Democrats Willing to Fund Pro-Life Candidates to Win Back Congress

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

After years of party polarization over abortion, Democrats may finally be taking steps toward welcoming more pro-life Christians into their ranks.............

Will the potential of luring voters who have avoided the party over the issue of abortion be worth the backlash from the Democratic base, including outspoken abortion-rights advocates?

To read more:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/august/democrats-no-litmus-test-abortion-prolife-candidates-2018.html

Is this part of the problem, or part of the solution? If the Democratic Party is willing to compromise on the abortion issue, what else is on the table, so to speak?

40 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	This will weaken one of the historic planks in the modern Democratic Party.
	6 (15%)
	This will demonstrate that womens' rights are not as important as winning elections.
	25 (63%)
	This will demonstrate that the Democratic Party is open to compromise on this issue.
	3 (8%)
	Other.
	6 (15%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Blue_true]

1. We need to recognize that not all districts are progressive.

An avowed pro-choice candidate could not win in the district that I live in, although we have a good number of very progressive people in the district.

[guillaumeb]

3. My Congressman, a Democrat, was against the ACA and is a self-described "pro life" Democrat.

But he is not against the death penalty.


But if we wish to win a majority, are there any planks in the Party platform that are not subject to elimination?

[Blue_true]

7. Sounds like.

Your congressman can be replaced by a more moderate Democrat if your area can run a quiet, non acrimonious primary to replace him and he accepts the result of the primary.

My district has a republican and eventhough republicans here tend to be moderate mostly, it is a heavy lift for them to vote Democrat.

[guillaumeb]

10. My Representative is Dan Lipinksi of the 3rd District in Illinois.

His father, the previous Representative, decided to retire after the primary and brought in his son from out of state to take over the seat.

He rarely has a challenger, often running without a GOP challenger. The problem would be raising enough money to overcome his organizational advantage.

[Kaleva]

8. Mine was Stupak who was prolife and voted for ACA

He was also against the death penalty.

[guillaumeb]

11. At least he was consistent in that. Mine is Lipinski of Illinois.

[Kaleva]

15. Stupak also cosponsered legislation to normalize relatios with Cuba

And he opposed the Iraq War by voting against Joint Resolution 114 in 2002.

Despite being antiwar and against the death penalty, he was very much despised here at DU.

[delisen]

31. Right-to-work? We could pick up lots of anti-union voters!

Soft-pedal minimum wage? (I'm only half kidding).

war on teachers? It has worked for republicans.

Democratic reps already vote pro-Big Agriculture in passing the Farm Bill every 6 years.

[guillaumeb]

37. And all of this illustrates the problem.

Unless the Democratic party insists on a single platform that all must follow, all of this argument about what makes someone a real Democrat is useless.

[Not Ruth]

63. The single platform will be marijuana

[Fresh_Start]

2. I dont care if someone is pro-life...as long as they are also pro-choice nt

nt

[guillaumeb]

4. Agreed.

Make your own personal choices, but do not interfere with others who also want the same right.

[wryter2000]

4. Well put!

[Blue_true]

19. When it comes to my own personal decisions, I am pro-life.

If I married, I would most likely marry a liberal woman who was prolife. But if she changed her mind, that would be her choice. I don't feel that I have any right to tell any woman what she can do with her body and I vote for people that agree with me. BUT, if I had to chose between a prolife Democrat and a republican, I would vote for the Democrat everyday and on Sunday because at least I know what the expect when he or she goes to Washington.

[G_j]

6. Dem campaign chief vows no litmus test on abortion

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141834225

[guillaumeb]

9. True.

Are there any other issues for which there is no litmus test?

[G_j]

12. good question..

in particular issues that have been included in the platform.

[guillaumeb]

13. My own fear is that if one attempts to appeal to every voter, there will be no real platform.

The real obstacles, in my view, are suppression and gerrymandering. Democrats win in the issues and lose in the elections.

