / 0-)

      If it's safe and legal, it's only going to be rare if we stop unwanted pregnancies.  I like the Clinton frame on this one.

      I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
      the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

      by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:47:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then it's passing strange (26+ / 0-)

        that no one advocates making unwanted pregnancies "safe, legal and rare."

        In 2007 SL&R has become a dog whistle, intended to pass right over the heads of certain tone-deaf constituencies. Ten years ago -- before access to "safe and legal" abortion care became so "rare" in many regions as to be nonexistent -- it meant one thing, but today it means something else altogether.

        Today -- especially with the addendum of "and I mean RARE" -- SL&R has been reduced to a pander for the votes of anti-abortion fundamentalists.

        The TEA Fund: Practicing random acts of kindness

        by moiv on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:56:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly! nt (7+ / 0-)

          No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

          by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:57:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, that would be a non-sequitur, wouldn't it? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          markw, Alegre, cpresley, marykk

          Yes, unwanted pregancies should be "safe," and there actually is an issue related to that regarding access to pre-natal care, but that's not the issue at hand here.  And as for unwanted pregnancies being "legal" -- well, maybe Justice Scalia wants to allow laws that would criminalize them, but there's not much of a constituency.

          "Rare" is modified by "legal," regardless of whether it is italicized.  It's a way of neutralizing the abortion issue with voters who might otherwise vote against all of their other preferences solely on this basis.  It's less "pandering to fundamentalists" than reassuring the likes of progressive but devout Catholics and mainstream Protestants that we all have a common goal to stop unwanted pregnancies.

          I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
          the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

          by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:59:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ...or it could be seen as an open door (7+ / 0-)

            ...to make abortion really rare by outlawing them altogether...just saying...it is an example how political framing can possibly come back and bite one one the assumption...

            "Immigration is the sincerest form of flattery." ---Jack Paar

            by bic momma on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:01:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ...bite one IN the assumption... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rebecca, annrose, Beket

              "Immigration is the sincerest form of flattery." ---Jack Paar

              by bic momma on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:03:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Thats exactly what has (5+ / 0-)

              happened- through state restrictions and the recent SCOTUS ruling that for the first time since Roe ignores womens health.  So, this innocuous sounding campaign slogan we (as pro-choicers) supported (cause believe it or not folks, we'd love to see the need for abortions rarer)- has been turned on its head and used against women to eliminate safe abortion in all but about 10-12% of U. S. counties.
              How many women must die?

              •  So *this slogan* is what did the trick? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                william f harrison

                If we hadn't developed this slogan, none of this would be happening?  Do you have even a shred of evidence for the potency of this slogan?

                I tend to think that the present negative trend would have happened without this slogan, largely because we kept losing state and federal elections due in large part to our not caring enough about what voters think and how to convince them.  Someone in this diary has blithely stated that anyone who opposes us on these issues is an irredeemable tool of the Religious Right.  That approach to politics sure works, huh?

                I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:31:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Illegal? Hillary? LOL! Sorry But There's No Way (3+ / 0-)

              in HELL she'd back that or even allow it to happen.

              No other politician's fought harder or longer to help us defend our right to choose than Clinton.  This diary is alarmist where Clinton's concerned.

              This coming from a feminist, pro-choice activist of over 30 years.

              •  Its already happened and continues (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                annrose, Beket, Jain

                to happen- and in her current position there's not much Hillary can do to stop it.  So we want to know and have others know IF she's elected prez, that she will stop it!  That she WILL sign the Freedom of Choice act when it passes; that she will see that it is enforced; that she will have removed from office any federal judge who refuses to follow the law; that she understand and values women's lives EVEN if they need an abortion- and will do all within her power to protect and preserve access and availability to safe abortion care.
                Women's lives depend on it!

                •  You Guys Have Lost Me - You Really Have (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  markw, william f harrison

                  I'm sorry but I can't think of a single politician who's more dedicated to fighting for our rights than Clinton.

                  If you can think of one then by all means - vote for him.

                  As far as I'm concerned - Hillary's our best shot at making all you've advocated for a reality.

                  And this coming from a feminist and pro-choice activist of over 30 years.

                  •  I widsh I could rec this comment a 1000 times. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Alegre, projahstice

                    A private gyn office offering full gyn services including abortion care to 18 weeks.

                    by william f harrison on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:52:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I admire you a great deal (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Beket, julifolo

                      and I hear you're close to Hillary. can you please convince her to stop the goddamn dogwhistling handwaving garbage and speak out STRONGLY for abortion and for feminism????  the "safe legal and rare" formulation has always pissed me off.

                      •  "People who say 'rare' don't mean it" (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Beket, Womantrust

                        That's a snark I've had to deal with. Luckily, he couldn't pin that on me -- I only use the slogan "safe, legal and accessable".

                        If your local service workers don't get a living wage (including healthcare) then your local social contract is broken

                        by julifolo on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:50:51 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  In the past two elections we have (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Beket, Womantrust

                    seen other great candidates lose their way due to ambiguous wording and pandering to the middle .  Sen.Clinton  does not have an " get out of jail free card"in order to  exempt herself  from the pitfalls of running for presidential  office.
                    Her  advisors and pollsters etc.  tell her things  that they think will help her gain leverage in the elections.Over time  her gut instinct on an  issue becomes blurred amongst all  the YES people and piles of statistics stacked  in front of her .It is human nature when cut off from the people .
                    I think many politicians  forget how to take and stand in the fight for the almighty vote.
                    Abortion and abortion care  are already  a   rare and marginalized service that are very  difficult for many poor,young ,rural and other women to access.
                    This pandering to the middle and  ambiquous wording has lost the Democrats elections before. I would hate to see them squander the lead that has been given to them by the current administration , one year and counting before the next election as a result of non specific wording   and bad advice.
                    We see it here - we saw it in the Gay sponsored debate.
                    A backbone counts for something - that is how the voting community sees the Republicans vs Dems so why don't the candidates get that?
                    The Dems  have been  perceived as wishy wasy and scared to take a stand on anything.
                    Well it IS time to roll that dice and tell the people EXACTLY where they  stand not approximately.

                    That just doesn't cut it in Peoria or Iowa or New Hampshire.

                •  I have no doubt that Hillary will do all those (0+ / 0-)

                  things, and the idea she wouldn't is simply an insane reading of everything she has stood and worked for on this issue all her career.  I am sorry to be in opposition to so many of my friends on the issue of Hillary, but I know her, and none of them do.

                  A private gyn office offering full gyn services including abortion care to 18 weeks.

                  by william f harrison on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:51:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  "Illegal" is (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Rebecca, annrose, Womantrust

                well established and on the move NOW! Mounting thousands of women and teenage girls are unable to procure safe, legal abortions NOW!

                It is not enough to be in favor of reproductive rights and to endorse a political strategy that evades and soft-peddles the issue. To "not allow it to happen" requires a firm, forceful, unapologetic endorsement. "Safe, legal, and rare" is not that and does not accomplish anything IMHO but . . .

                Oh, what's the use? I've already said that in the diary.

                You seem to be defending Hillary. I'm not opposed to Hillary at all. But I would like to see all the democratic candidates, and certainly the one who gets the nomination, treat this issue like the red meat it is rather than as crunchy granola which it ain't.

                No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

                by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:16:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Speaking of NOW - You Do Realize They've Endorsed (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  markw, Beket, william f harrison

                  Hillary - right?

                  Speaks volumes in my book.  But then what do I know? I'm just a feminist and pro-choice activist going back maybe 30 years.

                  •  No, hadn't heard that but (6+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Rebecca, annrose, Beket, Alegre, arlene, Jain

                    would certainly expect since she's a Dem, woman and publicly women's rights including "pro-choice" even if qualified by 'rare'.  Perhaps we just need to get some fine tuning done.  Like commitment to restore funding for programs that assist girls and women in health, education and welfare; like signing and enforcing the Freedom of Choice Act; like restoring voting rights to those who've been denied by 'irregularities'; like ending our Iraq 'involvement; like growing the economy which always improves womens lives.    We know that replacing the word 'rare' with 'available' (or accessible)as it pertains to abortion care can begin the process of opening up dialogue with candidates who can help roll back some of the losses we've had. And we feel even those who aren't solidly pro-choice (a big voting bloc) can support this position; tho we know that those who are anti-choice will never- just as they don't support sex education programs, funding for birth control at publicly funded clinics, school based clinics providing comprehensive health care to our children and many other issues they believe are best left up to 'God'- whatever their meaning of that is.
                    And this is what I know- from being in the trenches as a feminist since the l950's- before we even heard the word.

                  •  and you are the only one? (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Beket, Alegre, megaera, william f harrison

                    If you did a poll of an abortion diary you'd find that most of the people involved are active, proud feminists.  Just because we are feminists doesn't mean we all have to agree on everything.  We can disagree.  

                    ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                    by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:31:10 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  I agree totally with you, Alegre. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Rebecca, Beket

                My friends feel that Hillary is speaking as a Karl Rove type politician here.  I totally disagree with this view.  However, I do wish Hillary would change her message to safe, legal and rarely needed.

                Or perhaps even safe lagal and accessable since those of us who have been so heavily involved in this issue for years are well aware of just how INaccessable it has become for so many of the very young, the poor and even much of the middle class.

                A private gyn office offering full gyn services including abortion care to 18 weeks.

                by william f harrison on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:47:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  you're confused (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rebecca, Beket, Womantrust

            It's a way of neutralizing the abortion issue with voters who might otherwise vote against all of their other preferences solely on this basis.  It's less "pandering to fundamentalists" than reassuring the likes of progressive but devout Catholics and mainstream Protestants that we all have a common goal to stop unwanted pregnancies.

            no. "devout catholics" are instructed by the church hierarchy to be anti abortion no matter what the situation. "mainstream protestants" tend to be prochoice. and pro feminism, for that matter. it's the loony evangelicals and bornagain "protestants"
            who are antichoice. they are not considered "mainstream".

            get the connection between anti feminist and anti choice?

      •  OK. (10+ / 0-)

        [1] Define "rare."
        [2] What is your stake in its being "rare," whatever that means.
        [3] Do you realize that what "making abortion 'rare' means to many is making it less available and accessible?

        How about coming right out like a big boy or girl and saying "Safe, legal, and available to all who for their own reasons believe need it (and some who KNOW they do)?

        No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

        by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:56:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How about not picking a fight (10+ / 0-)

          by using incendiary phrases like "coming right out like a big boy or girl"?

          My stake is that Democrats have lost many elections by failing to hold onto progressive voters who are, for whatever reason, anti-abortion, and I want to elect Democrats for myriad reasons among which maintaining abortion rights is paramount.  So do not fucking patronize me by pretending that only those willing to stick a thumb in the eye of voters we need can understand the stakes.  Yes, I realize that some people who will be mollified by this phrase think that it means reducing access.  I hope that these people will be disappointed, if that's what they think they're buying, without being alienated -- because we do have interests in common that elementary politics dictates that we do stress, and to be honest we should pursue them assiduously.

          I defined "rare" way up above: "largely unnecessary."

          Now, would you like to discuss this politely "like a big boy or girl"?

          I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
          the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

          by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:06:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, drop the chip off your shoulder. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rebecca, annrose, megaera

            How about not picking a fight by using incendiary phrases like "coming right out like a big boy or girl"?

            That was not directed at you. Let me add a clarification:

            How about (the democratic candidates) coming right out like a big boy or girl and saying "Safe, legal, and available to all who for their own reasons believe they need it (and some who KNOW they do)?"

            and the phrase "like a big boy or girl" was tongue-in-cheek anyway, not belligerent. I should have inserted a happy face: ;-)

            I want the democrats to win for a myriad of reasons, too - and how! And I believe, as I said in the diary, that forcefully telling the truth about the importance of abortion rights and the cruelty of the so-called "pro-life" movement can be a winning position electorally, as well as enlighten and activate many more voters than we are likely to win over from the Christian Right no matter how it is phrased.

            We disagree. In your case no less than in mine the disagreement arises from an untested belief.

            I'm not much into fighting, but I will struggle to be understood.  ;-) (Didn't forget the happy face this time)

            No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

            by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:38:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Where did I say the phrase was directed at me? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              william f harrison

              Frankly, I don't care much what you say about me in this context.  I care much more about your infantilizing the person (whoever it is) for whom I'll be working to elect as President next year.

              I'm not sure what beliefs of mine you think are untested.  You've read the polls?

              My main message to you is that we need to distinguish between convincing the public and campaigning to the public.  The former is not the same as the latter, and the slogan in question is all about the latter.

              I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
              the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

              by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:30:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  A fatal flaw in Democratic thinking (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Rebecca, megaera, Jain

                IMHO is:

                I'm not sure what beliefs of mine you think are untested. You've read the polls?

                [1] Your belief that aggressively defending abortion rights while denouncing the cruelty of the "pro-life" position is a losing political strategy is untested.

                [2] Polls can be influenced to change by exactly what I advocate in my diary - strong leadership. Otherwise they will likely remain steady as we steadily continue to lose ground and women suffer and die.

                No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

                by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:20:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You've moved the goalposts (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm all for aggressively defending abortion rights.  I'm fine with denouncing the cruelty of the pro-life position, at least where it's not clearly a loser with the public (or do you deny that any such constituencies exist.)  What I'm discussing here is what is in the title or your diary, which is whether it undercuts either of those ends to argue the Clinton position that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.

                  How do you know that the Clinton position is untested, by the way?  I would be, frankly, shocked if the Clintons didn't test it to death in the 90s, and Gore and Kerry after that.  That they continue to use it suggests it must test pretty well.

                  Can polls be changed by strong leadership?  Sure.  Does omitting the only conciliatory bit of jujitsu in the Democratic argument here constitute good leadership?  Is it, in fact, a requirement for it?  Sorry, but I won't grant you that point.

