No debate

[angrychair]

I do not want to get into the Sanders/Clinton back and forth because this is not about them specifically and a much more important topic.

It is not about purity tests, it is about what, for me, makes a Democrat a Democrat - not a progressive Democrat or establishment Democrat - just a Democrat, period.

One of these fundamental concepts that makes a Democrat a Democrat is a legislative position to preserve a woman's right to sexual and reproductive healthcare, as well as a hardline legislative position of sexual, racial and economic equality for everyone. These ideals are inherently core concepts to being a Democrat.

We cannot change how a person may feel on a particular issue but what they do legislatively does matter and it should always be in the interests of equality and freedom for everyone.

I do not care how you feel about an issue but when those feelings turn into legislation that disrupts a women's access to reproductive healthcare and competent medical consolation, I do care if you continue to call yourself a "Democrat" because you are not.

Women's rights are human rights!


(For the record I am a middle-aged white male but I am far from affluent )

[ProfessorPlum]

1. you'll find this an interesting article then

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-was-heath-mello-thrown-under-the-bus/

 What’s more interesting is what happened next—and what didn’t. In 2012, Mello voted with Planned Parenthood on two out of three bills tracked by the group—and was excused from voting on the third. After that, Mello, who had become the influential chair of the state legislature’s budget committee, voted with Planned Parenthood 100 percent of the time. By 2015, the group was celebrating a “fourth straight year…without enacting any new abortion restrictions in Nebraska, thanks largely to committed women’s health advocates engaged in the legislative process.”

[angrychair]

2. I did find it interesting

The argument is not lost on me but he still did this:

In 2010, he voted to ban abortions after 20 weeks and to introduce new screening requirements. In 2011, he voted to bar the health exchanges set up under the Affordable Care Act from funding abortions; supported a ban on using telemedicine to perform abortions; and voted to change a parental-notification requirement to one requiring parental consent. All of these bills were opposed by Planned Parenthood—and, given the realities of Nebraska politics, all easily passed.

Did he take any of that back? Can he undo it? The bill he supported may not "force" a doctor to show or "force" a woman to look at it but it is still inserting a legislator into that process, which is unacceptable.

Again, I get the argument, is it better than the alternative? Sure.
Its compromising, which is great, unless you are the one being compromised.
It's no different than saying "sorry women, we are compromising, you will have to eat a little shit on this one and give up some of your freedom as human beings because it's Nebraska"

Why not coordinate and organize and push Nebraska women to change those laws? I know...it's the longer game answer and hard...it's easier to compromise...others.

[ProfessorPlum]

4. Yeeees. And, he's been on the right side of this issue

For the last five years and his local PP trusts him and considers him an ally.

[hamsterjill]

3. Well said!

n/t