[G_j]

14. "The real obstacles, in my view, are suppression and gerrymandering.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

[Gravitycollapse]

16. We should consider the loss of the misogynist vote a badge of honor.

I will not support a party that throws women under the bus.

[John Barcell]

17. So then more republicans get elected while nothing changes?

How can everyone be so shortsighted? I've been a lurker for the past year and needed to make an account because of how infuriating people are being about this. It will make us lose elections, and keep losing elections all the while nobody's opinion on it will change.
Quick anecdote to start this off: me and my entire extended family has lived in Massachusetts all our lives; my aunts who live on the South Shore are deeply devout Roman Catholics and largely apolitical, they voted for Trump on the single contingent that he would appoint a conservative to the SC. Now my aunts are nice people (not misogynists in any respect as far as I can tell), and they vote on a single issue: abortion. I'm not really interested in what compels them to do this (I'm an atheist and don't want to stick my hand in that beehive), and since they live in MA their conservative votes rarely ever matter whatsoever. But still, if a handful of people in my "east coast liberal elitist" family can vote conservative for such a reason, I can only expect that to be a prevalent trend for voters the further towards the bible belt you get. (tldr: Trump and conservative voters aren't always Trump supporters or supporters of a conservative government)
Now here's my main point: this is quite simple, running pro-life democratic candidates in extremely religious districts is not a bad idea. If the candidate makes it into office by securing the religious anti-choice vote and votes on anti-abortion legislation they'll lose the base. Nobody is stupid enough to do that. "Pro-life" on a democrat is nothing more than a meaningless accolade to flaunt in front of a religious local electorate.

I know it seems like forever ago, but flashback to the early W. Bush years, the president and republicans alike musing about constitutional amendment defining marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. Even in 2008, Obama was one of those "let the states decide" people regarding gay marriage. This was a poorly-veiled lie to win a national election, but it worked. Joe Biden was not a supporter of gay marriage (remember those debate gaffs?) but subsequently got woke during his tenure, a trend I think you'd find very common among elected democratic pro-lifers. So Obama wins the WH right? And we take the senate and the house of representatives right? We get a less conservative SC and a cultural shift regarding gay marriage happens. With no conservative government to block it on a judicial, executive, or legislative level; we end up with a dramatic change in public opinion


Now abortion is even more of a polarizing topic, I know, and the poll numbers have been stagnant since the rise of conservative media and evangelicals.



This just demonstrates the significance that being pro-life/pro-choice has on hotly contested races. However, the only way we can reach the same kind of cultural shift like we saw in 2010 is with a democratic government in place. Democratic candidates need to play to the constituents, not the nation. Only then can we actually win elections. We can't helicopter around races that have nothing to do with us and our states. Once they're elected, that's when we can judge them on the national stage. All we're doing now is alienating their constituents and netting more votes for republicans. Chances are anyways, that most pro-life democrats would not support pro-life legislation, since those legislation are almost exclusively drafted by the GOP. Generally a democrats stance on sex-ed and contraceptives regardless of being pro-life or pro-choice will result in less abortion overall.

So in synopsis: we need to bullshit and lie through our teeth like we did with gay marriage in 2008. I don't give a damn about integrity or ideological purity when the Earth is burning and we're about to get into WWIII. We need to win elections and prevent Armageddon or there will be no life or choices to make about said life.

[Gravitycollapse]

18. I will not sacrifice women's rights to win elections. Period.

Principles mean something. They are pragmatic.

I would rather lose an election than lose my principles. If you want to toe the line for misogynists, be my guest.

[Blue_true]

22. Elect.

A republican, you have an unrepentant mysogonist.

A Democrat, you have a person who you can convince that he or she is wrong.

I rather have a Democrat in office. Also, don't confuse being prolife with being a mysogonist, you are dramatically and seemingly purposely conflating those two.

[Gravitycollapse]

24. I don't help elect someone unless I cast a vote for them.

If a Republican wins, it's because others voted for them.

