Democrats For Life of America on Planned Parenthood and the "video evidence".

[Solly Mack]

Last edited Wed Aug 2, 2017, 03:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Should Planned Parenthood Be Defunded? From the group Democrats For Life of America.

“Planned Parenthood has duped the American public into believing it provides comprehensive healthcare for women,” said Day. “Once people know the truth, that Planned Parenthood will continue to harvest body parts from aborted babies and taxpayer dollars will continue to subsidize the nations largest abortion business, support declines.”

Democrats For Life of America Q&A about Planned Parenthood

In July 2015, the Center for Medical Progress released the first of a series of
undercover videos about Planned Parenthood’s practices. The videos, featuring
multiple interviews with various Planned Parenthood staff and Stem Express (the
buyer of human body parts), reveal a number of disturbing conversations.

The videos further question Planned Parenthood’s practices and whether they illegally sells the body parts of aborted fetuses for profit and alter the surgical abortion procedure to preserve intact parts.

Since CMP released its videos, many people have called – for one or all of the reasons cited above – for the elimination of federal funds to Planned Parenthood.

About Democrats For Life of America

For so long, many pro-life Democrats have focused on the way we have been mistreated and marginalized. No more. We need a positive vision of the future if we are going to change the trajectory of American politics.

If we can build our grassroots effort, we will be a more effective voice in changing our party ...

What We Do

We mobilize Democrats at local, state, and national levels to:

...achieve pro-life legislation with the help of national and state pro-life Democrats

Democrats For Life of America advocates and supports programs and policies that respect and promote life from conception to natural death. This includes, but is not limited to, opposition to abortion...

Kristen Day Executive Director of Democrats for Life of America - a political advocacy nonprofit organization that seeks to elect pro-life Democrats and to promote the pro-life position within the Democratic Party says...

"I disagreed with the Democratic position on abortion, but I also made a vow to change it "

"I was called into this fight and I will not stop until the sanctity of all human life is protected by the Democratic Party platform"

"many U.S. parents, in fact, adopt from other countries because we don’t have many babies available in our nation. Yet we still allow people to terminate the human life in their wombs." (How magnanimous of Day to allow me the right to my own body)

"Democrats will have a hard time winning the Catholic vote unless they moderate their position on the abortion." (Yes, Day is Catholic and she wants the rest us to adhere to her religious teachings)

"The Democrats should be talking less about a fabricated “war on women” and instead focusing on policies" (Got that? There is no war on women. It's a made-up construct with no real basis in anything happening to women. It was fabricated - a fabrication - a lie.)

PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS ASK PARTY CHAIR FOR INCLUSION

Now about that video "evidence" being touted as "proof" by the group Democrats For Life of America

Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video


Several Republican presidential candidates have claimed that Planned Parenthood is “profiting” from abortions. But the full, unedited video they cite as evidence shows a Planned Parenthood executive repeatedly saying its clinics want to cover their costs, not make money, when donating fetal tissue from abortions for scientific research.

Four experts in the field of human tissue procurement told us the price range discussed in the video — $30 to $100 per patient — represents a reasonable fee. “There’s no way there’s a profit at that price,” said Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository.”

Republicans made their claims following the release of a secretly recorded video showing Deborah Nucatola, the senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood, discussing the procurement of fetal tissues when conducting abortions. The edited video, released July 14 by an anti-abortion group called the Center for Medical Progress, leaves the impression that Nucatola is talking about Planned Parenthood affiliates making money from fetal tissue. But the edited video ignores other things Nucatola said that contradict that idea.

**** Meaning: Democrats For Life of America promote an intentionally edited video meant to disparage Planned Parenthood as a promotional tool to further their attack on reproductive freedom. The exact same edited video republicans used as "proof" against Planned Parenthood to further their own attacks on reproductive freedom.

That's not an attack on the group. That's simply the facts as stated by the group itself. Read the site. They use the exact same edited video as "pro-life" right-wingers and call it "evidence".