                  I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                  the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                  by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:55:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Poking a stick (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Beket, arlene, megaera, Jain

            So do not fucking patronize me by pretending that only those willing to stick a thumb in the eye of voters we need can understand the stakes.

            So standing up for our principles is poking a stick in the eyes of voters.

            I can see why you are so averse to us advocating for our moral position if you see it as not participating in changing the political spectrum away from the far right and as just a poking the stick into the eye of someone to get a reaction.  

            Can we advocate for our principles or is it only the other side that can state their principles and have morals?  It seems to be a big discussion within the party of how can we regain the moral vote.  Do we regain the moral vote by just accepting the other sides definition of what is moral? Do we allow them to set the standard for what is moral?  

            We see women suffering and dying from the effects of their moral stance.  Can we argue that or do we have to be afraid they will be offended by disagreeing with them?  Will there be any people who actually agree with us and find the moral posturing by the other side as offensive.  

            I remember the Terry Schiavo spectacle.  The Republicans and the MSM both expected the public to rally for the heroic Republicans and to be horrified by the dastardly Democrats who would allow a woman to be murdered.  Funny thing.  The public was more horrified by the governmental intrusion into a private family matter.

            Allowing them to have the stage to make their arguments without rebuttal is what leads to polls where we lose.  When people see what these people really stand for as in the Schiavo case will they still poll the same?  The only way we can find out is to advocate for our position.  By abdicating that responsibility because they right now don't poll well for us is a losing position long term and short term.  

            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

            by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:50:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Sticking a thumb," not "poking a stick" (0+ / 0-)

              If you're going to quote me out of context, at least do it accurately.

              As I've said below, I think that your presenting your position, and educating the public about these issues, is fine -- more than fine, actually.  But that is not what this diary is about.  It is about whether politicians, in the course of campaigning, should take an uncompromising position on the question of whether abortions should be "rare" in their quick slogan addressing the issue.  You've convinced me that it rankles you but not that it actually does any harm.

              There is a necessary and proper distinction between advocates and politicians (at least those not coming from extremely safe districts/electorates.)  By all means, do your job.  But let them, armed with reality-based information about what the relevant electorate will accept, do theirs.

              Oh, and by the way -- I do not argue that abortions should be "rare" because they are "immoral," but because they are usually, at least in the experience of women I've known who have had them, episodes that they would have preferred to avoid and thus far inferior to avoiding unwanted pregnancies.  I think the public is smart enough to get that message, which puts the emphasis right where we'd like it: supporting contraception first.

              I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
              the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

              by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:28:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I don't want Democrats to win (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Beket

            if they're spouting verbiage designed to appeal to the anti feminist, anti choice crowd. that does not interest me at all. yes, we have all heard about the importance of the majority and the supreme court nominations yada yada, so don't even go there.

            I say, the dems should leverage the awful Iraq war which everyone hates. to my mind, the more anti war they are, the more feminist, pro choice and liberal they can be. strangely they haven't figured this out yet.

      •  It sounded good at first but now? (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skyesNYC, annrose, arlene, bic momma, megaera

        It doesn't work for us.  It works for the anti-choice zealots as they work in state legislatures to legally limit access to and availability to abortion.  

        If it really worked for us we would have them on the defensive about their attempts to make birth control illegal, expensive and unaccessible.  Right now we have the Democratic party passing a bill for more money to go to right-wing abstinence only organizations.  How many kids are legally only able to be taught abstinence with contraceptives only mentioned to bring up the (propaganda) down sides of them?  Our side won't even stand strong on birth control.  

        How does rare work for us?  It allows politicians to use DLC type blurring of the sides arguments.  We've seen how well the DLC ideas work for our other political arguments.  Why would you think that we can draw voters in by using them with abortion.

        Why is their side able to stand up strong and bellow out their principles and our side has to pretend that we don't really stand for what we stand for.  I'm personally against abortion but....   I'm for safe, legal and rare.  It's all part of saying I'm for it but I'm not really for it.  I'm a moral person and not like those crazy loony liberals over there.  

        Why is it that we have to accept that they are the moral ones in this argument or people won't vote for us? We have an argument coming from a strong moral position.  Why do we have to mute our strong moral argument because it doesn't match up with theirs?

        ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

        by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:01:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When it comes to abortion policy (0+ / 0-)

          we are making decisions for other people.  There is nothing in SL&R that requires one to be personally against abortion.  I am personally for women doing what they see fit in accordance with their own moral beliefs.  There is a taboo about abortion, it's true -- we're a long way away from having the first elected who admits to having had an abortion, though we've surely already had one -- and the existence of that taboo should give you pause about how much the public is behind us and where the problem lies.

          Again, once you get behind the explicit question of whether women have a right to abortion -- where the public supports us -- you implicate other values.  Parental notification?  Then you're implicating people's beliefs about parental versus state control over childrearing.  (I'm not saying it is right that such values are implication; I'm simply stating that they are.)  Medicare payment for abortions?  Then we're implicating beliefs about taxes, "smaller government," and yes, racism and class bias.  These are not "moral issues" at that level; the problem is that they move further away from fundamental beliefs about abortion itself.

          You ask "how does 'rare' work for us?"  Here's one way.  We can say that we don't even want to talk about all of these other issues until we have worked together to make abortions as rare as possible by ensuring the fewest number of unwanted pregnancies.  Then we're using the wedge issue that cuts against them -- their unwillingness to teach about any birth control other than abstinence -- against them as a way of not arguing about issues that cut against us.

          I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
          the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

          by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:26:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But we're not (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jain

            We can say that we don't even want to talk about all of these other issues until we have worked together to make abortions as rare as possible by ensuring the fewest number of unwanted pregnancies.  Then we're using the wedge issue that cuts against them -- their unwillingness to teach about any birth control other than abstinence -- against them as a way of not arguing about issues that cut against us.

            But we're not.  The same politicians you advocate we support because of the D after their name won't take on those issues.  When our side gives the right-wing abstinence only groups more funding and keeps them not only legal but required we aren't winning the issue.  

            You say how we can use the issue.  Beket has told you how it is being used. We have to look at the real world here and not with what it should be.  The problem is that by keeping with the strategy of blurring the distinction between us and saying we really think abortion is bad and a tragedy always we basically say the anti-choice people are right to everyone. It's hard to argue against the legislation moiv and Beket are talking about when you've already ceded the moral argument.  I'll predict that you won't find many taking your way of dealing with it but rather more acceptance of further laws like the abstinence only one.  

            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

            by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:02:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, yes, I would say that abortion is "bad" (0+ / 0-)

              in the sense that a tonsillectomy or hysterectomy or prostate surgery is "bad."  You want to avoid the need for any of them if you can -- and, in this case, through contraceptive education and use, you largely can.  That's not a judgment about morality, any more than I'd be making a judgment about the above surgeries; it's a judgment about hedonics.

              And if you don't say abortion is "bad" in this sense, then you play into the crackpot notion that the "abortion industry" wants to increase the number of abortions for profit.  I'd say that abortion providers should be considered to be like dentists in the public eye: they aren't trying to create more cavities, but they will perform extractions when necessary, even though people don't like that surgery either.

              This doesn't seem too inherently complicated to me, and is much more likely to survive rebuttal robustly than a stance that denies that abortion is something that, ideally, we would like to avoid.  If that's even your argument, at this point.

              I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
              the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

              by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:39:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Abortion should be treated (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Beket, Major Danby, Granco

                just like any other form of medical care.  Unfortunately, it's the only one that has a minority of the population fanatically determined to make it illegal.  Many of the arguments you are using have been gone over again and again on these abortion diaries.  I in fact used heart surgery to make the point that while no one wants to have heart surgery we are all exceedingly glad to have it available when we need it.  

                a stance that denies that abortion is something that, ideally, we would like to avoid.  If that's even your argument, at this point.

                Sigh

                You know you're walking into a group that has been discussing this for some time now and you're sure we don't know what we're talking about.  I would suggest you actually read some abortion diaries before you make assumptions about what we believe.  You didn't even know the history of Beket and moiv and and you certainly couldn't name any of the other experts who have been so gracious as to bring us their expertise and experience.  

                Everyone on these diaries thinks that it's better to avoid abortions.  That is a right-wing talking point that shouldn't have been insinuated.  

                I have found your diaries to be very informative and appreciated them even when I disagreed with you.  I wish you could have granted the same respect back.  

                Thank you

                ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:58:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I trust that you are all very informed and smart (0+ / 0-)

                  about abortion policy.  And perhaps I should have gotten the hell out of this from the outset, as I suspect most people would have.  (I don't see bailing out with an eye roll as a gesture of respect, though; quite the opposite.)  But the reason I stayed -- although I will now accept your invitation to leave -- is because this is not simply an abortion diary.  It is, with due (and real) respect, a diary on framing a political issue and campaigning to the public as well, and that is as much my area as abortion policy and the stances that should be taken by reproductive rights advocates is yours.

                  I'm managing a campaign in a conservative district this cycle for a candidate that, believe me, you would love to see in Congress.  He would -- I'll say will -- be the best representative this district could possibly elect.  And of course I will adopt the "safe, legal and rare" frame for this issue, not because I don't care about women's feelings but because it puts the focus in the election exactly where it ought to be: on the fundamentalist (and fundamentalist-pandering) crusade to drive away the very measures that could improve contraceptive use and render a larger portion of the abortion debate moot.  I believe that I can sell that truth in my district.  I believe that the approach taken here would, in my district, be a certain loser.  I believe, in short, that I cannot possibly do a better job of furthering the powerfully expressed interests of women regarding reproductive health than to take this course.

                  What I'm hearing here is that this is a betrayal and a moral failing, from people who know a hell of a lot about abortion providers and the psychology and sociology of the abortion debate, but not (so far as I can tell) that much about campaign messaging.

                  Do I take it personally?  Yes.  Enough to argue here for hours.  But that reaction is not (at least in my view and intention) a gesture of disrespect, but because I actually do care about what the people in this subcommunity of DKos -- which I have not entered before and will try to remember not to enter again -- have to say.  But it doesn't lead me to reject what I know from my own areas of expertise.

                  I am sorry if I've ruined people's days, although I've certainly provided ample opportunity for people to support one another and produce the sort of writing that only comes out under challenge.  If this gives any sense of how the arguments presented here sound to someone working on campaign messaging, there is at least that.

                  As I've said a few times here, the cautions I would place on politicians in other than clearly safe districts are not ones that I would place on activists -- we certainly do need for you (plural) to advocate strongly and well.  I wish you success in that.  As we used to say, A Luta Continua.

                  I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                  the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                  by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:35:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  well okay (0+ / 0-)

                so let's say abortion providers are like dentists.

                in that case, the anti choice folks would be analogous to advocates of cavities, abscesses, and rotten teeth.

                why should we be catering to such people?

      •  when you say (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Beket, Granco

        "rare" = "largely unnecessary"

        what do you think the 40 million women in this country who have had abortions think about that statement?  To me you are judging them saying that their abortion was largely unnecessary...certainly NOT a wise slogan for someone who needs their vote.

    •  I have always felt that the word "rare" was a (12+ / 0-)

      way to concede a power shift of conviction of the importance of reproductive freedom for women in order to soft-peddle a candidate's support of upholding Roe v Wade. I am more inclined to feel my reasoning is correct because of the lack of strength amd immediacy of following up the "rare" with a rock-solid stance on comprehensive birth control and education...it should be one sentence...not an afterthought of clarification...

      "Immigration is the sincerest form of flattery." ---Jack Paar

      by bic momma on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:58:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Safe, legal and rare" (15+ / 0-)

      is a sound bite.

      This is is reality:

      more and more those women who just can't jump the hurdles of inappropriate state-mandated restrictions), the results are unconscionably cruel. Women (each of whom is someone's mother, daughter, wife, or sister), right now, are sick and dying who don't need to be

      It's the reality on the ground today, as seen by Beket and several other users here who see and live it every day.

      This is something I would like to understand: How many women's lives are we willing to sacrifice in service to expedience?

      The TEA Fund: Practicing random acts of kindness

      by moiv on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:06:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Name *one single policy* regarding abortion (5+ / 0-)

        that you favor and that you think is foreclosed by the employment of the motto "safe, legal, and rare," and prepare for me to disagree with you in all likelihood.

        I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
        the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

        by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:08:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Already detailed in (8+ / 0-)

          Beket's diary.  Debate?   there is no debate.

          •  "there is no debate." (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            markw, Alegre, marykk

            What is it that you think I'm doing here, interpretive dance?

            I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
            the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

            by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:44:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Looks like toying with the value (7+ / 0-)

              of womens lives and the very serious problem we're discussing about lack of access or availability to a desperately needed component of health care- laced with sarcasm.  

              •  Because I disagree with you about (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                markw, Alegre, marykk, Mother of Zeus

                the political utility of a slogan that itself does not address access issues, but that has helped to defuse an issue that has been difficult for Democrats and therefore helped keep us out of a position where we could not do anything to solve these problems, I am "toying with the value of women's lives"?

                You know, I don't often say this, but -- as one active in the movement since the 1970s -- you owe me an apology.  Until then, I don't have more to say to you.

                Oh, and the "sarcasm" was in regards to your contention that "there is no debate" about how to proceed here.  My "interpretive dance" remark was intended as gentle.  This isn't: your sticking your fingers in your ears, chanting "la la la la la!", and pretending that there is no debate -- that, by the way, is hyperbole and metaphor rather than sarcasm -- does not actually make the debate go away.

                I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:14:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not worth reply. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  annrose, megaera
                •  You've been around here long enough (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  markw, Major Danby

                  to know that this is fruitless.  I'm counting the minutes until you are informed that you have a hidden pro-life agenda.  It won't matter how firmly pro-choice you are.  Nothing will matter.  

                  Life is too short to spend your time in this STFU diary.