Being pro-life is an affront to a woman's bodily autonomy. It is deeply invested in an ideology that hates women. That's misogyny.

[JoeStuckInOH]

41. I hope all the Democrats that stayed home in the 2016 election think this way, too.

For their sake.

If not, then I'll bet they're feeling pretty bad for being significantly responsible for President Donald Trump. Democrats staying home, for whatever reason, was what finally shit-canned the 2016 election. I mean... Trump got fewer votes than McCain or Romney... and both were handily defeated by Obama. !

[John Barcell]

46. There's a difference between misogynists and an ideology steeped in misogyny

All major religion is steeped in misogyny. By your logic every single elected congressperson and senator is a misogynist and the people that vote for them are too.
You should change the way you use "misogyny" and "misogynist", you're making the word lose its impact when you apply it haphazardly.

[uppityperson]

47. Anti-woman, hatred of women, seeking to control women & resrict their rights is not misogyny?

Pro-life restricts women's rights and is misogynistic. This is a "haphazard" use of the term? Are you SERIES?

[John Barcell]

53. You're stereotyping and subsequently creating a strawman.

We're talking about people who have been convinced that a clump of cells is a human life. That in itself doesn't make a person somebody with a hatred of women.
Haphazardly throwing it around makes it weak and reduces it to nothing more than a dog whistle. You're putting Rush Limbaugh and my 90 yr-old grandmother who volunteers at a battered woman's shelter into the same grouping. The word is essentially meaningless when used so liberally.

[uppityperson]

67. WE are talking about misogyny. It's not haphazard and neither a "dog whistle" nor "stereotyping"

to describe anti-woman or anti-woman's rights as misogynist.

Congratulations on pulling dog whistle, straw man, stereotyping out of the "false arguments" dictionary.

Yes. Someone who feels a clump of cells has more rights than a woman is misogynistic. Regardless of whether or not they support a woman's shelter.

[John Barcell]

71. They're common terms in political analysis for anybody who wants to have meaningful discussion

so I'd advise that you don't regard them as "false arguments". If you'd bother to read before reacting, you might be inclined to think about their usage and how they fit into the underlying discussion.

Anyways you're fundamentally (and probably purposefully) misunderstanding the mentality of pro-lifers in an attempt to put yourself at the peak of moral high ground. In many cases (like that of my grandmother and aunts) they have been deluded into the belief that that clump of cells has THE SAME rights as any man, woman, or child. It doesn't have to do with marginalizing women for them, as it has to do with elevating zygotes.
Please try to understand this in the future, because it's extremely important if you don't want your various posts and arguments to divide and polarize. Old ladies that have fought for equal rights their entire lives don't want to be told "fuck off misogynist". I don't see how that helps anybody.

Honestly, and please answer this specifically without constructing more strawmen (autumn is still many months away) do you not see how when you tell somebody "you're being misogynistic" and yet you'd already used "misogynistic" to refer to their sweet ol' gran, that that would make the word itself lose all effectiveness?

Use it to refer to actual woman haters, and not people that have been crushed by the thumb of religion into believing fatalistic nonsense about embryos.

[uppityperson]

74. Pro-life gives that clump of cells the right to control the woman. It does marginalize women to not

have the right to have control of their body. I find it amazing that you don't understand that. It does not give that clump of cells equal rights, but precludes the woman from the right to control her body, her health.

If your sweet old gran tries to take away a woman's right to her own body, that is misogynistic. If your neighbor beats his female partner for not having dinner ready because "it's her job as a woman" that's misogynistic.

You don't get to pick and choose what anti-women behaviours to call misogynistic. Well, YOU can, but you can't dictate to the rest of the world.

[Gravitycollapse]

49. If you follow an ideology that hates and marginalizes women, you're misogynist.

I'll keep using it exactly as it is intended.

[John Barcell]

50. k, good luck voting for nobody.

Anybody who believes in any of the main religions is out.