Conservative media figures and their right-wing political allies thought that this was the year they could finally achieve their decades-long goal of destroying Planned Parenthood's reputation and ability to provide health care to millions of Americans.

Since July, the previously-unknown anti-choice group Center for Medical Progress has released a series of dishonestly edited videos that falsely accuse Planned Parenthood of illegally selling "baby parts." Long-standing opponents of the organization's mission used those deceptive videos to generate congressional hearings, state and federal investigations, and endless media chatter smearing the group over its alleged "illegal" activity and qualifications for federal funding.

Worse, amid this toxic media environment for Planned Parenthood, threats and violence against reproductive health providers spiked -- culminating in the deadly November shooting attack on a Colorado Planned Parenthood by a man who called himself a "warrior for the babies" trying to ensure that there were "no more baby parts."

CMP bills itself as a non-profit "group of citizen journalists." But behind these supposed "citizen journalists" are a variety of disreputable anti-choice actors. CMP founder David Daleiden has a long history with discredited conservative groups, including anti-choice group Live Action, where Daleiden worked as the director of research. Fittingly, Live Action has also deceptively edited undercover footage of reproductive health care clinics in an attempt to smear Planned Parenthood.

As the face of CMP, Daleiden has made numerous media appearances in which he baselessly accused Planned Parenthood of "harvesting and selling aborted baby parts" and committing an illegal abortion procedure of "partial-birth abortion." The accusations are inflammatory and false, but have been repeated by various right-wing media figures. In the creation of CMP and its strategy, Daleiden took advice from the perpetrators of an earlier campaign against Planned Parenthood carried out by an older anti-choice group called "Life Dynamics," which in the late 1990s also made wild allegations of illegal profiteering on fetal tissue in order to whip up anti-choice media coverage. These claims of illegal activity collapsed under closer scrutiny.

Troy Newman, a CMP board member and adviser to Daleiden, is an established figure in the extremist wing of the anti-choice movement. Newman has infamously argued that the killer of an abortion doctor should have been allowed to argue that the murder was a "justifiable defensive action," and is the president of Operation Rescue - a group that consulted on CMP's videos and has a violent background of its own. The group's senior policy adviser, for example, was sentenced in 1988 for conspiring to bomb a San Diego abortion clinic, and was in communication with the murderer of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, helping the murderer track Tiller's court dates.

**** The man who murdered Dr. George Tiller was in communication with Operation Rescue - Cheryl Sullenger - Troy Newman is the president of Operation Rescue AND also sits on the board of Center for Medical Progress - the anti-choice group that released the illegally obtained and heavily edited video "evidence" against Planned Parenthood. The exact same video that Democrats for Life of America also called proof and evidence.****

California prosecutors filed 15 felony charges against two anti-abortion activists who recorded undercover videos targeting Planned Parenthood.

David Robert Daleiden (Daleiden is a project lead for the Center for Medical Progress) and Sandra Susan Merritt invaded the privacy of medical providers by filming undercover videos of themselves trying to buy fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement.

The pair used false identities and created a fictitious bioresearch company to secretly record conversations with women's health care providers, according to Becerra.

The videos were edited and in some cases contained footage that was not of aborted fetuses. In one, Daleiden used footage of a still-born child he found online with a narration about a Planned Parenthood abortion of a fetus the same age.

I am not attacking Kristen Day (not that she is an elected Democrat) - I am merely exposing her and her goals. Of which she freely admits to.

I know this is a lot to read - but it is important.

Thank you if you got this far.


Edit to add: Day did NOT vote for Clinton because Clinton said she supports a woman's right to choose. Day wrote in John Bel Edwards name instead.

"she wrote in Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards on the ballot in 2016 because Edwards opposes abortion.

“John Bel Edwards is my hero in the Democratic Party,” Day said. “He signed Medicaid expansion and supports life in all forms.”