                  •  I retract that comment (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    moiv, Beket, Major Danby

                    I had a gut reaction because I have been so outrageously slammed in the past - not by this diarist or folks participating here - but it was wrong to toss that judgment off without thinking or even reading the comment thread.  I see that the discussion here has managed to remain useful.  Sorry.

                    •  No problem (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      markw

                      I do respect the people I'm arguing with here.  They're right in respect to policy; but in some ways wrong in respect to campaigning.  But some of them truly do not seem to care for results, but only for being able to say later on that they held the right position.  That's worth engaging and opposing.

                      I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                      the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                      by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:58:58 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Or perhaps we do care about results (6+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        annrose, Beket, julifolo, arlene, Jain, Womantrust

                        and just disagree with you on methods.  When we've watched a strategy that has shown no benefits and many detriments being used by our politicians we would like to see a change in strategy.  

                        You haven't shown how this policy benefits us.  You tell us it allows people who are mushy on abortion to continue to vote for us.  The problem with that strategy is that it does nothing to give them reasons to be pro-choice.  Pro-choice includes people who are personally opposed to it.  Why are they pro-choice?  Many people would accept the pro-choice position if they were given a good moral reason to be pro-choice.  

                        Right now one of the largest platforms for discussing this our political candidates for office is completely dominated by the anti-choice argument.  The Republicans come out and make a strong moral argument against abortion.  (We'll ignore the lying they do to make that argument)  The Democrats stand up and say well you're right abortion is awful and tragic but ...  The message is very clear.  The anti-choice side has a moral argument and we don't.  The results are clear.  We continue to lose ground year after year.  You can't win a political argument unless you're willing to make it.  Having the people we choose as our representatives afraid to argue it shows that we don't really believe in our position.  

                        ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                        by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:44:21 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I wish I could rec that 1,000 times! nt (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          annrose

                          No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

                          by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:27:00 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Again, we are losing ground because (0+ / 0-)

                          we are losing elections.  You don't have to go beyond that.

                          And I don't know any pro-choice Democratic politicians who do not make a moral argument in favor of choice.  Abortion should be rare -- because unwanted pregnancies should be rare -- but the exercise of self-determination by pregnant women should be not simply frequent, but universal.  That is a moral argument.  And it is made.  (If your argument is that politicians should say that abortions should be frequent, or should not address how common they should be, then you're saying that we should not address the disquieted feelings that many in the public -- despite what I'm sure are your best efforts as advocates -- still have about abortion.  In that case, you can say goodbye to Roe.)

                          If you're pointing out that people don't favor greater access to abortion (which is what this diary is about), there's nothing special about abortion in that respect -- people don't favor expending public money on behalf of others generally.  So urbanites don't want to pay taxes for rural abortions, or health care, or electrification.

                          Politicians don't need to give people reasons to be pro-choice; activists do.  As I said, do your job and let politicians do theirs.

                          I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                          the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                          by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:48:37 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  It's reciprocal (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            annrose, Beket, Major Danby, Womantrust

                            Politicians should reflect their bases.  When politicians don't reflect their bases legislation doesn't reflect the bases.  Yes there is some very cautious advocacy of abortion.  Mostly in very blue areas.  It is overwhelmed by the worry about how it would look if we actually stand up for it.  

                            (If your argument is that politicians should say that abortions should be frequent, or should not address how common they should be, then you're saying that we should not address the disquieted feelings that many in the public -- despite what I'm sure are your best efforts as advocates -- still have about abortion.  In that case, you can say goodbye to Roe.)

                            I see I advocate against the use of the word rare because it's not working in the real world and that means I must be for more and more abortions.  I advocate against demonizing abortion so I must be for lots of abortions.  

                            You don't know me don't make assumptions.  I better just leave this for a little bit.  Everything I'm writing right now turns out to be very rude.  

                            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                            by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:12:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  OK, one last comment (0+ / 0-)

                            I bow to reality.  I'd like to see real work -- beyond anecdotal evidence, with controlled studies -- on whether the assertion made in your penultimate paragraph is true.  If you're right; we should change the language, although I see plenty of obvious downside.  If it turns out that it doesn't really have the pernicious effect you suggest, you have plenty of other battles to fight.  This is an area where abortion activists and campaign professionals could actually work together and do something of value.  But as you suggest, it won't be done tonight, and not by me.

                            P.S. No offense taken.

                            I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                            the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                            by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:43:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That is why you believe we are losing ground? (6+ / 0-)

                            Again, we are losing ground because we are losing elections.  You don't have to go beyond that.

                            Of course we have to go beyond that! We have to investigate why we are losing elections if we ever hope to win any of them. You seem to me to fit right into the stereotype of Democrats as afraid to stand proudly and resolutely for an important principle.

                            And I don't know any pro-choice Democratic politicians who do not make a moral argument in favor of choice.  Abortion should be rare -- because unwanted pregnancies should be rare -- but the exercise of self-determination by pregnant women should be not simply frequent, but universal.  That is a moral argument.  And it is made.

                            That is not a moral argument. That is a canned assertion. Where is any argument? Where are the reasons why? Where is any attempt to describe the life-saving, life-enhancing benefits of legal abortion care? Where is a forceful condemnation of suffering and death of women advocated by the so-called "pro-life" movement?

                            (If your argument is that politicians should say that abortions should be frequent, or should not address how common they should be, then you're saying that we should not address the disquieted feelings that many in the public -- despite what I'm sure are your best efforts as advocates -- still have about abortion.

                             

                            [1] That is not my argument.
                            [2] One of our greatest frustrations is that our voices are not heard. Why? Because we don't have the platform that a national presidential candidate has.
                            [3] I believe, as I have said repeatedly, that a national presidential candidate should lead on this issue and in the process educate and win over public support by forcefully, substantively, and proudly defending reproductive freedom and exposing the extreme cruelty of the so-called "pro-life" movement.

                            In that case, you can say goodbye to Roe.

                            Another one of those untested beliefs. I think we are more likely to lose Roe if we continue down this road of evading, equivocating, and pandering.

                            Politicians don't need to give people reasons to be pro-choice; activists do.  As I said, do your job and let politicians do theirs.

                            That is exactly what my diary is about - politicians doing their jobs.

                            No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

                            by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:16:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  A last comment to you as well (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Beket

                            I understand your position, and I have an unending supply of people approaching me with particularly your point [3] in mind.  Almost entirely issues I believe in.  And yet I know -- from testimony, from studies, etc. -- that voters will pay attention to a handful of issues in a campaign, and almost all at a superficial level.

                            Another time I can do more to explain why -- or not; I've said enough.  But as you diary about campaign politics as it relates to abortion, I encourage you to talk to people who have worked in electoral (not issue) politics and get their sense of things.  I'm sure you have much to tell them and vice-versa.

                            One of my favorite stories that I sometimes tell on this site is about when Franklin Roosevelt met with a group of activists about a strongly progressive issue position.  At the end, he said "You've convinced me that this is the right thing to do; now go out there and force me to do it!"

                            That was a man who knew politics and the de facto division of labor between candidates and activists.  Good luck doing your part.

                            I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                            the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                            by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:53:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  I do have a "pro-life" agenda (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    markw, Beket, Jain

                    My environmental and anti-torture work!  It's just not an anti-abortion agenda!

                    I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                    the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                    by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:00:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Do you undertake (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Rebecca, annrose, Beket, Jain

                      the political reeducation of those who raise hell over contamination of the environment, or do you openly advocate confining ourselves to supporting only minor restrictions on torture, in order to pacify those who might lack sufficient understanding and empathy for those positions?

                      I don't.

                      The TEA Fund: Practicing random acts of kindness

                      by moiv on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:09:34 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Do I think that environmentalists can sometimes (0+ / 0-)

                        take positions that would hurt us in the general elections and that they should back off?  Yes, sometimes I do.  Would I sometimes de-emphasize aspects of the torture debate, despite the strong feelings I have about the issue?  In some circumstances, yes.  I'd do so pretty much only when necessary to win an election, and it would not involve repudiating a position I believe in, but choosing not to emphasize it where it is likely to be a decisive and losing issue.

                        So, do I get to reject the label of being a misogynist yet?

                        I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                        the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                        by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:50:47 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Who has called you a misogynist? (5+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Rebecca, annrose, Beket, arlene, Readrock

                          Certainly not I.

                          Now that's a straw man.

                          All Beket has said here is that supporting access to abortion care as an integral element of universal health care is not a losing political stance. In fact, Obama and Edwards both have put themselves on the record as doing so.

                          Speaking on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards before the family planning and abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Edwards lauded her husband's health-care proposal as "a true universal health-care plan" that would cover "all reproductive health services, including pregnancy termination," referring to abortion.
                          :::
                          Asked about his proposal for expanded access to health insurance, Obama said it would cover "reproductive-health services." Contacted afterward, an Obama spokesman said that included abortions.

                          It's highly instructive to me that while it doesn't scare either of these candidates take this position, the very thought of such an idea sends people who claim to support them skedaddling for the hills.

                          The TEA Fund: Practicing random acts of kindness

                          by moiv on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:43:47 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  If I downgraded women's issues while accepting (0+ / 0-)

                            the behavior I criticize here for other issues I care about, I'd expect the criticism.  And I might well deserve it.  (No, no one has said that; nor did I assert otherwise.)

                            The Obama/Edwards position doesn't scare me at all.  It should be part of universal health care.  Of course, we're not likely to see universal health care soon.

                            I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                            the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                            by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:11:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

        •  Here are a couple just for starters (13+ / 0-)

          An end to political targeting of abortion-providing physicians with criminal sanctions that do not apply to practitioners in any other field of medical practice:

          The hidden TRAP behind "Safe, Legal and Rare"

          Texas OK's Death Penalty for Abortion Providers

          The Last Abortion Clinic: Whistling Past the Graveyard

          An end to denial of care to women whose lives are threatened by continuation of pregnancy:

          Tx Lege: Today I Heard a Dead Man Talking

          The TEA Fund: Practicing random acts of kindness

          by moiv on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:26:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I can (and do) favor the pro-choice position (6+ / 0-)

            on every one of those issues while adhering to the belief that abortion should be safe, legal, and as rare as possible consonant with women's right to control whether to become and remain pregnant.

            At most, you can say that the slogan does not address these issues.

            I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
            the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

            by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:44:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  BINGO! (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rebecca, annrose, Beket, Jain

              That is the very point of the diary -- that SL&R is a tired, outmoded slogan that does not address the current reality.

              The TEA Fund: Practicing random acts of kindness

              by moiv on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:04:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Which may mean that it is insufficient (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                marykk

                but does not mean that it is wrong.  It means that public education continues outside of the formal political campaign process, to move the public our way.

                Look, if I gave you the following (realistic) choice:

                (1) Campaign explicitly on issues of wider access for women to reproductive health care, even where 70% or more of the public opposes your favored position, and lose, or

                (2) Campaign in a way that stresses the commonality with people who might oppose us on such issues without stressing them, and win, and then do what we can to implement thoughtful and just policies to the extent we can without losing office and thus potentially the whole ball game (as we are within one Supreme Court nomination of doing),

                which would you choose?  For me, it's #2.  It involves no betrayal of conviction to emphasize the points of commonality.  Republicans understand this.  Why don't you?

                I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:19:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What I fail to understand (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rebecca, skyesNYC, annrose, Beket, arlene

                  is any political strategy that requires dumping women's welfare, not when so many women and their children already are suffering so deeply.

                  Those who "oppose us on such issues" are steeped in the dogma of the Religious Right. And there is no hope for commonality with the Religious Right on issues regarding women's reproductive health -- from abortion to contraception to comprehensive sex education. That's a pipe dream, and no one who believes it to be possible is a reality-based politician.

                  If betrayal of women isn't a betrayal of conviction, nothing is. It's cowardly, amoral and just plain wrong.

                  That might be OK with Republican strategists, but it shouldn't be OK with us.

                  We will simply have to agree to disagree on this one. Considering who we are, and considering our respective goals, perhaps that is as it should be.

                  The TEA Fund: Practicing random acts of kindness

                  by moiv on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:41:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "Dumping women's welfare"? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    marykk

                    A bit of a straw man there, eh?

                    You are simply wrong that people who oppose us on issues such as parental consent (on which I agree with your position) are "steeped in the dogma of the Religious Right."  There are plausible, non-dogmatic reasons for such positions, such as lack of understanding and empathy, that are one hell of a lot more amenable to rapproachment than if they actually were dogmatic Religious Right.  Assuming that the opposition is intransigent relieves you of the responsibility to try to engage them -- but also pretty much guarantees failure.

                    I don't need or want Mike Huckabee's vote.  But I do want the votes of people who might agree with us on all other issues, but oppose us on this one, if we allow it to become the decisive issue for them as they stand in the voting booth.  Do you really not feel that way?

                    I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                    the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                    by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:18:45 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No, it truly isn't a straw man (5+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Rebecca, annrose, Beket, arlene, Jain

                      or even a straw woman. And lack of understanding and empathy on issues such as parental consent -- one that I have not even addressed here -- are the very least of what we are faced with now. The situation has become absolutely critical.

                      There's really no mileage to be gained here in teaching grandma to suck eggs. After 15 years of providing abortion care in a deep red state awash in TRAP law, no one understands the "art of the possible" any more profoundly than I. But everything has its limits.

                      I've spent years researching the institutions and political strategies of the Religious Right, and its pervasive influence extends far beyond the Republican Party. Huckabee bobbleheads are largely irrelevant to the discussion.

                      Years of going along to get along have done nothing but enable the opposition, nor will it in future. It's make or break time now. And as is so often the case when the rights and welfare of women are in play, it increasingly appears as though it's going to be "break."