[Gravitycollapse]

58. If their religious beliefs marginalize women then, yes, they are out.

[John Barcell]

68. Either you don't vote, or you've proved my point.

Technically all of their religions marginalize women, but in practice they'll act and vote in a way that does not marginalize women. This mirrors the behavior of pro-life democrats. Their ideology would ideally marginalize women (all religious ideology usually does), but the way they act would not.
So either you have never voted for somebody who isn't atheist or a niche religion, or you've put aside your moral qualms because the candidate does not act in a way that reflects the bigoted doctrine that is underlined in their faith.

[Gravitycollapse]

73. I'm going to make this really easy for you by setting it out bit by bit.

You don't seem to understand the difference between title and action. When we are speaking about someone who is pro-life, the presumption is that this title leads to action; their beliefs have consequence on their actions. In other words, someone who is pro-life supports pro-life causes and acts in a way that is detrimental to women.

You seem obsessed with the idea that there can be someone who is pro-life but acts pro-choice. While possible, that indicates that the person is either lying or confused about their beliefs. A politician who supports pro-choice causes IS pro-choice, regardless of their personal beliefs. Does that make sense? When politicians speak about being pro-life or pro-choice, they are speaking about how they will act in official capacity as a representative of their constituents.

Now, there are people who personally identify as pro-life but do not support legal restrictions on abortion. I consider them pro-choice because the debate between pro-life and pro-choice is an issue of law and women's rights. Someone who wouldn't participate in a gay marriage but supports gay marriage is pro-gay marriage.

Someone who is a Christian without being a biblical literalist is perfectly capable of escaping the misogyny embedded in scripture. But someone who subscribes to biblical literalism, who truly believes we should interpret the Bible exactly as it is written, is a misogynist and I would never vote for them ever.

I ascribe an identity to someone based on their actions. In that context, someone who is pro-life is a misogynist and someone who is pro-choice but claims to be pro-life is confused or lying.

[uppityperson]

76. As my mom used to say, she hoped we'd never have an abortion but fought hard to keep the right

to have one.

Pro-choice does not mean you need to get an abortion, but be able to choose a legal hygienic one.

[NRaleighLiberal]

61. maybe the main religions should use a bit of logic and reason and actually question

some of their basic tenets...particularly those that are so clearly anti to their so-called teachings

[uppityperson]

64. Goal post change!

[John Barcell]

45. You wouldn't sacrifice woman's rights, if you read any of my post you'd understand that

Nobody is going to roll back woman's rights in a democratic government. Not ever. Not voting for a pro-life democrat and staying home, allowing a pro-life republican to win: THAT'S how you sacrifice woman's rights.

No pro-gun democrat is going to pass a bill to allow open-carry in schools
No pro-life democrat is going to pass a bill that bans abortions.

[Gravitycollapse]

48. "Nobody is going to roll back woman's rights in a democratic government. Not ever."

They will if we elect misogynists because they ran on the Democratic ticket.

You seem more concerned with the name "Democrat" than the actual principles of the party. That's a damn shame.

[NRaleighLiberal]

62. you are either incredibly naive or intentionally obtuse

[John Barcell]

65. I forgot about all the bipartisan "defense of marriage" legislation

wait, there were none. Hmmm, really makes you think, huh?

[uppityperson]

70. "Nobody is going to roll back woman's rights"??? Good Lord, do you not read the news?

Or do you mean if democrats are in majority in legislative and executive branches of fed gvt and every state?

[John Barcell]

72. Yes, that is exactly what I imply.

If pro-life democrats tried to roll back woman's rights they'd lose 30+% of their electorate and be ousted by a republican in the next election. Nobody would do it.

[uppityperson]

75. Like Bob Casey jr?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Casey_Jr.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrats_for_Life_of_America

[NRaleighLiberal]

79. we are seeing daily things we never thought were possible under trump.

there are no guarantees and nothing can be taken for granted.