[Crunchy Frog]

1. I don't want these people in our party.

If a Democrat doesn't like abortion, they should be promoting increased access to sex education and effective birth control, as well as a much stronger social safety net. Not trying to force some women into being incubators so that other people don't have to adopt from overseas.

These people are NOT Democrats in any meaningful sense of the word.

[Solly Mack]

2. To be fair, they do want better and stronger safety nets BUT they believe that will end abortion

and it won't.

Women with money and excellent health care still have abortions because they want one.

Education and opportunity can help reduce unwanted pregnancies - as well as access to birth control - but it doesn't eliminate abortion.

Women have abortions for all kinds of reasons and neither she nor anyone else has the right to tell them no.

Ban abortions, regardless of how desirable your other goals are, and we end up with back alley abortions and women dying.

[Crunchy Frog]

4. Nothing will eliminate abortions. Even with the most draconian laws, they still occur.

My only point was that reducing the numbers of unwanted pregnancies is the only realistic and non-authoritarian (Democratic) approach to reducing (not eliminating) the number of abortions.

I know that if I had an unplanned pregnancy, I'd be less likely to abort if I knew that me and the baby wouldn't end up on the street with no food or health care. Can't speak for anybody else on that.

In any event, forced birth should never be an acceptable position within our party.

[Solly Mack]

6. I agree. Nothing will eliminate abortion.

[hamsterjill]

53. If a Democrat doesn't like abortion, they need to be a Republican.

Democratic values are based on individual freedom. What consenting adults do in the bedroom is no one else's business. The results of what consenting adults do in the bedroom are no one else's business either unless those results affect others.

An STD outbreak might create a situation where a party has an obligation to notify another party. A pregnancy does not as it is not contagious.

There shouldn't BE any discussion on abortion because (i) the law was decided in 1973; and (ii) it is no one's business.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. "Democratic values are based on individual freedom."

EXACTLY.

[Ninsianna]

3. Thank you for taking the time to put this together.

If you're anti-choice, you do not represent Democratic values. Period.

[Solly Mack]

5. The group does have some desirable goals that would help reduce the number of abortions

but their ultimate goal is to ban abortion - which isn't realistic at all. The group also supports all those red-state restrictions that make it harder for women to have a choice.

Women need safe legal abortions because while the number can be reduced through education, jobs, birth control, and opportunity - women who want an abortion will find a way - even if it kills them. And we can't go back to coat hangers and knitting needles.

She talks of making it rare but then talks of opposing it completely and supporting legislation that continually restricts access - that's not making it rare - that's the road to banning abortion and making it harder for women.

She has some pie-in-the-sky notion that if only women had everything else going for them, they'd never have an abortion. That's simply not true.

I don't agree with her primary goal at all.

I do have some common ground in regards to education and opportunity, but it's unrealistic to think banning abortion will stop abortion.

It will only kill woman.

[beam me up scottie]

7. Thank you Solly, you don't post ops often but when you do...POW!

This so frustrating, one step forward and two back.

How long have we been discussing this? We watch our rights get chipped away bit by bit and when we express our outrage we get shushed. I remember being told that our rights were safe and we didn't need to worry because Roe would never be overturned. And look at us now. The plan wasn't to overturn Roe, it was to attack rights at the state level. And they're succeeding. We knew. We tried to sound the warning. And we were shushed.

I was reminded of an old thread today, remember this?:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10027393553

For people who don't want to go back to the pre-hack site here's the relevant part of the op:

Recently, the Daily Kos published an article titled I Am Pro-Choice, Not Pro-Abortion. “Has anyone ever truly been pro-abortion?” one commenter asked.

Uh. Yes. Me. That would be me.

I am pro-abortion like I’m pro-knee-replacement and pro-chemotherapy and pro-cataract surgery. As the last protection against ill-conceived childbearing when all else fails, abortion is part of a set of tools that help women and men to form the families of their choosing. I believe that abortion care is a positive social good. I suspect that a lot of other people secretly believe the same thing. And I think it’s time we said so.