                      The TEA Fund: Practicing random acts of kindness

                      by moiv on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:55:44 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I think that if your analysis were true (0+ / 0-)

                        we would already be living in Margaret Atwood's Gilead, and we're not.  Many people can't get abortions.  (Many others can't get medicines -- or food and shelter, let's not forget.)  But while we can't lose sight of where we fall short, we also can't lose sight of where we don't.  If the pervasive influence of the Religious Right strongly controlled things as much as you suggest, we would have lost in 2006.  And, if it is so, then changing our slogan to include to word "accessible" won't do shit for us.

                        I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                        the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                        by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:39:18 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  I don't think anti-abortionists... (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rebecca, Beket, Jain, Womantrust

                  are going to vote for Hillary.  Ever.

                  And most are probably never going to vote for a Democrat.

                  So, why should any Dem pander in any way to the anti-abortion position?

                  Except that the "pro-choice" position already addresses the fact that it's a person's choice...and it's OK for an anti-abortion woman to NOT have an abortion.  So, bases covered.

                  HotFlashReport - Opinionated liberal views of the wrongs of the right

                  by annrose on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:02:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Your opinions are not grounded in reality (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm sorry to say that; I don't mean it to be insulting, but they simply aren't.

                    There are plenty of people -- largely Catholics -- who will say that they would vote Democratic except for the single issue of abortion.  Defusing the issue for such people is a way to win their votes.  And it has worked in the past.

                    But as for what constitutes an "anti-abortion position" -- even if I granted your argument with respect to favoring abortion rights overall, does favoring parental notification law or opposing Medicaid payment for abortions -- which have much more to do with the issues of access raised in this diary -- constitute an "anti-abortion position" in your book?  If so, do you really mean to assert that most who oppose Medicaid payment for abortions, et al., are never going to vote for a Democrat?  Because, if you do, I think you're not only wrong, but you're so wrong that I don't even know how to discuss this with you.

                    I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                    the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                    by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:35:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh Darling...I'm grounded in reality. (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Rebecca, arlene, Jain, Readrock

                      I've worked for the past 30 years for abortion clinics ...since 1976.

                      I've seen it all.  I've lived, breathed, and sweated over the realities of abortion.  And I'm not ready to marginalize abortion for a few Catholics.  We've already marginalized it to the Pope with a 5-4 Catholic majority on the Supreme Court.

                      Major...I don't think we disagree on the issue, just the strategery.

                      All Beket and I (and a few others) are saying is that the pro-choice position is not a loser for the Dems...it can be a winner.

                      And BTW...I'll bet my bippy that more than a few of those "anti-abortion Catholics" that you want to draw into our tent have had abortions themselves.

                      HotFlashReport - Opinionated liberal views of the wrongs of the right

                      by annrose on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:45:41 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What you're describe are reasons that (0+ / 0-)

                        you would want to believe that the public agrees with you.  Based on your work, I could hardly denigrate your motivation to so believe.  But that experience can -- and I think probably has -- made it harder to see those who don't agree with you.  (And I include the many Catholics and fundamentalists, some of whom I know, who have had abortions themselves and whose opposition to choice is now pretty cleanly explain by Freudian defense mechanisms.)

                        I agree that the pro-choice position overall is a winner.  And Democrats treat it as such: "safe and legal," after all, is meaningful and not itself a safe position.  We're disagreeing about the use of the term "rare."  And I think it's politically smart, because it changes the topic from "we don't want women to have abortions" to "we don't want women to have to have abortions," which means we have to talk about contraception and sex education.  And those too are winning issues for us.

                        Do they solve the problems of access?  No.  The only thing that solves that is power.

                        I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                        the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                        by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:02:55 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Except (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          annrose, Beket, arlene, Readrock

                          And I think it's politically smart, because it changes the topic from "we don't want women to have abortions" to "we don't want women to have to have abortions," which means we have to talk about contraception and sex education.  And those too are winning issues for us.

                          The people on the ground in the heat of the abortion battles the people who provide abortion care are telling you that is not how it's working.  The rare is being used against that and for limiting accessibility for not just abortion but many other reproductive care needs.  I find it interesting you just don't want to listen to them.  You keep saying how it should work and how it could work but when they tell how it is working you just ignore them and continue to say what a great strategy it is.  

                          ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                          by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:04:26 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Then they, and we, had better do a better job (0+ / 0-)

                            of explaining that how one makes abortions "rare" is by fostering contraceptive education and use.  That is indeed a useful aspect of this diary.  But would it really be different without this slogan?  Come on.  I don't work in a clinic but I know a thing or two about politics, and that they've found a cute way to phrase their argument does not mean that their argument would not be made with comparable force otherwise.  Giving up on this framing would have pretty obvious consequences.  By all means, we can focus on accessibility and explain how it does not contradict the notion that abortions should be rarely needed.  But tossing out the only point of commonality and compromise which can be used to defuse the issue and put us in a better position?  I am entirely unconvinced by the anecdotal data that it would help our position at all.

                            I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                            the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                            by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:05:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  You are throwing loaded dice! (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rebecca, annrose, arlene

                  Look, if I gave you the following (realistic) choice:

                  (1) Campaign explicitly on issues of wider access for women to reproductive health care, even where 70% or more of the public opposes your favored position, and lose, or

                  (2) Campaign in a way that stresses the commonality with people who might oppose us on such issues without stressing them, and win, and then do what we can to implement thoughtful and just policies to the extent we can without losing office and thus potentially the whole ball game (as we are within one Supreme Court nomination of doing),

                  which would you choose?  For me, it's #2.  It involves no betrayal of conviction to emphasize the points of commonality.  Republicans understand this.  Why don't you?

                  Your untested belief is that #1 loses and #2 wins. Who with those assumptions would choose to lose by choosing #1 if they know that will be the loser? Your dice are loaded.

                  My untested belief is the reverse of yours. I believe that the most likely winner is #1, not only for reproductive rights but for the Democratic Party, and I don't put forth that belief as knowing.

                  No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

                  by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:04:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Look at what you *didn't* boldface (0+ / 0-)

                    even where 70% or more of the public opposes your favored position

                    I stated my assumptions.  As I recall, support for parental consent laws was close to that in some states.  My belief is hardly "untested."  Obviously, where one does better by choosing #1, one does.  But if you accept that, you agree that we should be couching our campaigns to fit within what the public can accept.  If we agree that that matter, and that it should be an influential (even if not decisive) factor in determining our policies, then we mostly agree -- and should get down to figuring out what the public does believe, rather than just making assertions about it.  Right?

                    I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                    the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                    by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:43:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Rebecca, annrose, Womantrust

                      even where 70% or more of the public opposes your favored position

                      And yet you seem to assert that the public's apathy and ignorance, which accounts for virtually all of that "70% or more" (if that is an accurate and pertinent figure and if such poll results equate to votes, which I don't believe they necessarily do at all) should not be combated by a leadership that educates many of them in forceful and convincing terms, but should be pandered to. At your rate maybe it will be 90% or more this time next year!

                      No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

                      by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:42:59 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Or maybe camels will fly out of our butts! (0+ / 0-)

                        Honestly, I don't know what to do with that sort of nihilism.  Sure, polls mean nothing; it's only coincidence that Republicans have used them to slaughter us!

                        One of the saddest and truest things I heard at YearlyKos is that Republicans use science to campaign and faith to govern amd Democrats use science to govern and faith to campaign.  

                        I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                        the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                        by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:01:06 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Commonality? (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  annrose, julifolo, arlene, Jain

                  Republicans are not expressing commonality.  They are out and out attacking the people who oppose them as baby killers and murderers.  

                  We are the ones who are trying to blur the distinction between our principles.  We are the ones who are giving up our principles to look more like them.  They are standing firm on their principles and refusing to budge.  The "moderates" on the Republican side are bending over backwards to be accepted by their anti-abortion voters.  The moderates on our side are bending over backwards to be accepted by anti-abortion voters.  Pro-choice is acceptable too them as long as it's qualified and modified to tragic and appalling.  

                  No betrayal of conviction.  Just the slow and steady losses as we continue with a losing strategy.  Oh and the fact that our side has a strong, moral and principled stance.  We just have to not advocate for our own principles because there are some people who may choose to not vote for us.  That leaves out the people who could be brought to vote for us because they actually find our principles better than the side that has to lie to make it's argument.

                  ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                  by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:50:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Outdated? Didn't She Use this Phrase in the 90s (0+ / 0-)

                if memory serves.

                Why are people acting as if she said this in a stump speech yesterday?

                •  Because when she, Edwards and Obama (4+ / 0-)

                  auditioned for Jim Wallis, Sen. Clinton resurrected that phrase once more, with feeling.

                  REVEREND JOEL C. HUNTER, NORTHLAND, A CHURCH DISTRIBUTED: Hi, Senator Clinton.

                  Abortion continues to be one of the most hurtful and divisive facts of our nation. I come from the part of the faith community that is very strongly pro-life. I know you're pro-choice, but you have indicated that you would like to reduce the number of abortions.

                  Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero?

                  CLINTON: Yes. Yes.

                  And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And, by rare, I mean rare.

                  The TEA Fund: Practicing random acts of kindness

                  by moiv on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:49:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  She blew that one.... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    annrose, arlene, Jain

                    ... trying too hard to avoid saying the "wrong" thing, she didn't address the real question -- or change the deeply flawed frame that having zero abortions is in fact possible.

                    It is, and will always be, impossible to reduce the need for abortions to zero. Because abortion isn't just about failed contraception, and it's not just about being unable to afford having a first (or second, or third, or fifth, or...) child. It isn't just about not wanting to be pregnant just now. Women have abortions for a whole long list of reasons, often for more than one reason, and sometimes that reason means that there is no safe or humane alternative for her BUT abortion.

                    Abortion rates can be reduced, as some of the situations in which women choose abortion can be prevented or mitigated. But some situations, particularly those that threaten the woman's own health or that involve a fetus that has serious abnormalities, can never be eliminated entirely. Look at the abortion rates in France, in the Netherlands, in Denmark -- where sex education is comprehensive, healthcare is free and the social support net is strong, and both contraception and abortion readily available. That kind of goal is achieveable. Zero abortions are not.

                    And it is far more honest and realistic to say so. To not be afraid to say that abortion is healthcare, and countries where abortion is freely available have the lowest abortion rates in the world. And countries where it is illegal have higher abortion rates, as well as high numbers of women who die or are seriously injured every year because they are that desperate to NOT be pregnant anymore.

                    Not only that, I suspect that the majority of the population could get behind that. Some won't, of course -- that is, until it's their daughter, or sister, or wife, who is in that situation.

                    Senator Clinton does have a strong history of supporting choice and women's health issues. But we need to stop playing defense here, stop apologizing for supporting a necessary part of women's healthcare, and start explaining clearly and accurately just how necessary it is, and how having that option can save women's lives and support their families -- and how making abortion illegal or inaccessible has the opposite result.

        •  For one thing (7+ / 0-)

          the laws against providing abortion in government facilities or with government funding, which affect military women most of all but also affect poor women who use Medicaid or community clinics for their care.

          Also, the unreasonable burdens placed on abortion providers, which prevent general practitioners from prescribing medical abortions and prevent abortions from being performed in ordinary OB wards, hospitals and clinics, forcing poor women and teenage girls to take off work and travel great distances at their own expense if they need an abortion.

          And then there are the laws and policies requiring/permitting identification and/or counseling of the father, parental consent for minors, etc.

          Please see my diary for why I feel that these restrictions are unacceptable.

          During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

          by kyril on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:07:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with you on TRAP (0+ / 0-)

            I think we can make a compelling case against TRAP.  But that is a separate issue from the overall issue regarding abortion -- the simple slogan that people can remember, which is "safe, legal, and rare."  TRAP is simply more complicated to explain.  I'm not arguing that political attention should be that way; it just is.

            I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
            the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

            by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:05:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Safe Legal and Available is easy to remember too (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rebecca, annrose, julifolo, kyril

              --the simple slogan that people can remember, which is "safe, legal, and rare.

              Safe, Legal, and Available... I'd have to say it is also quite snappy.  And certainly, it wouldn't offend or shame any of the 40 million women who have had an abortion in this country like possibly the SL&R slogan could.  It wouldn't serve to deepen the stigmatization of abortion care like SL&R.

              •  Yes, but is not even a slight gesture towards (0+ / 0-)

                compromise with people who disagree with our position.  If you want to avoid compromise, it's a good slogan.  But you don't get the benefits of winning over voters.

                I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:12:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You might be surprised (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  annrose, julifolo, kyril, Readrock

                  that when women who have had abortions aren't marginalized by leaders in this country, (the "rare" statement DOES have that affect on some/many women) they might feel less shame (the "rare" statement DOES have that affect on some/many women) and then be inclined  to keep the right to abortion care available for other women in the future.(i.e. speak out, vote)

                  I am surprised that there is so much opposition to the idea of having abortion care available.

  •  I'm not with you on this. (11+ / 0-)

    I also think sex education should be aimed at unwanted pregnancies being kept to a minimum.

    Road Trips is open.
    This comes with a map of the whole story, for anyone interested

    by rserven on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:44:50 AM PDT

  •  Excellent as always, Beket (14+ / 0-)

    I don’t care how many abortions there are. I just want there to be enough to meet the needs of women and teenage girls not to be forced into carrying unwanted pregnancies to term against their wills and despite possible devastation of their lives, their health, their hopes and dreams, their employment and careers, their families, and their general well-being.

    To hell with pacifying the anti-choice crowd by using the word "rare." Abortion is the right of every woman, and we need leaders who will stand up and defend that right.

    Recommended.....you have a powerful voice.