[Blue_true]

21. We have an 80%, no way contingent here.

They are too pure to vote for a person that shares 80% of their view on issues, even when only that 80% or a republican can win office. It is damned maddening and thoughtless at the same time. No damned one can convince me that if 10% of the 97,000 people that voted for Nader in Florida in 2000 had voted Gore instead the nation would have not been far better off today. I don't want to call people names because some of the people that take the 80% no way view are otherwise decent people.

[Gravitycollapse]

26. Thanks for the right-wing talking points.

It's not about purity. It's about ensuring that our party gives a damn about its constitutents. That includes women. Seems a lot of Democrats don't give a crap about women's rights and see them as nothing more than a point of compromise.

Would you vote for a Democrat who's homophobic? Racist? No? Then don't vote for one who's sexist.

[Blue_true]

35. Do you understand.

I am sure that many Blacks are prolife as are most Hispanics. Blacks and Hispanics were mostly anti LGBTQ rights until maybe three years ago. But both groups form the core of the Democratic Party, without them you won't win a race for dog catcher. So, will you tell them to go fuck themselves because most are prolife and a large percent are still anti LQBTQ although they vote otherwise?

[Gravitycollapse]

38. I would be more than happy to explain to them why they're wrong.

I'd love to have a conversation with them about the issue of women's and LGBTQ rights. What I'm not willing to do is appease their prejudices to win them over. There is no point in winning if it means sacrificing civil and human rights. I will not be held hostage by bigots.

[Blue_true]

39. Blacks and Hispanics vote heavily Democratic.

Which means they vote pro-choice, pro LGBTQ rights, pro women's rights. All the things you claim to care about, they toe up to the line and deliver on while you go through something else, whatever you think you are doing. YOU CAN'T EDUCATE THEM ONE BIT, THEY ALREADY VOTE FOR EVERYTHING YOU CLAIM IN IMPORTANT TO YOU.

This is the end of me posting to you. I came really close a few seconds ago and caught myself.

[Gravitycollapse]

40. I'm supporting women's rights. What are you doing?

Step away, take a deep breath, and think real hard about what you're saying and who you're sacrificing with your compromise.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. I'd rather we focus on winning statehouses, so we can deal with the gerrymandering in 2020

Despite all the noise about widespread red districts, the fact is most Americans are pro-choice. Sure, when asked "do you support the killing of babies", some of those people check off the ostensibly "pro-life" box- maybe we should be asking them if they think women should be sent to prison for getting abortions, or if they think the birth control pill should become a controlled substance, all logical outcomes of the anti-choice/HLA plank agenda.

We need pro-choice candidates who can articulate the logic of the position even to rural red voters, is what we need.

[guillaumeb]

25. I agree that a majority of American support choice.

Finding those candidates who can articulate the position will also mean finding candidates to run against the far right funded machine that is running the GOP.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. We need to get better at framing.

Look at the ACA. Once it became apparent it might go away, people realized they liked it.

[guillaumeb]

32. And framing was the reason that people like the ACA while also hating "Obamacare".

GOP wordsmiths, and former ad agency people, like Frank Luntz and Karl Rove are very good at selling things.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. Agree 100%.

Its maddening.

[Johonny]

23. I think pro-life is such a compromised and "politically" misleading term that any candidate

that embraces it does so with all the red flags that term raises. While such a candidate might scrap up a few moderate votes, they're likely to cause disinterest in Democratic base voters. If you're pro-choice then you should have the guts to say it. If you're trying hard to rationalize pro-life with also being able to be pro-choice then you've missed the very real politically charged meaning of those two terms.

[guillaumeb]

27. I agree that the term "pro-life" is very vague.

It does not encompass being anti-war, or being anti-death penalty, or being supportive of social welfare programs that support life. Instead, for the GOP, as many have said,pro-life means essentially pro-fetus.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. I dont have anything against fetuses, either.

What I dont want is government officials who have never met a woman deciding what she can do with her own body, instead of the woman herself.