As an aside, I’m also pro-choice. Choice is about who gets to make the decision. The question of whether and when we bring a new life into the world is, to my mind, one of the most important decisions a person can make. It is too big a decision for us to make for each other, and especially for perfect strangers.

But independent of who owns the decision, I’m pro on the procedure, and I’ve decided that it’s time, for once and for all, to count it out on my 10 fingers.

1. I’m pro-abortion because being able to delay and limit childbearing is fundamental to female empowerment and equality. A woman who lacks the means to manage her fertility lacks the means to manage her life. Any plans, dreams, aspirations, responsibilities or commitments–no matter how important–have a great big contingency clause built: “until or unless I get pregnant, in which case all bets are off.”

...

2. I’m pro-abortion because well-timed pregnancies give children a healthier start in life. We now have ample evidence that babies do best when women are able to space their pregnancies and get both pre-natal and pre-conception care. The specific nutrients we ingest in the weeks before we get pregnant can have a lifelong effect on the wellbeing of our offspring. Rapid repeat pregnancies increase the risk of low birthweight babies and other complications. Wanted babies are more likely to get their toes kissed, to be welcomed into families that are financially and emotionally ready to receive them, to get preventive medical care during childhood and the kinds of loving engagement that helps young brains to develop.


http://www.salon.com/2015/04/24/i_am_pro_abortion_not_just_pro_choice_10_reasons_why_we_must_support_the_procedure_and_the_choice/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[Solly Mack]

8. Thanks, Bmus.

I can remember when some folks said abortion should be left up to the states, period.

How's that working out?

Yes, we warned them.

Leaving civil/human rights up to certain states is nothing more than allowing the prejudices and bias of the people in those states to strip people of their rights.

Look how they have chipped away at abortion.


Day claims people are being forced to vote other than their conscience if the Democratic platform is pro-choice. Forgetting that what their religion tells them has jack-shit to do with secular law. She claims she has been marginalized by the party while advocating the marginalization of women. Not all women who get pregnant want to give birth or raise a child. Day supports birth control but doesn't seem to know birth control can fail. But that's OK, because we should empower that woman to have that baby anyway - so other people can adopt it. Because why? (Fuck if I know) Why should a woman be forced to carry a fetus to term and give birth when she doesn't want to? Because Americans are adopting from foreign countries? But only if we can "empower" women to give birth and then put the child up for adoption inside the country then what? I don't know. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

She claims abortion needs to be rare - rare defined as supporting onerous restrictions on women since she supports state-level restrictions on abortion. And not just state level either.

Those restrictions serve no other purpose than to make it harder for women to exercise their options.

She thinks if a woman has everything she needs that she will automatically want to give birth. Completely overlooking the undeniable fact that not all women want to have babies. I guess those women should either not have sex or should feel "empowered" to do it anyway and give the child up for adoption.

No one is telling her she can't be a "pro-life" Democrat. I'm not, anyway. But I am saying she doesn't get to tell other women what's best for them. Nor does she have the right or obligation to force women to do her will by legislating against a woman's right to choose.

She doesn't have to like abortion but if her nose is going to be in my womb, her tongue better be rocking the little man in the boat. Otherwise, she needs to step off.

[beam me up scottie]

9. I hate the shaming involved in saying abortion should be rare.

Abortion shouldn't be rare, it should happen as often as necessary. It should be covered by insurance and the procedure should be done in doctor's offices, clinics and hospitals. We are not livestock, the product of our wombs is not a commodity. I don't care what her reasoning is, forcing women to give birth so that someone else can adopt the child is slavery.

I agree with you, she gets to call herself pro-life but she doesn't get to shame us for not being like her and she definitely doesn't get to restrict our rights. The tent us big but it's not that big.

[Solly Mack]

11. I agree. Legal and safe does it.

I know. When I first read her comment about foreign adoptions, I thought "Yeah, let's all be incubators".

She doesn't mention all the kids in foster care that need adopting.

