Is pro-choice a secondary issue for "progressives"?

[vi5]

I really hope nobody takes this the wrong way or flames me but I am kind of genuinely curious about something.

In 2000 Nader and many of his supporters I thought very much poo-pooed and swatted aside the issue of reproductive choice hanging in the balance if a right leaning president were elected. They didn't out and out completely say they didn't care, but it clearly took a back seat to a lot of other issues for them.

Now this year I see Kucinich touted as the candidate of choice for both Nader, some of his supporters (ie. Jello Biafra), and numerous self described "progressives" on here. I see him referred to as the only liberal candidate.

Now regardless of where he stands now on the issue, Kucinich has a very long pro-life voting record. I like Dennis and to be honest with you I think his record on the issue shows more personal conviction rather than party line voting. It's not something I necessarily hold against him.

But for me this is a big issue and between the green party/nader groups making it a secondary issue in 2000 and with the self described progressives touting Dennis as the only liberal candidate, I'm just wondering whether that issue has taken a back seat to a lot of liberals and progressives. I remember in '92 this was THE defining issue for myself and a lot of liberal dems.

[corporatewhore]

1. A green womans take on it

first of all ralph nader didnt cost gore the election kathy harris diebold SOCTUS and jebbie boy did
OK i am very pro choice.We live in a patriarichal society in which anti choice laws are used as a way to continue the control of women. I also see this in matters like free trade plan colombia Iraq and a few hundred other things that same drive to oppress and dominate peoples lives .It is not a secondary issue it is part of the same overall issue of confronting thedomination and oppression of peoples lives.One could say is stopping war, imperalism and ending economic oppression are secondary issues for moderate dems if they wanted to

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. not exactly

If not for Nader, it wouldn't have gone to SCOTUS and wouldn't have been close enough for Jeb to touch.

[corporatewhore]

4. well if kathy harris didnt purge black voters nader wouldnt have mattered

[terryg11]

6. didn't think this was a Nader thread

sorry just hoping to nip it before it blooms

[jonnyblitz]

7. 306,000 Florida DEMS voted for Bush in 2000

You might want to direct your anger at them


How Florida Democrats torpedoed Gore
by Jim Hightower

<snip from page 2 of article>
Now it gets really ugly for the Gore campaign, for there are two other Florida constituencies that cost them more votes than Nader did. First, Democrats. Yes, Democrats! Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Hello. If Gore had taken even 1 percent of these Democrats from Bush, Nader's votes wouldn't have mattered. Second, liberals. Sheesh. Gore lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader.
<snip>


http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/27/hightower/index.html

[vi5]

8. Did I say that he cost the election?

I don't remember including that in my post.

And yeah, would say stopping imperialism is definitely secondary to me after protecting the rights of my wife and daughter to live in a free society that doesn't attempt to control them. Call me crazy.

[terryg11]

2. some may have thought the right to abortion wasn't threatened a few years

ago. The lines were so firmly drawn that a stalemate was perceived. Obviously now there have been some changes to make one wonder but us liberals can be a rather diverse group. I still think they are far from overturning Roe v Wade but who knows?

As far as Kucinich, I thought I saw somewhere that he wouldn't pursue overturning Roe v Wade and that his prolife choice was more of a personal belief at this point in time. could be wrong though.

[vi5]

9. Kucinich did got back on it, but....

....but it would seem to me that a long voting history to the contrary would make him not exactly the most liberal candidate as he is often touted.

[terryg11]

10. voting history is one way to measure

but then we would have to hold Kerry responsible for every single vote of his that didnt jibe with the liberal thought or any time he voted the other way after voting one way before.

When you've been an elected official for a lengthy period of time there is always a chance that you may very well end up on the other side of an argument for whtever reasons. It's not necessarily bad it just shows that you are willing to admit if something hasnt worked out the way you thought or even that you are able to say that you were simply wrong before (God forbid anyone do that these days). I really don't know if Kucinich is a rabid anti choicer, my gut says he isnt and he's still the best liberal candidate we had this year in my opinion.

as far as the abortion issue, some dems may need to step up and show their support for a woman's right to choose to help keep it safe

[vi5]

11. That's kind of my point.....

I'm not saying I personally hold it against Dennis or not. But a lot of these same people are the ones saying that certain votes from Kerry or Edwards or Dean make them not liberal, but yet a very long, very on record anti-choice voting record shouldn't be held against Dennis. It just seems like the marginalization of a very important issue.

[grannylib]

5. Not secondary for me...this is a huge concern with global ramifications

My main concern is that there is a group of people who want to so narrowly define when 'life' begins that they can not only outlaw abortion, but the most reliable forms of contraception as well, since they consider them to be abortifacients. This would include the pill and IUDs for sure (although they were largely phased out, they are coming back, new and improved supposedly...) and could also be extended to include condoms, spermacides and diaphragms if the definition is narrow enough. It is estimated that the average number of pregnancies that a woman would experience without contraception is FOURTEEN.
This radical faction of religious zealots on the right wing wants to subjugate women by taking away their right to control their own reproduction; this will effectively take away much of a woman's choice and control in other areas of her life.
It also impacts global population, in that much of the funding for family planning in Third World countries has been rescinded or not delivered according to law, because these same zealots have objected to the organization delivering the information/supplies, or that they object to the actual methods of birth control being presented. These actions are leading to overpopulation, poverty, malnutrition, starvation and death.
The best way to stop or limit abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Abstinence is of course the most foolproof and effective means of doing so; however, a study was just released (will have to look for the link) showing that teens who 'committed' to remaining virgins until marriage had a much HIGHER rate of STD transmission, probably because abstinence was the ONLY focus of sex ed, and when the vow was broken, the teen was uneducated and unprepared to take the responsibilties of the choice made.
And I really fear that too many young women today take for granted the fact that most careers are open to them, that it is not odd to see female doctors or attorneys or in positions of respect and authority...they don't realize how far women have come, and how much we stand to lose if the current administration continues, particularly if Chimpy is allowed to name anyone else to the High Court...
Sorry to ramble on so long; for me, this is a HUGE issue and cannot be put on the back burner.
April 25th Pro Choice March on Washington

[pop goes the weasel]

12. for me personally, no

I think that decisions over what one does with one's body should be left to the person who owns the body. I would prefer that pregnant women carry to term, but since each woman has her own body, what any other woman does with hers is not my business. I can offer advice and support, and otherwise, I should get out of the way. I liked that when I was pregnant, I was asked by my doctor what I wanted--the number of an OB, or the number of an abortion clinic. That meant I got to make a choice about being pregnant even though I hadn't planned to be pregnant. Why shouldn't everyone have that same choice?

But politically, well...I live in a rural community with conservative moral values. People will not publicly commit to supporting abortion rights around here. So I don't push it. Instead, I push a libertarian approach that putting reproductive choices into government hands puts too much power into government hands. I point out that a government that has the right to tell women they can't have abortions or contraceptives is also a government that has the power to tell women they have to have abortions or use contraceptives. The history of reproductive law in the US bears this out: When abortion was illegal for most women and birth control information was restricted to doctors only, state governments reserved the right to strip freedom of choice from "mental defectives" and even petty criminals and perform abortions and sterilizations without consent. All it took to be considered a "mental defective" was a decision by a government-approved doctor. People look at the right to choose differently when they realize that the issue really is the right to choose.

Insist on talking about the right to choose--the right to choose what happens with a pregnancy, the right to choose appropriate medical treatment. Don't get dragged into an argument about abortion. Make the connections between government interference in reproduction and government interference in pain relief. People will respond very differently when you do.