[guillaumeb]

34. Agreed. It is not being "anti-fetus" to be in favor of being for a woman's freedom to choose.

[loyalsister]

30. Any of the above?

I think it is fair to listen to what a person means when they describe themself as pro-life. What would we call someone who is heartily in favor of maintaining or even expanding abortion rights, but opposes all government assistance for food, housing, and healthcare assistance?

If you consider that they support choice in the context of abortion, but want to limit opportunities for some people to make life choices, are they really prochoice? I would have a hard time voting for such a candidate even if running against someone disgustingly opposed to abortion rights.

This is not black and white. I think it is in our interest to listen and try to look broadly to find some common ground for the common good. I don't think it is necessarily fair, and definitely not practical to reject all possible nuanced positions that people may have while labeling themselves prolife. I favor a shift away from the vague language and make sure we have details before rejecting candidates.

[guillaumeb]

36. True. The term is vague and it is easy to define it in many different ways.

Personally, I am anti-war, anti-capital punishment, and pro-women's right to make choices. My wife and I are not personally in favor of abortion, but that personal choice in no way implies that we would wish to impose our choices on others.

[loyalsister]

42. I don't see how you could be legitimately called anti-choice

As a matter of fact, a person who wants abortion to be available as a choice only under the most extreme circumstances does register on a continuum as prochoice at a point. When it gets down to it, I think a person is only truly antichoice when they want there to be no legal or physical possibility to voluntarily make the decision to have that procedure.
On the other hand I don't think someone who opposes abortion the death penalty is a prolife position.

I once heard a law professor give a talk on Roe vs. Wade. She made the argument that it should not have been framed as a matter of choice because it is also a bit of a Constitutionally vague construct. On the other hand, she suggested that the ruling would have been more solid if the argument relied on equal protection. As in, the biological investment and risk is unequal. The only possible remedy to bring some semblance of equality is for a woman to be able to terminate the investment and risk.

I don't have a legal background that could provide a thorough analysis, but it seems that she made a fair point when she suggested that the reason we continue to argue is the lack of a concrete ruling.

[guillaumeb]

43. I liked your response.

The law professor illustrated how framing can be used to win the debate. An excellent example is the millions who like the ACA but hate Obamacare. Similarly with the pro-life vs pro-choice issue. It makes it seem as if the choice must be between life and a woman's choice. And the choice is framed by the GOP as a selfish one.

As to the SCOTUS ruling, and the vagueness, the Voting Rights Act was a Congressional Act that in no way stopped that particular debate.

[loyalsister]

44. The voting rights are vague

Voting rights have some flexibility because they are left to the states and there is no constitutional affirmative right to vote.

[PoliticAverse]

51. You should have included a choice like "This will demonstrate that control of Congress"....

is more important for women's rights than individual congressional races."

[BainsBane]

55. He needed a line that says

Pretending anti-choice is a winning strategy is a ruse to engineer male supremacy.

[BainsBane]

52. It demonstrates to me

That those who pretended to have an aversion to making compromises are eager to throw away the rights and economic survival of women and their children.

It also proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the rhetoric about poverty and economic equality was empty. When people promote something that has been proved to result in much higher poverty rates for a majority of the population, they obviously don't give a shit about poverty or economic equality.

It proves to me that "economic equality" was never meant to apply to anyone but a minority demographic who already earns well above the national median. Of course that isn't equality at all.

There is no evidence that such a position wins elections. That we see some adopt it so easily under the transparent EXCUSE that it will create "wins' tells me that the goal all along has to be relegate women to second class citizenship and greater poverty. It tells me people who claimed the party wasn't "progressive" enough for them to give them their votes actually resent the party because it has failed to center them and throw away the rights and lives of the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Your poll doesn't provide anything approaching reasonable options. It takes a priori the assumption that abandoning support for the basic rights of over half the population, a great majority of Democratic voters, and the economic survival of them and their children will "win." It takes an argument contrived to oppress the majority and pretends that it will win. Just how many Democratic women do you think will line up to vote for white male supremacy? There is nothing "winning" about such a push. The goal is subjugate the majority for the benefit of the few.