[hamsterjill]

63. I hate the shaming as well.

When these "pro-lifers" say abortion is murder, what they are really saying is that women who have abortions are murderers.

Of course, if you confront them with that argument, they will almost always back down and blame the medical provider doing the abortion because, after all, the poor little helpless female is too distraught to know what's good for her. That's why THEY have to protect her.

Drives me nuts.

[beam me up scottie]

64. Agreed. Maybe it's time to repost a rant.

Last edited Fri Aug 4, 2017, 02:53 PM - Edit history (1)

But as long as you asked, I think pro-life men who shame women by defining abortion as the "taking of another life" (murder) are self-righteous, judgmental, fundamentalist asses.

I also think pro-life men who opine at length about how they are "personally opposed" to abortion and expect us to be grateful because they say they'll 'allow' us to make our own decisions are condescending blowhards. They believe they're entitled to judge us even though they've never known what it's like to worry that a pregnancy might ruin their health or kill them. They're completely clueless and incapable of understanding how terrifying the thought of having a child can be when you're alone and poor.

Pro-life men never attack other men who destroy fertilized embryos because as we all know it's not about the sanctity of life, it's about controlling women's bodies.

I don't think pro-life men have the right to lecture us about our opinions or our decisions. I really don't care about their moral objection to certain medical procedures and I wish they would shut the hell up about it.

Lastly I think it's none of these pro-life men's damned business what we do with our bodies and they should focus on their own reproductive organs. If pro-life men have an overwhelming urge to lecture others about morality they can go after legislators who oppose sex education, easy access to birth control and funding for family planning. Because women who need abortions aren't the ones who are behaving immorally.

I say this as a woman who's had an abortion and refused to allow anyone to shame me for making that decision.

I hope this clears up any confusion about what I think of pro-life men who shame women for having abortions.

[dembotoz]

10. Fuck them I support women s rights not goplite bullshit

[Solly Mack]

12. She makes it plain she wants to bend the party to her thinking.

That should be a warning to all.

[dembotoz]

16. I got no time for that bullshit

[malaise]

13. Thanks for this

A woman has the right to choose - simple

[Solly Mack]

14. Yes. It is that simple.

You're welcome.

[WePurrsevere]

15. What a load of bull. As my dad taught me about politics eons ago...

Anyone can 'say' they're X political party. They can even register as one but it doesn't actually mean they ARE one in their stances or way they vote. People register a certain way for a variety of reasons but in the privacy of the voting booth they can vote whichever way they choose. For all we really know this one's more DINO than a true Democrat.

If this person were to run as a D in my area I think I'd try to find someone sane to run in the primary against them and support them. (I'm physically not able to or would myself). I'd have a heck of a time voting for this person. I've held my nose before, many years ago, but I had truly hoped w were past this by now.

[Solly Mack]

19. I didn't delve into her enough to know if she wants to run herself but she supports

those who think like her.

But she wants her thinking to be the majority.

She says she does in her own words.

And we really should be past this by now.

Safe and legal medical procedures save lives.

Women shouldn't have to die simply because someone disapproves of their choices.

[WePurrsevere]

44. I totally agree with you. While I understand the 'pragmatic' argument of some...

I also watched the RW extremists take over the Republican party and seriously hope that the Democrats are smart enough not to fall for the same tactics and ending up more conservative because they've allowed someone like this misinformed zealot to have a foot in the door.

I'm 57 and post reproduction. Both of my daughters are 'done' having children as well but they have daughters who deserve to have the same safe choice I and their mothers had. Planned Parenthood was a real asset when I and my daughters needed their health and family planning services so I know very well what they do and how good an org they are so these deliberately misleading lies really tick me off.

[rgbecker]

17. Bbuh, buhb, buhb But look at their name! They must be Democrats!

So I guess we'll just have to join their attacks against Planned Parenthood.

One thing, If they shut down PP, there are apparently others providing abortions across the US as PP provides just 1/2 the 700,000 performed in the US per year. And others are waiting in the wings with coat hangers.

