The party is using the rights of women as a tool to win in some areas.

[madfloridian]

I don't know how else to say it. It should not even be on the table.

[saracat]

1. Disgusting isn't it?

I just had an argument about that tonight. It is amazing how many people are willing to negotiate our rights away! I will NEVER vote for an anti-choice candidate. I don't care what party they are from. That is my line in the sand.

[DFLforever]

2. Mine too!

And I think the Dem women in the country should withhold support and assistance from any anti-choice candidates the party puts up.

If they don't support us, why support them?

[sepia_steel]

3. man...

that's not winning at all. how... gross.

[blogbear]

4. Thats How They Are!

First they attack the rights of one group and when they have them beaten down enough they move on to do the same to another group. I guess this one-at-a-time tear apart strategy puts a 'feather in their cap' (The feathers of which of course they stole from the Indians).

[DemBones DemBones]

5. The party is recognizing that many people have genuine concerns for

the rights of the unborn, as well as for the rights of women.

If we care about people, we must care about all people, including those developing in utero. That means looking for ways to reduce abortion rates by empowering women with knowledge and means to avoid unwanted pregancies. We also need to empower mothers with more recognition of their contributions and with financial help to those in need. We need to promote mothering as something that is positive and should be rewarded with pay..

I don't support making abortion illegal. I do support working to make it rare, by reducing demand/ need, while keeping it safe and legal.

I've written about this many times but I can't write any more right now because I've been up for two nights caring for my sick husband.

Please consider what I've said and don't have a kneejerk reaction to any talk of moderating the party's position on abortion. Lots of people feel as I do -- and we are not extremists who insist on banning abortion completely. Democrats keep losing votes because we're too closely tied to the NARAL party line.

Have to stop now, husband just woke up. . . Please think about this.

[omega minimo]

6. Fine if you want to be conciliatory and inclusive in discussion

but not fine to fool with the basic issue, the basic right to privacy and sovereignty OVER ONE'S OWN BODY.

It's fine for people to have their opinions and parse out consciousness and even refer to "people... developing in utero" as "the unborn." No matter how contrived that sounds....

But to take the contrivance further and use it as a lever to undermine the fundamental and incontravertible FACT that a woman
has the right
to reproductive health
and privacy
is not fine.

The beginning of your statement (to mollify anti-choice types and soft-pedal the abortion sales pitch) could be simplified to issues of class war or basic economics. The solution-- particularly if it is presented as a "win win" for all comers-- is:
MORE EMPOWERMENT OF WOMEN-- NOT LESS. Including economic.

Please consider your own statement:
"Please consider what I've said and don't have a kneejerk reaction to any talk of moderating the party's position on abortion."
-- you anticipate "knee jerk" responses?

"Lots of people feel as I do -- and we are not extremists who insist on banning abortion completely."
--"Lots of people" may feel as you do. About your life. For someone else, why do you think the right to reproductive health is any of your business? May I point out that to say you do not "insist on banning abortion completely" sounds presumptuous? What other area, in what other aspect of how people live that is this personal, do we think we can intrude and assess and presume to judge or dictate what another person may or may not do?

I may think that feeding children chemically laden foodstuffs and prescription drugs is a comparable moral and social issue-- seeking legislation and stigmatization to invade family privacy is not a privilege that I claim for myself. Where does it end? May I tell you not to fry the baby's eyeballs in front of the computer or TV monitor? There are so many things that people do to destroy life, born or "unborn," that have direct consequences on social life. Why is it only when it comes to women's reproductive rights that anyone presumes to tell us what to do? Is this a holdover from the days when we were considered chattel and couldn't vote?

"Democrats keep losing votes because we're too closely tied to the NARAL party line."
--"the NARAL party line"? That sounds like Freeperspeak, doesn't it a bit? Rather inflammatory. And NOT why "Democrats keep losing votes." So I will use a different cliche: Don't believe in abortion? Don't have one.

For the general discussion here, the point is that this is an issue of human rights for women and must be tied to other human rights issues on a Democratic or alternative liberal platform. Strengthen women's autonomy over our bodies and improve economic conditions for all Americans. And quit falling for every distraction bone the Repugs toss out.

"Framing" and compromising to justify women's rights as if we have to apologize for the power of procreation and beg for autonomy over our bodies is a TRAP. Don't fall for it. Women have the right to reproductive health and privacy. That's all you need to say. Then get going on social justice and economic issues that will empower women (how bout the fact that women earn 75% of what men make for the same work?) and create a climate where abortion is "rare."