If all people care about is "winning," why don't they join the GOP? If they are so anxious to remake the Democratic Party to mirror wht the GOP and Trump prioritizes, white male rule, why not stick with original?

I don't want to one to hear ONE fucking word about poverty or economic equality from people pushing this shit ever again. They know the results of such a push is sharply increase poverty for women and children, the majority. They know it greatly increases death rates. So I say that if they are going to promote an agenda based on the subjugation of the many for their own benefit, they out to have the guts to say what they really want. But then they know that can't work in the Democratic party, so they obfuscate and gaslight.

It proves to me that all the angst about "progressives" not being able to vote for Clinton in the GE because she wasn't "progressive enough was a lie. Of course such a posture depending on refusing to read or listen to her policy positions. It is fitting that their first push is not against Wall Street of corporations but against women's rights, and along with them the lives and economic survival of 75 percent of the population.

And if said "progressives" actually cared about Democrats' winning, they might start by actually voting for them rather than engaging in a campaigns to drive voters away from the party. That they suddenly claim--with no evidence or even an effort to provide evidence--that taking away the rights of the majority Americans is a winning position doesn't pass the smell test.

And why should this group of men assume that Democrats voters--who are overwhelmingly women and people of color--will turn out to vote for their own subjugation? It is so devoid of logic it defies comprehension. There is one reason and one reason only for this push: the subjugation of the many for the benefit of a few.

[HopeAgain]

54. We've already lost a lot of focus on workers and income disparity...

Lets not become completely Republican by giving up on women's rights

[BainsBane]

56. Oh, but plunging women and children into poverty

and higher death rates is a necessary compromise for "equality and economic justice."

[Omaha Steve]

60. We do agree on some things

[hunter]

57. Nah, I'm definitely pro-death.

Would you like to meat my cannibal ancestors???

[southerncrone]

59. Other--All of the above

[Casprings]

66. Do you want someone to have a chance on states like KS or WV..

Or do you want to just give those up. Better to have someone with you most of the time versus none of the time. Political reality is political reality.

You don't like that? Go out and talk to the people in WV, KS, or some other such state. You actually have to win them over. The problem is the voter not the person required to win.

[brooklynite]

69. Will you be pushing to primary Bob Casey? (PA-SEN)

He's "pro-life" but has never voted to impose his view on others.

[Gravitycollapse]

77. Then he's pro-choice.

[pnwmom]

81. You can be both pro-life and pro-choice. Whatever your personal or religious beliefs are,

even if they are "pro-life," the bottom line is that Democrats should support the right of each woman to make the decision for herself.

[Gravitycollapse]

84. You cannot be pro-choice and pro-life.

They are mutually opposed concepts. One CAN not want an abortion and be pro-choice. But being pro-life is a political position and the political is a matter of the social, not just the personal.

[pnwmom]

85. No, they aren't. Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, and many others

considered themselves pro-life in their personal, religious beliefs.

But they were pro-choice in the political realm. They think every woman should make the decision for herself, without interference by the government.

Joe Biden is pro-life and pro-choice: "I accept my church's position on abortion but i refuse to impose it on others."

[Gravitycollapse]

86. Like I said, pro-life is a political position.

There is a difference between not wanting an abortion and being pro-life.

[Renew Deal]

78. We should help the best Democrat available in each district

[pnwmom]

80. You can be pro-life, like Joe Biden, as long as you are pro-choice, too.

In other words, you support the right of each woman to decide for herself, no matter what your religious or philosophical beliefs are.

[guillaumeb]

92. My philosophy also. eom

[Tiggeroshii]

82. The key is always economic empowerment

If we get that then all else will fall in place.

[guillaumeb]

94. And access to services must accompany that empowerment.

Even prior to abortion being a right, the rich always had access.

[Tiggeroshii]

98. Thing is it is a domino affect

Abortion rights came well after economic empowerment after ww2 and the new deal. This allowed more people to contribute money to political causes and campaign for policies that they otherwise wouldn't be able to without the economic empowerment they received. That is why it is so important we put that issue first, so that they are empowered to defend themselves politically once they are in that position of economic empoweent once again.