[Solly Mack]

18. Exactly

"others are waiting in the wings with coat hangers."

Women dying. Bottom line.

[GulfCoast66]

20. they did not support our candidate

They are republicans at heart.

[Solly Mack]

21. She wants Democratic dollars to support candidates she favors.

She wants the Democratic Party to not only back those candidates , but to encourage them to run, and give them the necessary money to win.

But she won't vote for the Democratic Party nominee for president because she's pro-choice.

[spanone]

22. the right of women to control their fate is a cornerstone of the democratic party.

if it's not, I will not affiliate with either party.

[Solly Mack]

23. And Kristen Day plainly states she wants to change the party from pro-choice

to what she calls supporting the sanctity of life.

[spanone]

24. she can start her own party as far as i'm concerned

[Solly Mack]

25. She doesn't want that though. She wants Democratic dollars to support "pro-life" candidates

and she wants the resources - campaign ads, major endorsements, etc. - to help those candidates win.

BUT she refused to vote for Clinton because Clinton is pro-choice.

There's a word for that.

[spanone]

26. she should go knock on the republicans door.

this is CRAZY talk...

“Once people know the truth, that Planned Parenthood will continue to harvest body parts from aborted babies and taxpayer dollars will continue to subsidize the nations largest abortion business, support declines.”

i see NO PLACE for this kind of thinking in the Democratic party.

[Heddi]

32. Yes. there is a word for someone

who refuses to support pro-choice candidates and refused to vote for Hillary Clinton because of her pro-choice stance.

That word is "republican"

[bluestarone]

36. amen

amen to that

[Solly Mack]

37. One of the words, yes.

[Freethinker65]

27. Yes. Unfortunately there are vocal misguided voters that identify as Democrats

This is not all that surprising. As long as they have no role in developing the official party platform, they are free to speak their minds. It is frustrating that they base some of their beliefs on intentionally misleading highly edited videos that have been thoroughly investigated and debunked. When necessary, their views should be appropriately challenged, but trying to change their views is most likely a lost cause.

[Solly Mack]

28. I'm not looking to change their thinking. I'm looking to curtail their actions.

The group wants to legislatively impact a woman's right to choose.

[Freethinker65]

29. I am confident they will not get what they want from the Democratic Party

I used to live in (D)Dan Lipinski's district...a rabid right to lifer. He won because it was his daddy's seat, not because he was pro life. He voted with the Rs on some very restrictive bills. Now, because of pressure, he is voting with his party on healthcare. We have a real chance to replace him with a pro-choice democrat.

I am concerned with the SCOTUS as certain individual states chip away at reproductive rights.

[Solly Mack]

30. I'm concerned by what Trump is doing to the courts as well to include the SCotUS

- and what states are doing to chip away rights - to include pro-choice, voters rights, and those "bathroom" bills of discrimination.

This is the group that met with Perez, so I thought info on them was relevant to the discussion.

[Freethinker65]

40. Very relevant. Agreed.

[MrsCoffee]

31. They can fuck off right along with the right wingers.

Either we have a party platform that stands for something or we don't. If we change our stance on women's rights, I will no longer be a Democrat.

[Solly Mack]

35. There's no guarantee an anti-choice Democrat would vote with the majority though

many like to pretend that's a given.

I wonder if they would leave their own rights up to chance that way?

I think not.

[MrsCoffee]

50. Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for

the real Republican all the time. - Harry S. Truman

If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. (Not sure if Steinem was the first to say it, but that's where I heard that one).

[Me.]

33. But Doncha KNow We Should Support Anti-Choice Candidates

So selfish and unthinking of women not willing to go along to get along.

[Solly Mack]

34. Big tent inclusion is one thing - but that inclusion does not include my uterus.

If someone wants to be inside the big tent to get inside my uterus, they can kiss my ass.

I'm not supporting anyone who wants to actively legislate my rights away.

Why would anyone?

[Me.]

39. Why Would Anyone?

Yet there have been a plethora of threads recently that insist we should, for the good of the party, for that will surely regain us the house.