    •  'rare' is a good word (6+ / 0-)

      but only in the context of education, and i mean proper education and preventive measures like access to condoms and bc pills as well as the plan b pill.  none of this abstinence only bs.

      you know, when i got pregnant with my daughter at 25, i was scared.  and i was an adult.  it was my ignorance which caused it.  while i personally do not believe in abortion for myself, i know that it is not for me to decide for another.  until a child can survive outside the womb i believe that one cannot consider it 'life'.  but i digress.  what i was trying to say is that education is the key to the rare part.  when i had my daughter, i didn't know that i could get pregnant at that time of the month.  i know.  but what i am trying to say is that i would not have taken the chance had i known.  when my husband and i had our second child, it was on purpose.  planned.  anticipated with joy and not fear.  i was 25 with emily, and i could not imagine being 15, in the bible belt...

  •  Beket (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tryptamine, moiv, Beket

    do you have a link to the actual The World Health Organization  report cited in your diary?  

    thank you for your work... i really appreciate it.

    •  No link. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tryptamine, annrose, moiv, sc kitty

      I pulled together those WHO (and other-sourced) stats from various sources some time ago. The estimates were reported as numbers/year. I did the arithmetic to derive the numbers/minute by dividing the annual estimates by 525,600 minutes per year.

      No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

      by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:08:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That's the way it works (11+ / 0-)

    on any issue, not just this one.

    I just do not believe that a politician who would campaign on assertively and loudly telling the truth about abortion rights and abortion care would be taking as big a risk as they all seem to assume

    TGSOBGWB didn't win by hemming and hawing. Thousands upon thousands of people voted for him, not because they agreed with everything he said, but because they identified him as a man of conviction who had the courage to stand up for what he believed.

    On the issue of access to abortion care, it's hard to tell what any of the three leading Dem candidates really believes.

    What have they actually said?

    Edwards and Obama both have made a public commitment to including coverage of abortion care in their health plans -- although there's still a great deal of uncertainty about that issue as well, since health insurance and health care are not the same thing.

    And Hillary is still getting away with dodging the question altogether.

    So yea, Beket. Bring it on.

    The TEA Fund: Practicing random acts of kindness

    by moiv on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:49:50 AM PDT

  •  How I'd define 'rare' in this context: (12+ / 0-)
    1. Young men and women should be educated about contraception.
    1. Contraception should be conveniently distributed.
    1. Sexually active individuals should be conscientious about using birth control.
    1. Should an unintended pregnancy occur, there should be a variety of options made available to the pregnant young lady, including raising the child herself, giving it up for adoption, or terminating the pregnancy.
    1. When the young lady chooses to terminate the pregnancy, the abortion procedure should be legal, safe, and available without undue hardship.

    Notice how, if steps 1 through 4 are followed, abortions would be infrequent ('rare'), and yet I'm not passing judgment against women who choose this option.  Pro-choice politicians sometimes sound like they're triangulating the issue by seeming that they are against this choice but would allow it legally.  The women of America deserve not only better rhetoric but actual better reproductive services.

    "Some men see things as they are and say 'Why?' I dream things that never were and say, 'I need to quit drinking!'" - Greasy Grant

    by Greasy Grant on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:52:05 AM PDT

    •  let's assume perfect knowledge about sex (12+ / 0-)

      and reproduction and a population of 1,000,000 sexually active women on a contraceptive method (still of course used over the strenuous objections of the Roman Catholic Church) that is 99% effective.

      Under these idealistic conditions, you still have a 1% failure rate of that contraceptive - or 10,000 unintended pregnancies per year.

      Is that "rare" enough?

      Just suggesting that "infrequent" and "rare" are roughly synonymous defines neither, but "rare" in that context does evade the issue while carrying the connotation that abortion care is "bad" and should be as nearly wiped out as possible by whatever means necessary.

      No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

      by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:24:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bill Clinton also said "Safe, Legal and Rare" (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alegre, marykk, Mother of Zeus

        and I don't think he tried to get abortion banned by whatever means necessary.  He appointed Ginsberg and Breyer to the SCOTUS.

        During his campaigns, G.W. Bush never talked about the legality of abortion, just giving lip service to the 'culture of life', but once he was in he appointed Roberts and Alito, two solidly anti-Roe judges, to the SCOTUS.

        I'd also like to hear more of a firm committment to abortion availability from our Democratic policiticans, but both parties seem to have settled on a calculated strategy of reciting centrist waffling rhetoric on abortion to avoid firing up the other side's 'base' and turning off those who are ambivalent about the procedure.

        IMHO it would not harm a candidate's chances if he/she talked more about sex ed and contraception leading to fewer unintended pregnancies.  However, if HRC were to make a statement today about how some abortions should be encouraged rather than prevented, you'd see the mother of all political firestorms.

        "Some men see things as they are and say 'Why?' I dream things that never were and say, 'I need to quit drinking!'" - Greasy Grant

        by Greasy Grant on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:04:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Making them accessible or available... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jain, Womantrust

          doesn't encourage them.  It just makes women who need and want them more able to get them.

          HotFlashReport - Opinionated liberal views of the wrongs of the right

          by annrose on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:56:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rebecca, annrose, Jain

          However, if HRC were to make a statement today about how some abortions should be encouraged rather than prevented, you'd see the mother of all political firestorms.

          I'd never suggest that any candidate advocate that, I never do myself, and no one who really understands the tenets of the reproductive freedom movement would advocate that. Suggesting that extreme is a strawman.

          No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

          by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:29:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  excuse me? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rebecca, Beket

          However, if HRC were to make a statement today about how some abortions should be encouraged rather than prevented, you'd see the mother of all political firestorms.

          WTF are you talking about? who here is "encouraging" abortions?

    •  i think it's about control. (10+ / 0-)

      women are the only ones who can bring a life into this world.  men can only impregnate the woman.  now i am not slamming men, however one need only look at the treatment of women worldwide as property to see that there seems to be this idea about women.  were it men who risked pregnancy and unintended children, then i would have to think there would be no discussion.  it would be as prevalent as viagra commercials.  just my opinion.

      •  As Florynce Kennedy once said: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annrose

        If men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.

        No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

        by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:33:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Both Clintons (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rebecca, moiv, Beket

    harp on the "rare" mantra - I've never heard them explain.

  •  Brilliant!! (16+ / 0-)

    There are 40 Million Women and 40 Million Families out there who've had abortions that would like to hear the above from politicians with balls.

    That's over twice as many as the 20 Million reported Evangelicals who control the Repubican Party.

    Come on Democrats.  Don't be afraid of the Abortion word.  In any crowd that you speak to, probably half of the women have had abortions.  Don't speak down to them.  Don't marginalize them.  Tell them they're OK and that you're OK with what they did and that you will work your butts off to keep abortion Safe, Legal, and Available.

    HotFlashReport - Opinionated liberal views of the wrongs of the right

    by annrose on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:53:47 AM PDT

    •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Major Danby

      Legal = available.

      A thought: Why is it a "beer bottle" when it's empty and a "bottle of beer" when it's full?

      by droogie6655321 on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:01:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No it doesn't. (12+ / 0-)

        There are 89% of the counties in the USA that don't have abortion providers.

        There is only one Abortion Clinic in the entire state of Mississippi.

        TRAP laws have instituted waiting periods, etc. that make it impossible for some women to get timely abortions.

        Many women can't afford the fee for an abortion.

        Legal does not mean Available at all.

        HotFlashReport - Opinionated liberal views of the wrongs of the right

        by annrose on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:06:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Doctors able, but what if they're not willing? (0+ / 0-)

          Doctors shouldn't be forced to open abortion clinics anymore than we would force them to be optometrists.

          No matter how right we think we are, there's still a significant percentage of the population who will never agree with it, and there's still a social stigma attached to it.

          •  Do you know of doctors who've been forced to open (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            annrose, Beket

            abortion clinics?  Or forced to be optometrists?  Don't know where this came from but we know women who've been left no alternative (forced) to resort to dangerous illegal or self- induced abortions- some survived, some didn't- or women who had no choice (forced) but to give birth, some of whom survived.
            The social stigma/ shame can be diminished by standing up and speaking out against it.  As the majority of the electorate support access to safe and legal (with no 'rare' attached), abortion care, we know there exists a small percentage that never will agree but they don't represent a 'significant' portion of the population.  We must stand up for those who can't.  How many women must die?

            •  I thought my point was pretty clear. (0+ / 0-)

              I'm trying to be pragmatic about the situation, but you seem to be more interested in ranting and posting the same speech in every reply.

              89% of counties have no abortion care.  The Jackson clinic shows it's possible, even in Mississippi.  The market exists, obviously.  I can only assume, unless evidence is presented to the contrary, that more clinics aren't opened because doctors choose not to.

              How does anyone propose to change this?

              •  Many doctors want to open abortion (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                annrose, Beket

                clinics but state restrictions and the latest SCOTUS ruling (which outlaws physician's right to determine whats best for the patient [women] and can be applied to any abortion make it impossible.  So, its not a matter of choice for many doctors who can superbly provide abortion care- its current state laws and restrictions and this SCOTUS ruling!
                One clinic in MS is not enough- as women in the delta region demonstrate now with their forced childbirths and dangerous criminal or self- induced abortions.  We're thankful for clinics in surrounding states for those women that know about them and can 'get there'.  We're also grateful for people who help fund their travel- saving womens lives.  Just not enough....
                Striving to save womens lives-- call it ranting if you like.
                How many must die?

                •  Upon the recurrent rant by (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  annrose, megaera

                  the distinguished Womantrust of the great state of Alabama I bestow my concurrence.

                  No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

                  by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:42:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Maybe they choose not to (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Beket

                because they fear for their lives, are fire bombed and protested non-stop?  40 years ago many  counties might have been strictly white.  I guess you would argue that blacks simply didnt want to live there.

              •  Jackson helps Jackson... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Beket

                The women up in the  Delta are screwed.

                Go see The Last Abortion Clinib a PBS documentary on the Jackson Clinic.  It'll chill you to the bone.

                HotFlashReport - Opinionated liberal views of the wrongs of the right

                by annrose on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:37:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  If anyone is against abortion... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Beket

            they shouldn't have one.

            Simple.  End of story.

            HotFlashReport - Opinionated liberal views of the wrongs of the right

            by annrose on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:54:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Legal doesn't equal available (9+ / 0-)

        its legal now but not available in 87% of counties in the U. S. thanks to state mandated 'restrictions' - and the latest SCOTUS ruling on abortion, (which could apply to any abortion)outlawing the safest procedure for women in tragic situations.

  •  Not sure what the others mean by "rare", but (12+ / 0-)

    when I use it I mean that society has exhausted every available method of preventing unwanted pregnancies first: an abortion not required because of ignorance of birth control, not required because of the denial of birth control, not required because of religeous injunctions against birth control and not required because of rape.

    As long as we politicize birth control, allow religeous groups to and their male members to treat women and girls as chattel, and condone a culture of violence against women, talking about making them "rare" is just empty rhetoric.

    Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid.
    --Basil King, Canadian novelist, 1859-1928

    by dallasdave on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:58:35 AM PDT

    •  And what would you have the woman do (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annrose, Beket

      if she was pregnant as a result of her ignorance about birth control..and she didn't want to be pregnant.

      Of course we should be giving women and families the information and tools/services to prevent or plan pregnancies.  But when a woman is pregnant and doesn't want to be -- regardless of how she got there --  birth control and contraceptive education will not help her with THIS pregnancy.

  •  Rare = preventing preventable abortions (5+ / 0-)

    There's nothing wrong with preventing abortions that never should have happened if contraceptives were used properly by women and men.

    A thought: Why is it a "beer bottle" when it's empty and a "bottle of beer" when it's full?

    by droogie6655321 on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:59:43 AM PDT

    •  But, but but... (8+ / 0-)

      contraveptives are not 100% accurate, and they have some problems, and they're messy, and they're expensive, and they're hard to get, and some drugstores don't carry them, and my insurance won't pay for them, and I gotta drive across town to get them, and...and...and...

      And...people are not perfect, and they forget, and they avoid, and they lie, and they fudge, and they ...

      HotFlashReport - Opinionated liberal views of the wrongs of the right

      by annrose on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:03:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And even IF contraception were 100% accurate, (12+ / 0-)

        there would still be women who would need abortions for medical and/or economic reasons.

        Class & Labor - Tues. nights, Feminisms Wed. nights

        by tryptamine on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:10:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's where "should" comes in (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cpresley, Mother of Zeus

        Rare means "as rare as possible," just as safe means "as safe as possible."

        I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
        the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

        by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:11:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's what it means to YOU. (11+ / 0-)

          But (and I think this is Beket's point) what it means on the state and federal level is that pro-forced birth people can restrict necessary access under the guise of "making it rare".

          Class & Labor - Tues. nights, Feminisms Wed. nights

          by tryptamine on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:23:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've always thought this line of reasoning... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tryptamine, cpresley, Mother of Zeus

            ...is reinterpreting the words unfairly.  It has no relationship to the history of the phrase.

            Road Trips is open.
            This comes with a map of the whole story, for anyone interested

            by rserven on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:26:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It is a friggin' campaign slogan (5+ / 0-)

            that has served to defuse this issue among potential single-issue anti-abortion voters, not a friggin' contract.  One can support everything you want to do under the rubric of this slogan.  But this wards off losing elections that have led and will lead to the appointment of judges and justices who will gut abortion rights.

            You don't like the public's stance on abortion.  That's fine.  But don't assume that the way to change that stance is to confront them with the hard cases.  Rather, it is to get them used to the idea that we have common purposes and that we can disagree on issues where our positions may not be popular without being political enemies.

            I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
            the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

            by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:39:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So? (6+ / 0-)

              Some campaign slogans work, some don't.  People are explaining how this one is being used to make abortion not rare but inaccessible.  Should we keep on with campaign slogans that hurt us because of some perceived benefit that might not even be there?

              But don't assume that the way to change that stance is to confront them with the hard cases.

              Before Roe v Wade we were winning the political argument with these "hard cases".  It was because women were dying that this argument was changing peoples minds about whether abortion should be legal.  Why should you assume this can't be a winning argument again?  

              ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

              by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:24:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  People are explaining how this slogal (0+ / 0-)

                could be used to have such an effect, but not how it is being used to have such an effect.  The Religious Right says "booga booga" a lot, but that doesn't mean that it has any real effect on voters or policymakers in all cases.

                My judgment about how the public feels about issues such as parental consent/notification is based on reading polls, election results, and other assessment of public opinion.  (Most of the opposition to providing adequate reproductive health services for poor women has more to do with opposition to taxes and not caring much about the poor, by the way.)

                We did not "win the political argument" before Roe with cases involving parental consent and such other issues that don't squarely involve reproductive rights for all women; honestly, you're rewriting history here.  And we did not "win the political argument" at all in places like Mississippi, where the lack of access to abortion is being cited as a deficiency with this slogan.  That was part of why -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg's stance notwithstanding -- Roe was necessary and appropriate: to keep this out of the political arena.

                I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:27:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Umm... (6+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  annrose, moiv, Beket, arlene, Jain, Womantrust

                  People are explaining how this slogal could be used to have such an effect, but not how it is being used to have such an effect.

                  You do realize that Beket is a doctor who has decades of experience in dealing with just such legislation you're calling "booga booga"?  Moiv works in the south for a clinic.  This isn't a perhaps they'll do this.  It's a they are doing this now and have been for quite some time.  

                  Of course we didn't win the political argument.  I didn't say we won the argument.  I said we were winning the argument when we were actively making it.  In order to win an argument you have to advocate for it not shamefully hang your head and explain why even though it's a terrible thing we need to allow it but not often.    

                  ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                  by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:51:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You should have asked me to define booga-booga (0+ / 0-)

                    The GOP appeals to racism and classism and selfishness, which intersect with abortion attitudes.  I wasn't referring to specific legislation.

                    I respect both of them for their work, with which I was not familiar.  But I spend years as a political psychologist studying and teaching about political attitudes, values, and beliefs.  We're not talking about what abortion policy should be here; we're talking about campaigning.  Why exactly does their expertise in that area trump mine?

                    We did win the political argument regarding Roe itself, which is why Republicans have long been afraid of it.  We didn't win arguments about the scope of Roe covering many of these access issues.  Those issues are the subject of the complaint underlying this diary.  And our winning pre-1973 was based on horror stories and images of adult white women bleeding to death on bathroom floors, not so much about 14-year-olds being able to get abortions without permission and people who could not afford abortions getting them provided free of cost.  Those are access issues and were not a decisive part of the pre-/Roe/ discourse.

                    I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                    the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                    by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:57:29 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Authority (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      annrose, Jain

                      We did win the political argument regarding Roe itself, which is why Republicans have long been afraid of it.  We didn't win arguments about the scope of Roe covering many of these access issues.

                      No we haven't won the political argument regarding Roe.  We are in fact close to losing Roe.  If we had won the argument Roe wouldn't be at risk.  The strategy of electing people who are anti-choice but have a D after their name has led to a situation where not only are we losing Roe but also losing on many other issues like the economic ones.  The fact that our country is governed so much further to the right then where the people are shows that we have up till now been losing the political argument.  

                      It's by refusing to accept the old we have to blur the differences between us because they won't accept our political positions that we have moved to the right.  

                      But I spend years as a political psychologist studying and teaching about political attitudes, values, and beliefs.  We're not talking about what abortion policy should be here; we're talking about campaigning.  Why exactly does their expertise in that area trump mine?

                      They are telling you the real world effects of your political slogan.  The fact that the political slogan and the strategy behind it are allowing legislation that defeats the purpose of your strategy should be something you'd want to listen too.  You are telling us what people currently believe.  You aren't telling us how by following the same strategy we can stop the slow destruction of not just Roe but of any reproductive rights.  

                      Show me what gains we have made by following this strategy.  Beket, Moiv, Dr Harrison, Choice joyce and many others come here and regularly diary the dire situation of their work.  How have we benefited by this strategy of keeping our mouths shut about our principles while they promote theirs?  Of keeping our mouths shut about the dangers to women from their legislation (those hard cases) while they make up lies about breast cancer from abortions and how dangerous our clinics are and how women will be traumatized by having an abortion and on and on?  

                      ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                      by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:25:51 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Who's saying to keep your mouths shut? (0+ / 0-)

                        You should absolutely educate and convince the public of the rightness of the broader pro-choice position.  Just don't slam Democratic politicians for presenting a narrower and more popular campaign message rather than a broader and less popular one.

                        We are in danger of losing Roe not because the public rejects it, but because for largely unrelated reasons George W. Bush won the Presidency in 2000 and 2004.  That's it.  If Gore and Kerry had won, there would be no danger.  The public is not exercised about losing Roe and won't be until it happens -- ditto with the flooding of the coastal regions -- but that's not because they don't support it.

                        I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                        the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                        by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:45:21 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So let me see. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          annrose

                          The Republican politicians are virtually all actively advocating anti-choice of varying degrees.  Even Guiliani for pity's sake is talking about how he will put in those infamous strict constructionist judges.  But all of our politicians have to avoid the subject because we need a more popular campaign message.  

                          The Republican politicians have turned more and more anti-abortion since the Roe decision and the hell with their moderate pro-choice voters but were voted for anyways.  But we can't even have some of ours advocating for abortion since that would be too unpopular.  WOW

                          Having our politicians advocate for our positions is how we get win on these issues.  It is their job to support and advocate for legislation that is based in pro-choice principles.  Right now we have to fight against anti-choice legislation we shouldn't have to because our politicians have ceded the argument to the other side and don't want to appear too extreme.

                          We're in danger of losing Roe because our politicians wouldn't use their political powers to contain George Bush's extremism and still won't.  While the R's will use the filibuster with abandon ours fold at the first frown.  It's because they truly think that standing on our principles is a losing position that they continue to give and fold.  

                          ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                          by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:28:37 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  How is "safe, legal and rare" (0+ / 0-)

                            avoiding the subject?  It is engaging the subject.

                            So you would have us campaign on 14-year-olds being able to have abortions without parental consent (or, hey, even judicial bypasses), and on giving free abortions through Medicaid, and all of these other perfectly theoretically defensible but unequivocally unpopular -- go ahead, challenge me on that -- strategies, instead of getting in power and creating a more human system?  By whom do you want to be governed, anyway?  Because it'll be whoever runs against us.

                            Your overall critique of the pusillanimousness of the Democratic party is well-taken.  I've made it myself.  But that doesn't mean that the framing of this debate is bad.  It means we need better Democrats and more fire at their feet to get them to express this winning message.  The world is not as easy as you seem to think, where courage always wins.

                            I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                            the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                            by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:11:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Wrong About Teen Pregnancy (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Beket, julifolo

                      Actually, it was part of the argument.  Pregnant girls typically dropped out of school never to return once they became pregnant and tended to get trapped in poverty as a result.  One of the cornerstones of President Johnson's War on Poverty was to provide access to reproductive services to women of childbearing years.  Civil rights kept this pretty much under the radar, but for many women, it was a godsend.  

            •  I don't think it is a campaign slogan. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tryptamine

              The Clintons tried for years to conceive, and Chelsea was a vacation accident. They would have liked to have had many children, but it didn't happen for them.

              I think they feel visceral pain around this issue. I think they feel the loss of what is lost, and I think rare is a measure of comfort to them.

              Believe it or not, I think this is a very personal issue for them.

        •  Define, meaningfully: (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rebecca, skyesNYC, annrose, moiv, megaera

          [1] rare
          [2] safe
          [3] rare as possible
          [4] safe as possible

          Thank you!  ;-)

          No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

          by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:35:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Go to dictionary.com (0+ / 0-)

            I expect that I'd be satisfied with the standard definitions.

            And thank you!  ;7)

            I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
            the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

            by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:40:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  To the extent that you are serious (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rebecca, annrose

              you just don't get it.

              Thanked you last! ;-)

              No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

              by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:46:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  To the extent that you are pro-choice (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                marykk, godislove, Mother of Zeus

                you appear much more concerned with expressing your support for abortion rights than with securing them.  People in politics know that these actions may sometimes diverge.  I have no desire to be what is sometimes called a "beautiful loser" -- that is, to have been publicly right about this issue if the consequences is that a conservative legislature, executive, and judiciary is elected to stomp on my beliefs about this issue (and countless others.)  I care about achieving the most favorable results, period.

                In other words, I don't think that you "get it."

                And yes, you did thank me last.

                I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:06:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  To advocate or not? (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  annrose, Beket, arlene, Womantrust

                  We need to cover up what our real principles are and not advocate for them because some people won't like them.  Where have I heard that argument before?

                  You're assuming that our principles are losing ones just as the DLC assumes about the whole party.  This is a strong civil rights, human rights argument.  The other side has to lie continually to make their argument and our side is amazingly truthful about our arguments.  Why then are we the losers in this moral argument?  Why do we need to be the ones to give in to the other side so we don't appear too extreme?

                  ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                  by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:28:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yep, you've seen it from the DLC (0+ / 0-)

                    And from FDR and JFK and LBJ and Carter and Clinton and any other successful politician you want to name.

                    I absolutely agree that this stance can be taken too far.  But the existence of that possibility does not mean that it can only be taken too far.

                    I think we have the public behind us when it comes to a national law requiring pharmacists to dispense birth control or make sure someone else will.  I'd campaign on that in most districts.

                    I don't think we have the public behind us when it comes to eliminating parental consent provisions.  This is not because I want it to be so, but because the poll numbers (last I recall) are pretty clear.

                    Would I want to educate and convince the public on parental consent?  Absolutely.  But, if public opinion is 2:1 against us, would I want to campaign on it?  Absolutely not.  "Why do we need to give in" -- or more appropriately, to soft-sell our positions -- in some situations?  Because if we don't, the public will, foreseeably, vote for the other party.  Arguing with that is like arguing against the unfairness of the law of gravity.  Now you can argue that in some cases the facts are wrong, and the public either is or could readily be on our side, and those sorts of arguments are great.  But to assert blithely that "if the public disagrees with us, the problem is the public's" is to embrace beautiful loserdom, and I reject it.  I want to govern justly.  That means first winning elections, which means meeting the public where it is.

                    I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                    the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                    by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:56:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If we were making headway on the issue (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      annrose, Beket, arlene, Jain

                      I might buy your argument.  The problem is that after Roe we stopped working for  it and the other side went full out.  Our side followed your prescription here and we brought in all those iffy Dems like Bob Casey to run for office because they were the only ones who supposedly could win in those districts.  We never tried but just assumed that the abortion argument would lose the election for us so it was made the poor step child in the family.  

                      We now have state legislatures filled with enough of these politicians that are busy working with the Republicans to pass these women are stupid bills and other TRAP legislation to make abortion "rare"  Of course, they don't want it rare but they use that as a reason to work across the aisle to legislate it away.  It's the reason abortion is almost completely inaccessible in this country.  How about birth control?  These politicians are on the forfront passing abstinence only legislation and making sure there are conscience clauses for all those pharmacists and other professionals who want to control their women patients among other legislation that don't make abortion rare but make getting pregnant much more likely.  

                      Your claim that they will vote for the other party is one that's been made again and again.  That's why we have so many of our state legislatures filled with these politicians.  Basically you're saying we can't win with an argument that was winning before Roe. We've seen how well the DLC type blurring has worked.  We're in an awful position.  We're about to lose Roe and the states legislatures have way too many of these politicians that are willing to make it illegal so we could get Democrats elected and you're saying we need to keep going with a losing political strategy. It's about time we started going back to politics that worked for us and not against us.

                      ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                      by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:25:02 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  A majority of the public favors abortion rights (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        marykk

                        with restrictions, and that's the rub.  One needs to look at research on this.

                        We're about to lose Roe, if it happens -- and I see no signs that Kennedy is up for a wholesale gutting of it, but is rather just disgusting by the partial-birth procedure and unfortunately willing to base his jurisprudence on it -- not because of our slogans, but because we've been losing too many elections for people who can appoint and approve judges and justices.

                        We can win on the overall abortion argument.  "Safe, legal, and rare" covers that.  We do not appear to have support on many of the other areas -- parental consent/notification, waiting periods, Medicare coverage, mandatory insurance coverage, etc. -- that create the horror stories you might raise.  Those have never been winning issues for us and pretending otherwise just makes it more likely that Justice Stevens's replacement will gut Roe.

                        I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                        the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                        by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:39:52 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Right now. (5+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          annrose, Beket, arlene, Jain, Womantrust

                          Those have never been winning issues for us and pretending otherwise just makes it more likely that Justice Stevens's replacement will gut Roe

                          So therefore just accept the status quo and don't advocate for our moral principle.  We've been doing this as the court gets more and more right-wing.  We've compromised and accepted Bob Casey type politicians because otherwise we'll  lose Roe.  Bob Casey, of course, said he would vote for Alito.  How many of our politicians stood up against Roberts?  We are losing with this strategy.  By allowing the other side to be the only one making a principled moral argument.  No matter how much they have to lie to make it.  We are letting them be portrayed as the principled and moral side.  Our side is saying yes we agree with you but....

                          Abortion is not a losing argument.  We haven't made that argument in a long time.  It's about time we stood up for our principles and stop ceding the moral argument to them.  You say we can't win.  Well we definitely can't win if we don't even try.  How can we change minds if we refuse to even make the attempt?

                          ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                          by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:01:57 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Supporting Casey over Sandals and Pennachio (0+ / 0-)

                            was a hard call.  People I know and trust in Pennsylvania (where I lived for much of the 90s) said that they did not think that anyone but Casey could beat Santorum, which was of the utmost importance.  Casey put in Reid as Majority Leader, and Reid and the Democratic Committee Chairs can spike offensive abortion laws (including the one that Reid supported, I realize) before they ever come to the floor.  Had we nominated Pennachio based on his abortion stance and lost, I'd be livid.  Wouldn't you?