[guillaumeb]

99. I agree about economic empowerment being vital.

I am still a big supporter of Bernie Sanders, and I agree that an understanding of economics is vital to understanding why things are done in this country.

I would prefer that the Democratic Party embrace the primacy of economics and class when deciding policy, but we must also remember that race and gender politics also play a huge role in why things happen.

[DoodAbides]

83. The Biden that will clearly state that personal belief won't interfere with his vote, works. nt

[BainsBane]

87. All this time of pronouncements that party critics needed a reason to vote FOR Democrats

and not just against Trump, the reason they needed was the subjugation of the majority to second-class citizenship, greatly increased poverty, and higher death rates.

Well, at least they have something they finally can get behind.

[guillaumeb]

95. To me, the primary reason to vote for Democrats is that they are the better of the two

realistic choices. Any discussion of Jill Stein or other third party options is not a realistic one because the US, like it or not, is effectively a 2 party system.

[Willie Pep]

88. I am a pro-life Democrat.

As somebody who tries to follow the pro-life movement I can tell you that many pro-lifers are not conservative on every issue and are less interested in overturning Roe v. Wade than helping women obtain access to health care and child care and other liberal policies that would probably do much to reduce the number of abortions. The Patheos website has some interesting Catholics like myself who see that legal restrictions won't end abortion and will just send women to obtain illegal, underground abortions.

Here are two articles that basically reflect my views on the issue:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/themackerelsnapper/2016/09/06/im-prolife-and-i-dont-care-about-the-supreme-court/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/scottericalt/vote-republican-to-stop-abortion-and-other-myths/

I think the Democrats would make a big mistake to outright reject Democrats who label themselves pro-life because we need to win more in red states. Right now the Democrats are on their way to becoming a permanent minority coastal party. Politicians like Joe Manchin and Joe Donnelly are needed in the Senate. We could also use more governors like John Bel Edwards of Louisiana who presided over Medicaid expansion and issued an executive order to ban discrimination against LGBT people in state hiring and contracts. They are all much better than the likely Republican alternatives.

[DLevine]

89. No, we do not need Democrats who would take away our basic human rights.

Forced-birthers think they should control women's health and reproductive choices. No thanks.

The last thing we need to do as a party is abandon our core principles.

ETA: From the article in your first link: "Make no mistake: I live for the day that abortion is eradicated from our world." Well, I live for the day when every woman has the right to a safe abortion. If you think abortion is wrong, don't have one.

[guillaumeb]

96. Excellent points.

And as you note, access to options can serve to reduce the number of abortions but we must also protect the right of women to make their own decisions no matter the option chosen.

[Bradical79]

101. I have specific circumstances for my vote on this

1. I need to be confident that the candidate won't use their position to push anti-abortion legislation, funding, de-funding, or rhetoric.

2. Or they have to support softening or elimination of specific anti-abortion efforts while not adding anything new to the pile. I won't respect their position, but I'll take incremental progress over zero progress or regression.

I'm always going to choose the pro-choice candidate over anti-choice candidate in primaries regardless of who the national party supports, and be upset when the national party doesn't.

In general elections I'll always vote for the Dem vs. a Republican, even if I might have to hold my nose to do it. Someone is going to be elected to the position, and I want to be involved in that decision regardless of how good or bad tge choices are.

[dembotoz]

90. Who else u want to sell out??

End social security?
Bring back slavery?

[guillaumeb]

97. Are you addressing me personally?

If so, I suggest you read the comments, including mine. That should answer the question.

[dembotoz]

100. I am sick and tired of let water down reproductive Rights

Dems do?
I and a bunch of my buds r gone

[delisen]

102. Ask not who we can sacrifice to win votes; ask instead

how we can prevail by standing for justice and human rights.

[guillaumeb]

103. A nice rewording. eom