[hunter]

38. Kristen Day quote:

"I disagreed with the Democratic position on abortion, but I also made a vow to change it and leaving the party would almost be going against my vocation. Our Catholic teachings encourage us to not “abandon your beliefs” to join a political party, but to stay and try to change that party. I was called into this fight and I will not stop until the sanctity of all human life is protected by the Democratic Party platform."

https://www.americamagazine.org/content/all-things/pro-life-democrats-and-catholic-church-21-questions-kristen-day

"Not abandoning my beliefs" is exactly the position I take with the Catholic Church, I try to change the Church, just as I try to change the Democratic Party. I'm a heretic in both places.

I don't believe any woman deserves to die if she chooses to have an abortion. That's what happens when abortion is outlawed or restricted. It's pretty damned simple.

[Solly Mack]

41. it really is that simple. Women die.

[get the red out]

42. Woman haters for safety nets

Woot!

(Don't think that I will join up).

[Solly Mack]

43. That's a succinct way of putting it.

[Behind the Aegis]

45. Well done!

When personal rights, and choice is a personal right, are up for "debate", then there is a real problem. It isn't that people shouldn't have their own opinions, but when those opinions become action and those actions interfere with the rights and well-being of others, then it is a "no go" for me. I will never be pregnant, nor will I ever get anyone pregnant, yet I look at this as government trying to interfere with the bodies of consenting adults, and that is wrong!

The democratic party should be a big tent, but not when those would be tent dwellers are trying to restrict the rights of others! The fact we are in the 21st century and this type of bigotry against women is even a discussion is beyond reprehensible. If a person is intent on stripping women of their right to do with their bodies as they see fit, then that person is not worthy of my vote. It has been my experience, that people like that are never satisfied with taking the rights of just one group, they always move on to another. For all those people who love crowing the "First they came for..." poem, well, here we are...they are coming for women, so stand up, speak up, or get the fuck out of our way!

[Solly Mack]

46. Thank you, BtA.

This is the group Tom Perez met with, so I thought knowing more about that group would be relevant to the discussion.

I've read around the board and some have suggested people have been taken over by bots and passing along false news. Oh, and dividing the party. To be fair, not just about the abortion issue. But that was also included.

Never mind Tom Perez himself met with the group, as has been reported on by legitimate news sources.

While I do realize his meeting with the group does not equate to support of the group, it still adds to a person's knowledge base to know exactly who the group is and what they hope to accomplish.

The democratic party should be a big tent, but not when those would be tent dwellers are trying to restrict the rights of others!

Exactly.

I know there are "pro-life" Democrats already in office and I also know they refrain from imposing their personal views on everyone - but there's no guarantee that the candidates this group supports will do the same - so there is cause for concern.

But I guess now someone will voice their concern that I'm a concern troll. Snort.

Of course the "purist" meme cropped up, which is hilarious considering the leader of this group refused to vote for Clinton because Clinton supports a woman's right to choose.

Uh, who's the purist again? LMAO

[Behind the Aegis]

57. You are quite welcome.

I can't count the number of times you have stood up for the rights of the LGBT and Jews, and the latter, at this site, standing up for them (us), can put a target on your back. I remember all the hateful rhetoric from people in regards to marriage equality...

"Why now?"
"Be patient!"
"Would you rather a ReThug take the position?!"
"There are more important things to consider, like climate change. You do believe in climate change, right?"
"Stop acting like the roof is caving in! No one is coming for you!!"
"Want a pink pony?"

And those were the nice quotes! I am seeing similar ones and it has really triggered some very dark, and nasty feelings. If you stand for nothing, you fall for anything. Although I have mixed feelings about the Niemöller poem (he allegedly didn't like when the GLBT started using the poem), I will use it now...modified...

First they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not Muslim.

Then they came for the Transgender, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not Transgender.

Then they came for a woman's right to choose and control of her body, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a woman.