                            And, again, we do campaign based on abortion rights.  That's what "safe and legal" are about.  That's what support for RU-486 was about.  It's these hybrid issues, where the public sloughs off from the program, that we don't campaign on.

                            I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                            the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                            by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:47:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes that so strong Santorum (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            annrose, Beket, arlene, Jain

                            It's rather like the way Democrats are afraid of Bush.  The further down in the polls he goes the more afraid they seem to get.  

                            If we are to truly be a majority party in this country again we need to stop being afraid of our own platform.  I've watched as year after year we put Republican lite candidates out and lose.  It's only recently that we've started to break away from that.  It wasn't by worrying about modeling ourselves after the Republicans that won us 2006.  I rather think we could have had a solid Dem in Pennsylvania rather than Casey.  Unfortunately, the cautious won out on that argument.  

                            Giving up and refusing to advocate for our party's position is what makes our party look weak and without principle.  It's not an appealing view.  I used to live in Minnesota for years and watched Paul Wellstone.  He showed our party that you don't have to hide your principles and pretend to be something you're not just to win elections.  I just wish our party would pay more attention to his example than to the whisperings of the DLC.  

                            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                            by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:37:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sandals and Pennachio had little chance to win (0+ / 0-)

                            even around the time of the primary, even if one of them had dropped out, and at that point it was not yet clear that 2006 was going to be a banner year for Democrats.  And getting rid of Santorum was the most critical race of all of last year, in my opinion, before that weasel could be on the 2008 ticket and bring his state with him.  So yeah, sorry, even as a Wellstone fan I would have been disinclined to take too many chances when it came to rubbing that human stain out of Congress.

                            I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                            the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                            by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:58:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Most critical... (0+ / 0-)

                            How about Tester and Webb...?

                            HotFlashReport - Opinionated liberal views of the wrongs of the right

                            by annrose on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:38:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As I've said, I'm out of this diary -- (0+ / 0-)

                            see my posts elsewhere, but the issue was not Casey versus Tester and Webb, it was Santorum versus Burns and Allen.  Santorum would be the GOP VP nominee if he remained in office, and I think he may well have carried Pennsylvania and therefore possibly the election.  That's why he was my personal top priority.  We can't lose in 2008.

                            I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
                            the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

                            by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:56:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  Our clinic's intake paperwork (16+ / 0-)

      asks a woman about her reason for seeking an abortion. One day last week, a patient wrote "I had to spend my birth control money on gas to get to work."

      If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a variant of that over the last dozen years, I wouldn't have to go to work tomorrow.

      The TEA Fund: Practicing random acts of kindness

      by moiv on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:13:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wouldn't it be cool... (12+ / 0-)

        ...if our culture could be changed so that she wouldn't have had to make that choice?

        Road Trips is open.
        This comes with a map of the whole story, for anyone interested

        by rserven on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:15:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How would you change (7+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rebecca, tryptamine, annrose, moiv, Beket, kyril, Jain

          it so that would be possible?  And is there something wrong with that choice?  Do we really want to go on having women lose their lives/ health to unsafe but 'available' abortions?  Lets stay focused on the problem of lack of access/ availabilty please.

          •  Socio-economic equality has a lot to do with it. (6+ / 0-)

            Don't you think?

            Empowering young people to make informed choices whould also seem to be a worthy goal.

            How about we try to look beyond the abortion itself?  

            Road Trips is open.
            This comes with a map of the whole story, for anyone interested

            by rserven on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:24:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not really, it cuts across all (7+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rebecca, skyesNYC, annrose, moiv, Beket, godislove, kyril

              socio- economic lines.  BUT, women with resources have always had access to safe care (whether in their own communities or having to travel).  As one with many years experience helping women through this minefield and knowing the real help abortion providers give in terms of sex education and access to reliable birth control, I'm unsure what your question about looking beyond the abortion itself means.  It is true in more progressive and enlightened countries abortion is less needed.  However, as long as the U.S. is schizophrenic about sex- and continues with the regression and ignorance, I don't see this changing, as much as we'd like it too.
              Women with education, money, etc. have abortions as well as poorly educated women living in poverty.  The difference is access to SAFE abortion care.  How many women must die?

              •  ?? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                marykk, Mother of Zeus

                looking beyond the abortion itself

                Is it really that hard to consider what caused the pregnancy?  

                I'm a college professor.  Among other things, I teach critical thinking.  One of the precepts would be to look at the question from multiple perspectives.  That's what I'm hoping people will do.

                I'd like to see these discussions be productive.  I'm not seeing that.

                Road Trips is open.
                This comes with a map of the whole story, for anyone interested

                by rserven on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:51:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Anecdotally, (6+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rebecca, skyesNYC, annrose, moiv, kyril, Womantrust

                  I'd like to see these discussions be productive. I'm not seeing that.

                  I have this silly little game that I started playing with my granddaughter when she was about three. I close my eyes tightly, pretend to be agitated, and yell, "Lily, I can't see! What will I do! Help me!"
                  She looks my way and offers, "Open your eyes, PaPa!"

                  Invariably I find that when I follow her advice I regain my vision.

                  No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

                  by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:04:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thanks Beket for (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Rebecca, annrose, moiv, Beket

                    bringing home that valuable lesson- "there are none so blind as those who will NOT see".
                    I keep asking 'how many women must due' before more people will see and act to save womens lives and health.

                  •  I have this game I play with Life. (0+ / 0-)

                    I take words at face value and assume that people who speak them are using the words that they wish to use.

                    And I try very hard to not behave like an asshole.

                    Road Trips is open.
                    This comes with a map of the whole story, for anyone interested

                    by rserven on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:20:49 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The RadRight is certainly using (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      annrose, Beket

                      the words that they wish to use- and we see the damage done.  The problem for us is the misuse of the word 'rare' to turn the clock back on safe medical care for women as it pertains to abortion, birth control and general health.  So 'rare'(in the context of abortion) has become codespeak for never- and we must face that.
                      We simply feel that reframing the language and debate to clarify what one really means then supporting that candidate is more productive.  And we truly hope Sen. Clinton will clarify and lead us in the direction of protecting and preserving the lives of women who need abortions.

                      •  I wasn't talking about them. (0+ / 0-)

                        I was referring to you guys.

                        But never fear, I'm giving up.  As a teacher I have always resisted that.  But one cannot teach where people refuse to listen.

                        Road Trips is open.
                        This comes with a map of the whole story, for anyone interested

                        by rserven on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:47:23 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, try harder. Don't give up. ;-) (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      annrose

                      I try very hard to not behave like an asshole.

                      I honestly hadn't noticed, but, as they say, there's always room for improvement.

                      No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

                      by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:11:30 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, chronic schizophrenia (5+ / 0-)

                in subacute decompensation for the past 6 1/2 years.

                ;-)

                No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

                by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:54:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I would love to see this happen (7+ / 0-)

              How about we try to look beyond the abortion itself?  

              Any measures that might ameliorate the ever-worsening reality are not promoted as public health initiatives to improve the health and lives of both women and their children, but solely and exclusively as measures to "reduce the number of abortions" -- thereby guaranteeing a Congressional food fight that derails them into the nearest ditch.

              In the meantime, when it comes to maternal and infant morbidity and mortality, our national rankings continue to spiral downwards, and in several parts of the US are already on a par with those of some developing countries.

              The TEA Fund: Practicing random acts of kindness

              by moiv on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:47:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Sure, but (8+ / 0-)

              the question NOW is what we do until "Dr. Look Beyond the Abortion Itself," astride a very slow pony, arrives.

              No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

              by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:50:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Safe and legal are short term goals. (0+ / 0-)

                "Rare" requires a longer view.  Think decades...generations.

                Road Trips is open.
                This comes with a map of the whole story, for anyone interested

                by rserven on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:53:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Think as far out as you like- (6+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rebecca, skyesNYC, annrose, moiv, Beket, kyril

                  act now!  Women are dying.

                  •  Like I said. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Beket, godislove

                    Who are you arguing against?

                    I'm on your side.

                    Road Trips is open.
                    This comes with a map of the whole story, for anyone interested

                    by rserven on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:02:11 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And you're doing what to (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Rebecca, annrose, Beket

                      advance the access and availability to safe abortion care?

                      •  I teach about how we control our own bodies. (5+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        moiv, Beket, marykk, godislove, kyril

                        I teach about the value or who we are.

                        Haven't you read any of my story?

                        What am I asking...probably not.  Most of the people here probably don't get the connection that someone with my background understands.

                        Road Trips is open.
                        This comes with a map of the whole story, for anyone interested

                        by rserven on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:13:47 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  or --> of (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          moiv, kyril

                          "of who we are"

                          Road Trips is open.
                          This comes with a map of the whole story, for anyone interested

                          by rserven on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:14:43 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  I do get the connection, (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Rebecca, annrose, moiv, kyril

                          and I empathize and support you in that. I really do.

                          No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

                          by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:16:46 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Funny- we also teach about (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          annrose, Beket, godislove

                          the value of one's body and life and self- determination.  And we learn daily about women who did the best they could but still need access to safe abortion care- which is so 'rare' now that the great majority of women can't get it and must resort to criminal or self- induced abortions, sometimes they survive, sometimes not.  How many women must die?  

                          •  And nobody here in this diary is opposing... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            moiv, marykk

                            ...safe abortion care.  Not one person.  Neither is Senator Clinton.  Please take your attempt at placing guilt to someone else.

                            I'm worried enough about whether or not my brother is still alive.  And I worry about people who commit suicide because they are told they don't belong in human society.

                            How many GLBT teenagers have to commit suicide before you care about that?

                            Road Trips is open.
                            This comes with a map of the whole story, for anyone interested

                            by rserven on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:46:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nor is anyone alleging that- (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            annrose, Beket

                            our discussion is about the negative effect the use of the word 'rare' has had on access and availabilty to safe abortion care- and there's really no denying that, including Hillary.  No one's attempting to place guilt, just reframe the language and debate to save womens lives.
                            As the only family member a GLBT teen felt he could turn to, I've been there and truly understand your worry and hope your brother comes through this time alive and happy.  We care deeply about anyone who feels they have no other option but to die.  Among the 3 main reasons for teen suicide are sexual identity crisis and pregnancy- so we have more in common than is different.
                            Just like no woman should die from lack of access to safe abortion care- so should no person die because they feel they don't belong in society- so we work for better understanding and laws to protect them and preserve their lives- not allow bad laws and state restrictions to remain that further demean them.  
                            Reframing the language and debate around our issues and concerns helps bring about change for the better.  We can all work together to save lives.

                          •  You are attempting nothing less than to make... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...people feel guilty with your "How many women must die?"

                            My brother is not GLBT.  That's a different concern.  My brother is 50 years old and doesn't think life is worth living.  I've been trying to help him understand that it is not...and I don't need your continual "How many women must die?"  It's outright insensitive.

                            "Reframing the debate" seem to be code words for "Bash Hillary."  If you could do away with the latter, I'd be with you on the former.  

                            But not until then.  I will stand solidly to protect each and every one of our candidates, no matter how well-meaning their attackers are.

                            Road Trips is open.
                            This comes with a map of the whole story, for anyone interested

                            by rserven on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:40:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So sorry you interpret it this way as (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rebecca, annrose, Beket

                            I'm sorry I interpreted what you said about GLBT to mean your brother, who I truly hope finds his path to live.  
                            My question of how many women must die- is not meant to place guilt or be insensitive but is meant to make people aware that women have died and are dying now from lack of access to safe abortion care.  I've been a supporter of Hillary's since Bill campaigned- and I worked for 'them' so regret you interpret reframing language on the abortion issue as 'bash Hillary'.  
                            Since I feel the only hope we have (on any issue) is in a Democrat administration, I'm working hard to advance our party.  And I believe there is more that unites us than divides us- so we can all work together for a better tomorrow.

                          •  Maybe you should open your eyes like PaPa and (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rebecca, annrose

                            see that:

                            [1] This discussion is not about you.
                            [2] This discussion is not about your brother.
                            [3] This discussion is not about Hillary.
                            [4] This discussion contains no "bashing" of Hillary that I've seen.
                            [5] This discussion is about differing beliefs and opinions about the most successful way to frame our political campaign message relating to reproductive freedom.

                            No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

                            by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:29:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Glad you are on our side. (6+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Rebecca, annrose, moiv, bic momma, kyril, Jain

                      I'm not arguing against your being on our side, but (as is evident in my diaries) I am arguing against your thinking that "rare" is a meaningful or winning word to use in defense of abortion rights.

                      No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

                      by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:14:30 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm a mathematician. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        godislove, Greasy Grant

                        Rare means what it means.  Attaching hidden meanings to words is distracting and counter-productive to your issue.

                        Of course, you probably won't listen to me and think you don't need my advice.

                        But I think you are creating enemies out of people who were on your side.

                        Road Trips is open.
                        This comes with a map of the whole story, for anyone interested

                        by rserven on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:19:31 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Distracting perhaps (7+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          annrose, moiv, Beket, arlene, bic momma, Jain, Womantrust

                          but par for the course in politics.  You may want to insist that rare means what it means.  But while you're doing that the distractors and purveyors of mistruths on the other side are busy doing what you're decrying.  

                          We have to live with the real world.  We can't insist that I mean rare this way when in real life it's being used to make horrendous legislation.  They twisted Kerry's honorable service into a fraud.  They twist taxation into theft.  How many other definitions have they taken and twisted out of any recognition?  To deny they are doing this is to allow them to control the debate.

                          ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                          by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:38:03 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Why should people on my side... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...participate in the same rhetoric as the people on the other side?

                            Who gets helped by that?  It certainly does let them control the debate if you participate only on their ground.

