The left's disinterest in abortion rights.

[cali]

There are exceptions, but the left, as a whole, is not putting up a cohesive and comprehensive fight against the whittling away of abortion rights.

I don't see it in Congress. I don't see it in Hollywood, which has put out lots of psas on bullying and gun control. On the state level, I've seen it only in NY and Washington state and less than a handful of municipalities. I don't see much of it on the web. I don't see it at DU.

The ACLU and Planned Parenthood are fighting, but without people in power standing up, we're in deep trouble despite those noble efforts.

Isn't this most basic constitutional right as important as marriage equality?

[dembotoz]

1. yep

[LiberalEsto]

2. There's a "left" in Congress?

News to me.

[southernyankeebelle]

3. Me too. I keep telling young women they need to get their butts out in the streets or they are

going to lose even the rights to birth control.

[HappyMe]

12. I agree.

The young women need to get out there are start actively doing something about this.

Dems also need to try harder to get out the vote.

[southernyankeebelle]

13. I keep telling young women that they are going to work on getting the birth control pill outlawed if

you don't fight to keep it they will win.

[HappyMe]

14. I don't understand the apathy.

I'm not saying all the young women are apathetic, it just seems like there are a bunch that figure it's all good. And that it's going to stay all good. FFS, my husband's daughter and a bunch of her friends don't even vote!

When I was in high school my dad would drive me to Daley Plaza (in Chicago) or where ever the protest was. Sometimes he would stay there with me if the crowd was huge, to make sure that I was okay. ERA, abortion, birth control, environment.....I was there.

[southernyankeebelle]

15. You know in general what is wrong with the generations behind us. There was lots wrong

with our 60s generation but we stood up for what was right. Wait because these kids aren't seeing what is being taken away from them. They seem satisfied with their pickup trucks and moon pies.

[Nye Bevan]

4. Roe v Wade is the law of the land and is not going away any time soon.

When a state like North Dakota passes a ridiculously restrictive abortion law, the law will be overturned very quickly by the courts. And obviously the legislators passing such laws are well aware of this, and are only doing this to generate headlines.

[CTyankee]

5. No, I really think they are looking for a test case to reverse Roe and that's why we are

seeing the kitchen sink being thrown at abortion rights by state legislatures. They obviously think they have a shot in the present SCOTUS.

[cali]

8. That's almost inconsequential.

(well, not really) but the reality is that with the onerous legislation that hasn't been challenged in so many states, or has been challenged and we've lost, abortion rights don't exist in any practical way for women without financial resources in approx 15 states. And in more, they're really limited.

[CTyankee]

10. Not sure about that. If it were inconsequential, why would they keep doing it this way?

I think they also want to tie up the limited resources of the pro-choice groups and destroy them that way. Then, who will defend Roe at the SCOTUS?

[cali]

16. I can answer that: Just listened to a fascinating "On Point"

As Emily Bazelon (legal expert, senior editor at Slate) explained, these laws are about politics. Both Bazelon and a Constitutional lawyer from the UND stated that almost certainly NONE of these "heartbeat" laws or laws prohibiting abortion at 2 weeks and under will make it to the SCOTUS. Furthermore, both said that as in past similar cases, the States will have to pay legal fees to the challenging attorneys. And one good thing is there is no lack of resources for a challenging entity at the SCOTUS.

[CTyankee]

18. So is it just that they want to poke a finger in the eye of Roe?

What is it getting them?

[cali]

20. No. In states like ND, it's a popular position. there's actually competition

as to who can be most anti-choice. It helps set one up for statewide office. It brings in $$$.

[CTyankee]

39. Ahh, good for fundraising! So even if the state has to spend lots $$$ in passing a law

that is fatally flawed and will end up having no effect since it will be shot down in a federal court, it has the desired effect of enhancing the careers of the politicians who wrote it.

The taxpayers of ND ought to be outraged that they are being gouged for this purpose. What a travesty!

[bettyellen]

46. I tired to explain that to an otherwise liberal friend who is anti choice that they were just

manipulating her by pretending to go after ROWE. They cannot afford to loose all those voters. They need the boogeyman to fight.

But Cali is right, too many states have limited to no services available. I support planned parenthood in those states, and am grateful not to live in one.