As I say, opinions about other people's medical health is one thing. Dominion over it is another. You and others may "feel" this way about abortion, but unless and until it is your decision, it is NOT YOUR DECISION TO MAKE.

That's it.

:hi:

[Karenina]

7. Excellent!

Thank you and WELCOME to DU!!! :toast:

[omega minimo]

8. Write on, Sista!

It's good to see this issue poke up on the GD or other lists. (Not sequestered in only certain zones).

See you 'round! :kick:

[Eloriel]

14. It is excellent, and I'd like to highlight this

"Framing" and compromising to justify women's rights as if we have to apologize for the power of procreation and beg for autonomy over our bodies is a TRAP. Don't fall for it. Women have the right to reproductive health and privacy. That's all you need to say. Then get going on social justice and economic issues that will empower women (how bout the fact that women earn 75% of what men make for the same work?) and create a climate where abortion is "rare."

This is SO, so true. For those righteous biddies who want to limit our rights to our own healthcare choices AT ALL, in any way, and come 'round crying about making abortion rare, and of all (hypocritical) things, EMPOWERING women, the work that needs to be done is NOT, I repeat NOT in the abortion discussions and lobbying, it's in the economic justice discussions and lobbying.

I'll repeat it: TO MAKE ABORTIONS RARE AND TO EMPOWER WOMEN, STOP WORRYING ABOUT ABORTION AND GO WORK ON ECONOMIC JUSTICE.

Abortions were well DOWN under Clinton's era of prosperity; they're up under Bush. Get it?

It's not about whether abortion is right or wrong and how to manage women vis a vis abortions, it's about how to make more women more economically independent and safe.

Anything else IS a trap.

[dsc]

17. By supporting people who were Republicans as lately as 2003

for Democratic tickets? In PA our two choices are Hafer and Casey. Hafer was a Republican until 2003 and endorsed Santorum repeatedly. Casey has been a liberal Democrat his entire life. I know how really cares about economic justice and it isn't Hafer.

[Mandate My Ass]

18. Hoeffel was forced out too

nice try though.

[dsc]

19. He never declared any interest in running

His name only came up as an after thought. If you don't believe me, believe Elanor Smeal who doesn't mention Hoeffel at all but does mention Hafer.

Editted to add link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1654767&mesg_id=1654767

[Mandate My Ass]

20. Yes he did express interest and also said he got the sit-down talk

with Hafer and he agreed to back out. I live here, I know.

[dsc]

21. I would like a link

I did provide one. I haven't seen his name mentioned anywhere at anytime. Incidently even if he did want to run I still think Casey is the better choice since Casey actually has won statewide.

[madfloridian]

22. Hoeffel was told to drop out.

There are several diaries on this at Kos. You are quite smart, and I am sure you will find them on a search of his name.

Pennachio says he has been ignored by party and national leaders though he has been trying for months to get their attention.

See his ad at Kos front page, read his statement at the site.

[dsc]

23. why should I have to do other people's homework?

Again, even if I take this at face value he still was a far worse candidate than Casey. Incidently, if he cares so much about abortion why doesn't he run anyway. I highly doubt Rendell would shoot him if he did.

[madfloridian]

24. You questioned...makes it your homework.

You seem to sound so authoritative on this issue, but you do not seem to have a clue what happens when the party tells you no, please go.

That is very naive from someone who has Dean as an avatar.

You must have have worked with DFA either. Or you would understand that we do what the party won't do.

[dsc]

27. No

Someone claimed and I asked for proof. That is they way things work. As to your crack about DFA talk to me when you canvas for the man in 10 degree weather in the middle of January in Ohio like I did.

[madfloridian]

29. Then you have most certainly forgotten what we all stood for.

Shame on you for wanting folks to stand up for your rights like Howard Dean did.....and he suffered attacks by Clinton for standing up for your rights.

Now you minimalize the rights of women. Standing in the snow then means nothing now if you forget what we were all about.

[dsc]

32. I want Santorum gone

The only candidate who both has a chance of winning and decided to run is Casey (who it should be noted is not exactly great on gay rights either). If Hoeffel is such a great, courageous candidate, THEN WHERE THE FUCK IS HE? Rendell didn't kidnap him, he didn't threaten to kill him, at most he said, don't run. Frankly I doubt Hoeffel would have run at all given that he hadn't announced, but maybe he would have.

[bvar22]

25. you are using the "Republican Framing"...

..he cares so much about abortion...