                            Road Trips is open.
                            This comes with a map of the whole story, for anyone interested

                            by rserven on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:49:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Excuse me? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            annrose, Beket

                            How did I participate in the same rhetoric as the other side?  I point out what they are doing to the word rare and I'm using their rhetoric?  How am I participating only on their ground?  How is facing what they are doing and pointing out that what we have been doing has been twisted participating on their ground?  

                            Frankly I don't think you're really reading what's being said here.  You're reading what you think we're saying and arguing that.

                            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                            by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:57:40 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The diarist is doing that. (0+ / 0-)

                            I can only read the words which are written here.  I can only discuss based on what they mean to me.

                            How can I do otherwise?

                            Like I said...I'll stop being an ally if I'm not wanted.

                            Bye.

                            Road Trips is open.
                            This comes with a map of the whole story, for anyone interested

                            by rserven on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:00:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So... (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            annrose, Beket, arlene, Jain

                            Explaining how a slogan and a political strategy isn't working and is, in fact, working against what it says it's supposed to do is participating in the rhetoric of the other side?  You should go back and reread the diary it isn't participating in the other sides rhetoric.  It's exposing the other sides rhetoric.  

                            You don't agree with the diarist and don't like that they aren't just accepting your arguments.  If being an ally is so easily discarded then perhaps you need to rethink what you really believe.  I don't stop allying with the Democratic party because some of the people involved don't agree with me.  Being an ally doesn't involve agreeing with all the arguments made.  Being an ally means working toward the same goal.  

                            You don't agree with Beket and the others here that support his argument.  Fine argue your point and we'll see which argument gains supporters and which loses.  It's rather like the impeachment argument.  At first most people didn't agree.  Now most here do.  Does that mean we aren't all still allies in rebuilding the Democratic party or should the people who are losing the impeachment argument stop being our allies because they think we're wrong?  

                            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                            by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:34:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I object to the bashing. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Greasy Grant

                            Anyone who implies that Senator Clinton is against women's control of their own bodies is frankly beyond my comprehension.

                            Can't you work for your issue without candidate bashing?  Is it impossible?

                            If it is impossible, then no, I will not work with you.

                            Road Trips is open.
                            This comes with a map of the whole story, for anyone interested

                            by rserven on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:50:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Is that what they are saying? (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            annrose, Beket, Themistoclea, arlene

                            Or are they saying that her strategy is working against what she's working for?

                            Beket is pointing out how this slogan and strategy is being twisted by the anti-choice side to make abortion not rare but inaccessible.  He is on the front lines as a doctor who does abortions.  He works with the effects of this type of slogan everyday.  Clinton doesn't.  Most of us don't.  Abortion has been so pushed to the limits of our lives that we don't know what is going on unless we make an effort to by reading what people like Beket write.  

                            This isn't about Clinton.  It's about our whole political establishment.  The safe, legal and rare is used by most people who discuss abortion.  Beket is bringing up a point that has been addressed in other diaries on the subject.  That rare doesn't do what it says it does.  Does Clinton know this?  I don't know and I'm not going to speculate.  I will if I must hold my nose and vote for Clinton.  Frankly, she's at the bottom of the list for me.  But this issue isn't why I feel that way.  I'm not really for any candidate.  I have no enthusiasm for any of them.  

                            But some people are very pro and con.  Will those feelings come out in discussions like this?  Sure.  It's part of being on a political blog during the build up to a presidential election.  Get used to it.  It's just part of the background noise to me anymore.  I ignore their attacks on the candidates they aren't supporting and also ignore their love letters about the candidate of their choice.  As I said this is not about one candidate, they all do it.  

                            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                            by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:22:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If her strategy is being twisted... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...it is our job to untwist it, not twist it more.

                            There is a history.  This is far from the first of these diaries and yes, they do attack Senator Clinton.  None of the other candidates are ever even mentioned.

                            Get used to it.

                            I will continue to speak against it.  I can do no other.  Injustice is my foe.

                            Road Trips is open.
                            This comes with a map of the whole story, for anyone interested

                            by rserven on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:33:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, rserven, (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rebecca, annrose

                            what you perceive for your own reasons as injustice is your foe.

                            No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

                            by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:46:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You don't get to define me. (0+ / 0-)

                            Nice try though.

                            Road Trips is open.
                            This comes with a map of the whole story, for anyone interested

                            by rserven on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:34:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There has not been (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rebecca, annrose

                            one instance of "bashing" Hillary that I have seen. Not one. And I have read every comment here. I don't even remember anyone here opposing Hillary even mildly.

                            reserven, this is all in your head, and you are not getting the point.

                            No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

                            by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:43:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Oh, well, THAT clears it up! NOT! ;-) (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          annrose

                          I'm a mathematician. Rare means what it means.

                          No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

                          by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:35:17 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  Define "rare" in this context. nt (3+ / 0-)

                  No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

                  by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:06:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Changing society so that... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    tryptamine, godislove, Greasy Grant

                    ...young people will be less likely to generate an unwanted pregnancy takes time.  Education doesn't happen immediately.

                    Rare means what rare means.  It doesn't mean that we make it illegal and/or unavailable.  Rare means less likely to occur.

                    Shouldn't it be a goal of society to have fewer unwanted pregnancies?  Wouldn't that be to the benefit of young women?  Wouldn't it be better for them to have sufficient control of their own bodies that they didn't have to make the decision about whether or not to have an abortion?

                    If you are claiming that none of this matters, we're done...and you have chased off an ally.

                    Road Trips is open.
                    This comes with a map of the whole story, for anyone interested

                    by rserven on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:11:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Just my perspective on this exchange with Beket (10+ / 0-)

                      It seems to me that the two of you are basically in agreement, but actually talking about two separate issues.

                      No lasting and meaningful change can take place until, as you rightly say, young women gain "sufficient control of their own bodies that they didn't have to make the decision about whether or not to have an abortion." And as you also note, that takes time.

                      But until that happens, it is critical that women retain (and in some parts of the country, regain) the right to safe, legal and available abortion care.

                      It's like arguing the relative merits of a teaching hospital and a MASH unit -- and both are necessary.

                      The TEA Fund: Practicing random acts of kindness

                      by moiv on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:22:57 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Please, rserven! (7+ / 0-)

                      Shouldn't it be a goal of society to have fewer unwanted pregnancies?  Wouldn't that be to the benefit of young women?  Wouldn't it be better for them to have sufficient control of their own bodies that they didn't have to make the decision about whether or not to have an abortion?

                      Of course, of course, of course - how many time must I say it? But we are not discussing the merits of reducing the numbers of unwanted pregnancies. We are discussing the lack of merit in using meaningless weasel-words and otherwise shrinking away from the vigorous defense of abortion rights that is deserved and called for.

                      If you are claiming that none of this matters, we're done...and you have chased off an ally.

                      When did I or any other abortion rights advocate EVER claim that none of this matters???

                      No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

                      by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:24:54 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  They become "weasel words"... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...when you state that they are.  You are participating in a self-fulfilling fantasy.  That it is aimed at only one candidate is not unnoticed.

                        And I'm an undecided voter.  I vote for the "play fair" position.  This diary is not it...no matter how many times you and your friends repeat it.

                        Road Trips is open.
                        This comes with a map of the whole story, for anyone interested

                        by rserven on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:42:03 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  This is not aimed at Hillary... (5+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Beket, Themistoclea, arlene, Jain, Readrock

                          I'm actually leaning toward Hillary and have already sent her money.

                          I saw her at YK and was very impressed.

                          Alot of Dem politicians have adopted this mantra.  It was good for Pres. Clinton in the 90's but has become outdated and marginalized.

                          Safe, Legal and Available...that's the way we should be framing it.

                          And, what Beket is saying is that being unashamedly pro-choice is not a loser in politics.  If Clinton et al think they're going to get any support from the anti-abortion crowd, they're dreaming.  All they will do by blurring their pro-choice stance is to fail to motivate people who wish a politician would take a stand without apology.

                          BTW...there are 40 million women out there who've had legal abortions since 1973 and they sure would like to be supported by a politician.

                          HotFlashReport - Opinionated liberal views of the wrongs of the right

                          by annrose on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:47:22 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

      •  Do you realize how many abortions (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rebecca, annrose, Beket, marykk

        we could prevent with Universal Health Care?

    •  Do you realize what you just said? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rebecca, Readrock

      There's nothing wrong with preventing abortions that never should have happened if contraceptives were used properly....

      You said that there is nothing wrong with preventing a woman's abortion is she improperly used her contraception.  Why would you prevent her abortion?  Why punish her by withholding abortion care if that is what she wants?

      Your definition of rare is an anti-abortion definition.  That is why so many people here are saying "rare" just doesn't work.  Some people believe like you do and believe that "rare" means to make abortion rare/unavailable for some women.

  •  Thanks Beket (9+ / 0-)

    for your powerful writing!  And thanks for loving and respecting women enough to stand up and speak out- the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth! How can any 'leader' deny women safe abortion care?
    Please keep writing, women need you!

  •  Safe, legal and ACCESSIBLE (13+ / 0-)

    Please let's make that the hot new slogan. Because that's what women need. ("Rare" is too ambiguous)

    Lots of people emphasize the need to prevent abortion. Sure. But women will always still get pregnant and need abortions. We can reduce abortions through comprehesive sex education and universal contraception, but abortion will still never be "rare". Maybe if we do a great job with prevention, only 1 in every 5 or 6 women will need an abortion, insted of the current 1 in 3. That's still a lot of women.

    The bottom line: Safe, legal, accessible abortion care is a fundamental human right for women, and we must ensure they have it.

    "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." -MLK

    by choice joyce on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:26:22 PM PDT

  •  Right now.... (14+ / 0-)

    Abortion is:

    Still Safe - It's 8-12 times safer than childbirth, its obvious alternative

    Barely Legal - It's hanging by a 5-4 thread

    and

    Rare to the point that it's unavailable to many women.

    The better meme:

    Safe, Legal and Available

    HotFlashReport - Opinionated liberal views of the wrongs of the right

    by annrose on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:39:45 PM PDT

  •  how about (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tryptamine, marykk, Mother of Zeus

    Safe, legal, accessible and rare?

    ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

    by jennybravo on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:12:20 PM PDT

  •  Sigh... This Isn't Recent & I Can't Think Of (3+ / 0-)

    another politician who's worked harder or longer to help us defend our right to choose.

  •  Abortions should be rare, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alegre, Greasy Grant

    just as they should be readily available for those who need them. But they should remain rare, and should not be used as birth control. No woman should ever be denied a safe abortion for any reason. But abortions should be rare.

    Rare is not a code word for anything other than rare. Both Clintons have used the rare meme for as long as I can remember.

    Rare means using abortion as a last resort.

  •  heart bypass surgery: safe, legal, rare (8+ / 0-)
    That doesn't mean that I think the place to restrict it is in the OR, but instead, I think it's important to help people live healthier lives before they need surgery.

    Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

    by elfling on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:41:57 PM PDT

  •  Thanks again Beket, for a (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annrose, Beket, arlene, Greasy Grant

    well written and thought provoking diary- once again proving the real privilege of being in a country where if you don't agree with the law, you can work to change it.  So we do.
    For anyone who doesn't already know, the Freedom of Choice Act (in congress now) affirms Roe and makes choice the LAW of the land.  It outlaws states making and enforcing laws and restrictions that violate Roe - many of which are being used now; and other provisions.  I encourage all to get a copy of the current text- which includes addressing the most recent SCOTUS ruling- read and understand it.  Then talk with your elected federal officials about their supporting it. And talk with candidates about their support.
    And make it a condition of supporting any candidate or elected official.  This is the best way I know of to reverse the damage done by the 'rare' abusers.  We need to get FOCA passed then signed into law by our next president- whoever that turns out to be.  This is the way to protect and preserve the right to safe, legal and ACCESSIBLE (AVAILABLE) abortion and open the door to regaining some of the providers (access) we've lost.  I look forward to celebrating a win in Nov. '08 but know the road is long and bumpy.  We can all hold together to save women's lives and health and for better tomorrows for us all.
    Come on 1/20/09!!  We need change and we need it now- thank you Beket for all you do.

  •  great job Beket (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rebecca, annrose, Beket, Jain

    I was on a plane or I would joined this party earlier.  Universal abortion care may have a place in America after all...as we all want quality abortion care for our sisters, our daughters, our nieces and our close friends.  And this is what universal abortion care actually means...guaranteeing American women have access to quality abortion care.

  •  Yes, the Catholic Church ia anti-abortion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Beket

    but so are most dominionist sects--and down here int he South, where Catholics aren't all that common, most of the opposition comes from right-wing DOminionist Protestant churches whom incrasingly oppse contraception as well as abortion-- as strongly as the Pope does.

    There are approximately 1,000 denominations  in North America who take a pro-life stand and oppose abortion access. The largest of these are: The Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian group in the world with about one billion members. They teach that abortions are a form of murder, no matter what the situation or conditions leading up to the pregnancy. The only exception is when a medical procedure needed that has the death of the embryo or fetus as an undesired and unintended side effect. Contrary to the historical record, the church also teaches that its current position has remained unchanged from the beginning of Christianity. Details.
    The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S., also opposes elective abortions.  

    Other large pro-life groups opposing elective abortions are:  African Methodist Episcopal Church
    Assemblies of God
    Church of God in Christ
    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons)
    Church of the Nazarene
    Eastern Orthodox churches
    Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod.
    Progressive National Baptist Convention  
    The Salvation Army
    And hundreds of others, including all or essentially all Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, Charismatic and other Evangelical denominations.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/...

    You need to keep your eye on THOSE groups too--because they are Bush's Base  and also among hte recipeints of hsi faith-based funding--and they get LOTS of money to spread the abstinence only, anti-chocie and even anti-family limitation message abroad, in Africa, aprticualrly.  They're gaining ground in priamrily Catholic Latin America, too.

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

    by irishwitch on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 04:28:36 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site