[winterpark]

6. Maybe we might have counted on Sandra Day O'Connor for the vote for women to be able

to decide what to do with her body, but with the right wing majority on the bench right now, I believe that if an antichoice suit gets to them, they will overturn Roe. Then every state with a right wing majority and gov will view that as a free for all to assault and remove every woman's rights

[cali]

7. You don't seem to be well informed at all.

It's hardly just ND and many of the restrictions passed over the past few years are in effect in state after state. Many of those restrictions make operating a clinic that performs either surgical abortions or abortions via RU487 virtually impossible. Laws such as requiring docs to have admitting privileges are onerous in many places (if you don't know why, do a search). Laws that require clinics, even those doing non-surgical abortions, to follow the same physical plant guidelines as hospitals, make it stratospherically expensive. Long waiting periods, ultrasound requirements- the list goes on and on. It's not the headline grabbing laws that have so restricted abortion in this country that we now have a two tiered system, it's the ones that haven't been challenged or have been challenged and the challenge has failed.

Look, I've posted dozens and dozens of threads about this with dozens of links. Just do a search. The evidence is conclusive.

There is no disputing what I've posted. NONE.

http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/abortion.php

[Arcanetrance]

9. That's because the left is terrible about truly getting out to vote and supporting candidates

The one thing we see on the right is their supporters get out to vote for every damn thing imaginable. That's why they control a lot of local and state governments. Meanwhile as I've seen right here on this board we haven't even hit the 2014 midterms and there's already infighting about who we should stand behind for the 2016 presidential race.

[MotherPetrie]

11. IMO women's reproductive rights are every bit as important as marriage equality

If not more so.

[redqueen]

17. People don't seem to realize that without access, Roe v. Wade is pointless.

Another issue is it keeps getting watered down. It's a topic many pols seem to be afraid to take a bold position on.

We have so many qualifiers placed on us. People will stand for women's rights to control their reproductive systems, but only with dozens of restrictions. It's sick, and it's been getting steadily worse over the years.

We need more women putting access to services front and center. Insisting on abortion on demand. Insisting there be no interference from anyone.

[cali]

21. Absolutely! I'm finding it so frustrating that even here at DU

many, many people don't grasp that and they don't understand how the right to choose has been drastically whittled down.

And it's not just women we need to stand up.

[redqueen]

24. Yes, you're right, we need more than just women.

My expectations have been drastically lowered as a result of seeing so much equivocation on this issue.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

26. The only thing that we should insist on (re: Abortion)

is that it is done safely by trained medical professionals. Other than that, insisting that abortion should only be allowed for certain reasons turns it into a subjective case-by-case debate where everybody involved is going to have a drastically different opinion about what is an "appropriate" reason for getting one and, frankly, it shouldn't be up to anybody IMHO but a woman, her doctor, and maybe her spouse (if applicable). Nobody else should be making those kind of decisions for women IMHO.

[JustAnotherGen]

28. +1

requeen hits it out of the ballpark once again. Sadly though . . . that this is the truth.

[closeupready]

19. Like guns, people who claim to want 'discussion' want anything but discussion.

So that's why you don't see much talk of it here, probably - or at least, you see one side only.

The same principle probably applies in society generally.

[cali]

22. I don't believe that there are two sides to it, anymore than there are two sides

to discrimination against LGBT folks. What do you think there is to discuss?

[closeupready]

29. If there aren't two sides, then why are you complaining?

You get one side here and from the left, and then you start a thread complaining about only getting one side.

[cali]

32. It's called advocacy. Simple, really. I am standing up for a woman's

constitutional right and urging others to do so as well.

[YoungDemCA]

23. I think a lot of people see it as a "trivial" issue...

There's a class divide too. The restrictions on abortion harm and will harm poorer women the most. Who in power cares about poor people in general, let alone poor women?

Additionally, our society is still far from getting over the puritanical stigma that shames women for having sex (whether it's consensual or not doesn't seem to matter to some people...)

So I just think a lot of people don't think it affects them. Which is sad, on a number of levels.

[The Straight Story]

25. I think it could revolve around the idea we don't care as much about your body, your choice anymore

Because that idea does not mix with the ability to control other people we want to control.

I have preached it high and low here that we need to keep strong to that ideal across the board.

And time and time again get told I am a libertarian over it.

Now that the erosion is slipping into the abortion laws of states, and gaining speed, people suddenly are wondering why there isn't larger and more vocal opposition from elected folks on the left - probably because they have made laws that took away the choice of others and are given payback to those on the right who went along with them.

If folks think 'oh, well, just ole TSS being all bitter' yeah, I am. Because folks refused to keep up the fight across the board after we got the right to make our own damned choices, men and women as well. Roe v Wade wasn't a victory for just women, it was for all people who wanted the government to stay out of our damned personal choices.

And we turned our back on that when it came to all other issues.

So it is no shock that people don't believe in choice like that any longer, we bulldozed that principle and told people who stood up for it to get a life and quit whining.

But I will keep voting for dems, emailing, calling, etc to support a woman's right to choose (which is under attack here in Ohio as well) because when we limit the rights of some we limit them for all.