He doesn't care about abortion. He cares about safeguarding a Woman's Right to Choose and Limiting Governments intrusion into our lives!

Don't do their work for them!

[dsc]

26. whatever you wish to call the issue

If he gave a damn about it he would be running. There is no story of him having announced a race.

[madfloridian]

28. You are very uninformed to be so vocal.

.

[Mandate My Ass]

30. Say it loud and repeat over and over again

and that magtically makes it true. :eyesroll:

[dsc]

31. I have yet to see any link saying I am wrong here

I, on the other hand, have provided a link which shows me to be correct. At most, Hoeffel was deciding if to enter the race or not, he certainly hadn't announced. And, unless Rendell is now a mobster who shoots people who don't bow to his will, Hoeffel could have run if he so desired. Did Rendell threaten to kill him if he ran? Did he tie him up and prevent him from filing papers? Is he still doing so?

[madfloridian]

34. Nor will you.

.

[mdguss]

36. Hoefel endorsed Casey:

Saying, "I think the party has united behind Bob. I believe he has the best chance of beating Rick Santorum and that's the most important thing for me."

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/11058110.htm

[omega minimo]

35. We can come from a position of strength that is peaceful and firm

Women have a right to privacy over reproductive health that has been upheld buy the Supreme Court and established by the blood of countless women. Anyone else's moral agenda has no place in the private life of an individual 100% (not 3/5ths or property of a man) American citizen.

We live in passionate and propagandized times. It is SO easy to get sucked into the drama and intensity of these arguments. If we calm down and stay strong on the point, with a range of polite-to-righteous-to-indignant ways of saying, "IT'S NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS!" If women hold the center of the argument that it is a human rights issue and a social justice issue and refuse to argue morality, we are powerfully endowed with truth.

If the Bullshit Artists try to inveigle ways to craft public attitudes about the "rights" of the "unborn"-- that is where that point of strength needs to be hammered.

Do people forget the coat hanger days? One post here invoked the efforts of the Catholic Church to help women-- well intentioned but hey, it's a throwback to the "good girls don't" days, folks.

The people who want to coddle, include, mollify and asskiss potential voters and political allies who "think abortion is murder" may be forgetting the 2 decades of mayhem, violence, death threats, murder, bombings, etc., etc,. perpetrated on women and their doctors by "moral" and "religious" people. NO I'm not saying they're all the same. But the climate of intimidation and violence has had its effects, and now Democrats wanna play nicey nice?

Even the fact that women's health clinics are referred to in the press and public as "abortion clinics" is objectionable. One poster here didn't understand that to casually say "...if he cares so much about abortion..." is empowering the Wrong Wing. It empowers women to say, "....if he cares so much about women's rights..." or "if he cares so much about human rights...."

AND ANOTHER THING: The invasive and arrogant attitudes of well-meaning, self-righteous moral bigots is dependent on the notion that once a pregnancy occurs, it is a given that that child will reach full term. No guarantees in "developing human beings." That is very much in the domain of the mother and the Fates. Trying to claim pre-emptive rights for the "unborn" is ridiculous and unreal. It resembles the economic larceny of mercenary developers who demand monetary compensation for projects that they are not allowed to build on their property because if violates existing laws! Property rights! God given rights to spermandegg because of what "should" happen.

"For those righteous biddies who want to limit our rights to our own healthcare choices AT ALL..." May I comment that "biddies" (hi Eloriel, I remember you :hi:) has the "framing" effect of conjuring images of uptight little old ladies? Let's point out that most of the talking heads demonizing abortion are dried up old (or young waxy-looking) white men. None of the health clinic terrorists and doctor murderers were women, as far as I know.

A decade ago, I had a client at the design counter who was a "righteous biddie." Catholic, carrying a rosary and telling me about going to health clinics with abortion harrassers to "pray" for the women. This was at a time that the Repug machine to gut all programs and benefits for single mothers with children (Nuke Gettingrich and the end welfare jerks) was at full tilt. I respectfully asked a basic question: "How does it make sense to end assistance programs for women and children and simultaneously increase the number of single mothers who need assistance by outlawing abortion?"

She said, "You know, I've never thought about it like that before."

Let's pray for the biddies and the bigots and the bad guys in Congress who pay consultants to brainwash the public and perpetrate campaigns of distraction, distress and demonization.

:kick:

[CanOfWhoopAss]

9. Shouldn't be on the table but it is...

Dems have to contest every seat and even win a few that would go anti-choice using such candidates. You can't concede any seat to repukes because you need majority seats to gain the chairs. The chairs determine the agendas and as long as the chair is pro-choice the anti-choice seats will be neutralized at the very least. The anti-choice have a right to be heard (and ignored) just like the rest of us.