Then they came for marriage equality, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not Gay or Lesbian.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew (and really, it's just Jews, so who cares, amirite?!)

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

I said it before, these types are never satisfied, they always find something else wrong, someone else who "triggers" them, some idea they find repulsive, and then a new hunt is on.

BTW....I loved your remark to BMUS about someone being in your crotch and what they needed to do.

Keep speaking up and out! I will do the same! WE WILL BE HEARD!

[Solly Mack]

59. I will!

My luck, they wouldn't be able to find the little man in the boat.

[LeftInTX]

47. I'm confused.

This is their statement

“We need to recruit, consider, and support more candidates, like Governor Edwards, who are unapologetically whole-life,” said Day. “We need to be the party of Bill Clinton, who affirmed over and over again that abortion should be rare; the party of Barack Obama, who called abortion a “moral tragedy” and whose presidency brought our nation the lowest abortion rate since Roe v. Wade; and the party of Ted Kennedy, who consistently led efforts to uphold the conscience-clause protections. This is who we have been and what we should be today.”

Which to me sounds mainstream.

But on the other hand, they seem to be very anti-Planned Parenthood. This group is very confusing. I don't consider them to be "moderate" in their pro-life viewpoints. They claim to be supporters of Bill Clinton, Barack Obama or Ted Kennedy. Yet the sound just as rabid as R-wing pro-lifers.


Supporting undercover videos??? Wanting to defund Planned Parenthood???

They lobbied Tom Perez for support. Were they fully vetted by the DCCC?

[Solly Mack]

48. I agree. They say conflicting things. That's why I posted their info.

This is the group Perez met with, so who they are what they believe is relevant. Or so I thought.

The more you read about them - their comments and missions statements and policy proposals regarding abortion - the more they sound like right-wingers than mainstream Democrats - as they also suggest they are.

[LeftInTX]

49. I greatly appreciate your research

[vi5]

51. "ANY DEM IS A GOOD DEM!!! STOP CRITICIZING THESE DEMOCRATS AND EMBOLDENING THE ENEMY!!!!"

Yeah. No. This type of horseshit is the end result of that policy.

[Solly Mack]

56. Horseshit is an apt description of it all.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. If you're pushing James O'Keefe's bullshit videos or quoting talking points from the GOP Platform

You are not a "Democrat".


I think DU ought to adopt a rule, as part of the TOS. If you make statements that came straight from the Republican platform...say, on "cultural" issues, for instance, you (and all your sockpuppets and further zombie incarnations, dude) should be banned from this site.

Im sure everyone here agrees with me!

[Solly Mack]

54. Now see, I thought the same thing. Why are they pushing those videos?

This is the group Tom Perez met with - and a meeting does not equate to support, I know - but I wanted to find out more about them.

The info in the OP is what I found. I thought I'd share the information - not as an attack on Perez - but to let people know about the group.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. The O'Keefe connection tells me all I need to know.

Authoritarians and control freaks invariably lie through their teeth to advance their agenda of telling other people what to do, because "I have a control fetish" isn't a very good PR talking point.

And because people making up their own minds about shit is, apparently, way too threatening.

If someone is personally against abortion, good for them. Assuming they have a uterus, I encourage them heartily to follow their conscience and not themselves have any abortions.

Beyond that, though, stop fucking trying to legislate what other people do with their bodies. You have one head and it has one neck that attaches it to one body. Worry about that, let other heads worry about the bodies connected by their necks. Fucking enough. (Obviously, I'm not talking to you, here, Solly )

[Solly Mack]

58. Legislating the choice for women is exactly what the group wants.

And they are pushing hard to defund Planned Parenthood.

[vi5]

60. I agree with you, but...

I'm not sure why it needs to be limited to "cultural" issues.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. You are right. It encompasses the entire GOP platform. No one should be promoting their ideas here.

Any of them.

I simply used christian right "culture in crisis" language as a relevant example.

[Mc Mike]

65. Thanks, Solly.

Day is full of it.