[Starry Messenger]

27. After the big fights here over the Stupak amendment in ACA I was stunned to see the lack of support

by many for access for women in health care. It seems to be something some feel is expendable or an afterthought we can get around to sometime, maybe.

[redqueen]

31. Yep. Should be an eye opener. nt

[nessa]

30. I think those fighting for marriage equality would love to be in the position of those fighting for

abortion rights. There is ruling that establishes the right and it's been there for 40 years. There is no established right for marriage equality to protect. Marriage equality has a longer road and needs more attention.

[cali]

34. You couldn't be more wrong. Alas, like so many others here you have no knowledge or

understanding of how access no longer exists for many women in this country. It makes me ill that people here are so uniformed on this.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

33. why is everything a comparison to gay marriage these days?

isn't YZY as important as gay marriage seems to be the lefts big new thing.

did i miss a memo in which we had won the equal marriage battle?

you want people to support your cause (whatever your cause maybe), is there no way else to do it without belittling someone else's cause?

[cali]

35. I haven't noticed that everything is a comparison to gay marriage.

but to the extent that some civil rights are compared to it; it's because we're making such great progress on one front while losing so much ground on another. And this isn't just MY cause. If you are a liberal, it damn well better be YOUR cause too.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. i am not saying abortion isn't my cause but i would not belittle someone else's battle for mine

we can't generally be equally invested in all liberal causes. some i know are important but i personally dont have time to advocate for it. i just elect people i believe will vote similarly to me.

And yes, in the last few weeks, gay marriage is becoming the default comparison and people seem to forget that there are only 10 states that gays can get married in.

i have nothing against advocating for abortion, in fact i encourage people to, i just dont encourage peopel to belittle other people's civil rights while championing their own.

[cali]

37. I did no such thing. And you know it. I've stood up for marriage equality as strongly as

anyone here.

I think it's disgusting, dishonest and utterly reprehensible to make false accusations.

[closeupready]

40. Sigh. Hon, see my post #19.

And then like me, acknowledge your inferiority to everyone else here shouting, and leave the thread.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. the thing is i care about abortion, i just find threads like this to be alarmingly alienating

[closeupready]

43. Agree with your every word.

Threadstarter has a history of this kind of thing.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. 1.2 Million of us marched in DC in April of 2004. The largest assembly on the mall, ever.

Don't tell me there's not broad interest in protecting reproductive choice- there is. Most Americans are pro-choice.

We have a POTUS who isn't likely to stick another anti-choice asshat on the Supreme Court any time soon, so the immediate energy isn't there. But the support is.

[BrotherIvan]

41. That's why the Rs always seem to win

They never give up, even when something is decided, even when something is wildly unpopular, then keep fighting. They have instituted a long game unlike any I have ever seen: think-tanks and foundations, infiltrating the Democratic party, taking out the liberal voting blocs by destroying unions, demonizing liberal issues, and on and on. They have figured out a way to eat around the edges of abortion rights in a way that one could call genius if it weren't so downright evil.

And the more we say, RvW won't be overturned anytime soon and feel safe in that illusion, the sooner they will shut down every single point of access and have created a cage of restrictions around it as to make it virtually non-existent. It's scary as hell.

[dsc]

44. the problem is abortion is a specific time and place right

If you live in a place where abortion is legal and not about to be outlawed then your right to abortion is secure. Most people who both are passionate about abortion being legal and need abortion to be legal likely don't live in places like MS and ND. Even if they are from places like that, they don't face any likelihood that they will be stuck there and not able to get an abortion. In the case of marriage equality, it is a different story. If abortion is legal in NY but hard to get in PA, then you cross the border, get the abortion, and go home. You don't magically get pregnant again when you cross the border. In the case of marriage equality, the opposite is true. You have to live, remain in, and die in, a state where it is legal to get the benefit. And even then, you only get the state benefit. When you cross that border, you do magically become unmarried again. It is why the left really hasn't rallied for ENDA laws as much as marriage, since for ENDA you only have to be employed in the state where ENDA is on the books. You don't lose ENDA protections when you visit your parents but you do become unmarried again when you do. Even the left can be selfish.

[REP]

45. They're not DISinterested; they're UNinterested

Disinterested means a neutral party with no stake in the outcome; uninterested means they don't care about the outcome. Guess which ones fits.

[LittleBlue]

47. What are we supposed to do?

The anti-abortion crowd is winning victories in states that are mostly overwhelmingly Republican. We're outnumbered.

As long as those voters want restricted abortion, they'll get it. I live in Washington state where those of us on the western progressive side of the state outnumber the eastern conservative side by a large margin, so we get our way. NY is the same way. If we don't have the numbers, there isn't much we can do except fight through the courts.