[Malva Zebrina]

10. People developing in the womb

we need to be concerned about them.

No I do not think I need to be concerned about a pre developed people just because someone says so. I could be concerned to the point that the pre-developed people might turn out to be another Hannibal Lechter, however.

Those who would force that mission on others can clearly decide for themself to be concerned about pre-developed people and not have an abortion.

To keep harping on this, using language that is absurd, is immoral.

It is immoral to force women to hand over the control of their body to someone who thinks it belogs to them and not the woman.

It is immoral , to attempt to remove a woman's right to live her life as she alone determines is the best for her.

It is immoral to use guilt laden techniques based on someone else's religious beliefs, to do so.

It is immoral because it opens the door toward inflicting other abuses of women's rights.

IT is immoral to claim general ownership of something that is being stolen from a woman, ie the right to her own decisions re her own life.

[AP]

11. Imagine the choices women would make if poverty/joblessness/the tremendous

expense of raising a child were not a consequence of pregnancy?

I think it's OK to have a subclass of democrats who say that they wish to change reality for those women -- that they're motivated by a desire to see fewer abortions and want to remove these considerations from the calculus women have to go through today when deciding how to exercise their reproductive choices.

[Malva Zebrina]

16. I disagee

It is not OK for anyone to interfere with a woman's body and her choices re her own health and life.

Under no circumstances can your argument be defended other than those who use it are falling back on the unmitigated arrogance that it is for her own good,her soul, or that it for the good of a "developing people" that lies within a body not their own. She and only she has the right to her own health.

To force her to do otherwise is immoral.

No one should presume ownership, either by religious fiat or sheer arrogance, of the that body that would force her to go through nine months of a prenancy when she does not want it for her own reasons.

[AP]

33. I'm not saying that it would be OK for Democrats to make it harder...

...to get an A. I'm saying that I can see a very important place in the Dem party for, for example, Catholic democrats who believe A. is wrong (but would never legislate to outlaw A), but do everything they can to make sure that having children is never a burden on women -- ie, they say that it's important to provide maternity leave, an economy that creates jobs, etc., so that people never take into those considerations when deciding to have children.

Not being excited about abortion can be a good motivation for progressive values too. You can want to make peoples lives better so that they don't chose abortion.

[Karenina]

12. REALITY

is that Democrats WILL NOT WIN SHIT as long as Rethugs OWN the machines and control the counting of votes. EVERY OTHER ISSUE is a distraction.

[Mandate My Ass]

13. I agree that the issues are secondary to the voting machines

but I also see a movement inside the party at the national
level to keep conceding an issue here and an issue there to
win. The movement to the so-called "center" is really only
movement rightward. The right is also moving rightward so
to be a centrist now you have to be a republican in all but
one or two issues.

The new wedge issue is not so much choice or no choice,
it's choice or lose a seat at the table. So we put an anti-
choicer in the seat and guess what? We've lost anyway. Once
our rights are relinquished, nobody is going to come
along and give them back. They never came from above anyway,
they came from we the people fighting tooth and nail for it
and demanding it. That won't happen again either, not
anymore.

The two parties are becoming almost indistinguishable.
there are enough dems crossing the aisle on things like
choice and bankruptcy that winning a few seats here and
there with centrists won't accomplish putting the brakes
on Bush's radical agenda and it will only serve a very tiny
portion of the traditional democratic base and then only
when it is politically risk-free.

[madfloridian]

15. Yet they don't put an unjust war on the table...Bush walks.

They do need to pick battles, but women should not be one of those battles.

An unjust war involving torture and destruction of huge cities should be on the table.

Not women.

[formernaderite]

37. This crap will turn around and bite them in the ass....

...it kind of reminds me of the Clinton days. I remember when he signed into law, legislation for sexual harassment that made it okay to look into someones past and outside behavior on claims. It all felt too Orwellian to me, of course the democrats were celebrating.

Until Clinton got zapped, and everyone started asking "why" were they looking into his other relationships and past relationships...moan, moan....how unfair this was.

It would be helpful if the democrats would show a consistent belief in something at this point.

[formernaderite]

38. I should have added....

what pissed me off at the time, regardless of the merit of the charges was how the dems kept the womens groups in tow. Not a peep, on whether this bad law was justified...then again they made them shut up about sexual harassment too.