Questioning and wondering is good for our democracy. I question Daschle on women's rights.

[madfloridian]

I am a little surprised at the "get on board" and "fall in line" stuff from a bunch of activist Democrats.

I want to make it clear that I do wonder about some of the choices, and some of the obvious omissions. I don't see anything wrong with that at all.

One example:

The new HHS Secretary, Tom Daschle, has views about women's right that disturb me. The general consensus is that he is pro-choice, but that does not seem to be so in the past.

Here is a video posted on You Tube last year. The best he can do about abortion rights is to say that a woman should not be put in jail for having one. Not a word about it being a private decision.

Daschle says a woman should not be sent to jail for having an abortion.

On EDIT: if that video link does not work try this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SExqRZ1x_LY

But more than that bothers me. About 10 years ago he introduced a bill to ban late term abortions that was far more to the right than the GOP bills at the time. They did not protect the health of the woman in many ways.

Women's choice advocates need to be aware of the Daschle Abortion Bill 1997

NOW Executive Vice President Kim Gandy said today that abortion ban legislation prepared by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., is a politically expedient compromise that seriously imperils women's lives and health and expands government intrusion into private medical matters.

"We believe the Daschle approach is unconstitutional, as is the Republican ban that denies a woman the right to an abortion to preserve her health -- a right that Roe v. Wade and other cases have consistently protected," Gandy said.

"Daschle's so-called compromise bill, as quoted in the New York Times, permits an exception to the ban for `a severely debilitating disease or impairment specifically caused by the pregnancy (emphasis added),' but makes no provision for a pre-existing, life- and health-threatening `debilitating disease or impairment' that is being exacerbated by the pregnancy. This could include kidney disease, severe hypertension and some cancers. Nor does the Daschle bill allow for an abortion in cases of severe fetal abnormality where it is unlikely the fetus would live long outside the womb, even with technological support.

"The physician certification requirement and the potential loss of a medical license in the Daschle language invites government scrutiny of private medical matters and threatens doctor-patient confidentiality. The intent of this and other abortion ban bills is to control women and to limit their ability to make critical reproductive decisions that affect their families, their health and their lives. These bills represent the ultimate in Congressional arrogance," Gandy charged.

More on that topic. Daschle bragged on PBS that the Democrats would ban all abortions, but that the GOP would just ban certain procedures. Note that Bill Clinton endorsed his bill.

SENATOR SPENCER ABRAHAM, (R) Michigan: We should be able to end this process, and we should be able to end it in the context of this legislation, which provides, I think, protections for the life of the mother in sufficient fashion to meet whatever standards society might demand.

KWAME HOLMAN: A Democratic amendment was briefly considered and rejected, giving way to the major alternative of the abortion debate. The bill by Minority Leader Tom Daschle has attracted support of Republicans and yesterday the endorsement of President Clinton.

SENATOR TOM DASCHLE, Minority Leader: That is really the fundamental difference between the two pending bills. We ban abortion; they ban a procedure. They allow all the other abortive procedures available--dilation and evacuation, induction, hysterotomies, hysterectomies--those are still legally available. What we ban are all of those procedures--all of them.

Why should I not question? Is there something wrong with going into uncomfortable issues now all of a sudden?

Obama has every right to choose whomever he wants in his cabinet and in his confidence. I have every right to point out my concerns.

He won't need us for another 4 years anyway, so why worry what I think? Why all the posts warning about criticizing his picks? We have no say anyway.

I do want to point out the women's choice views of someone else who was mentioned in regard to this position. We don't know if he wanted it, but in the conference with blogosphere he warned against speculation.

Still, here are the views he holds on a woman's right to make her own medical choices.

Individual freedom should apply to abortion decision
"I believe that the issue of abortion is a medical rather than a political
decision. I don't see how a government regulation that tells doctors how to
practice medicine can be supported. Republicans claim that they are the
party of individual freedom, but they are the first to tell other people how
to live their lives."
Source: Winning Back America, by Howard Dean, p.142-3 Dec 3, 2003


Q: Where do you stand on the partial birth abortion ban?
A: "In the four years between 1996 & 2000 there were no late term abortions
performed in my state. Late term abortions are very rare and should never be
used except to save the life or health of the mother. I just don't think the
government ought to be making personal medical decisions for Americans. No
respectable physician would ever do a late term abortion except for the most
serious reasons. That is why I did not support the President's bill"
Source: Concord Monitor / WashingtonPost.com on-line Q&A Nov 6, 2003

"As a physician, I do not like the idea that Congress or the President think
they should practice medicine. Abortion is a deeply personal decision which
ought to be made between the patient, the family and physician. It's none of
the government's business."

Source: Campaign web site, DeanForAmerica.com, "On the Issues" Nov 30, 2002

"The notion of "partial birth abortion" is nonsense. This is a rare procedure
used only to save the life or health of the mother. We have had no third
trimester abortions in Vermont in the past four years."
Source: Campaign web site, DeanForAmerica.com, "On the Issues" Nov 30, 2002

Most of these quotes are from a book...Citizen's Guide, written by mostly
reporters and folks who watched his VT politics.

We griped about Bush's appointments to positions like this that have control over women's lives. We should be willing to ask the hard questions about such appointments now.

[BlooInBloo]

1. HE'S NOT PRESIDENT YET.

And besides, we're really nazis.

[cali]

24. whine on, sister, whine on.

you're the queen of whine.

[BlooInBloo]

I am? (blush) Golly!

[cali]

61. oopsies.

That was for the OP, but you know that.

[BlooInBloo]

65. Sigh. The lord giveth, the lord taketh away.... :(

[Two Americas]

124. ad hominem attack

Calling the OP names is an ad hominem attack. That has a chilling a suppressive effect on freedom of speech, and no legitimate place in a free and open discussion.

[Two Americas]

121. so what?

Wealthy and powerful people, insiders and big money people are not waiting or holding back, and are trying to be heard and gain influence over the new administration now.

It seems that there are an endless number of excuses for demanding that dissent be squelched and that people shut up and get in line. That is authoritarian and suppressive, no matter the excuse being used to justify it.

[GarbagemanLB]

2. If there has been one thing this entire campaign has shown, it is that Obama has excellent judgement

Questioning certain picks is fine, but there are a bunch of people on here who seem to recoil at the mere mention of 'Clinton' when a name is brought up.

i.e. 'the person Obama is interested in worked for the *gasp* Clinton administration! How is this change?!?!?'

[madfloridian]

4. No, the ridicule has been across the board at ANYONE who raises questions.

That is a problem.

[GarbagemanLB]

7. You can't argue that a big criticism of almost all these picks is that they have ties to the Clinton

administration.

Between that and this Hillary Clinton as S.O.S. whining, it is getting ridiculous and I can see why some people are annoyed.

[madfloridian]

15. What do you think about Daschle and women's rights?

Or is that not important?

[Jim Sagle]

90. True, but it has zip to do with this thread.

[Mithreal]

93. That's a strawman argument. Stick to the op. nt

[Two Americas]

120. not true

That is just not the case. There are many people being accused of disloyalty, and God know what else, who don't care one way or another about "the Clintons" and whatever that means to people.

[pokercat999]

91. Exactly, will Nance Greggs please step foward? nt

[LostinVA]

3. I do, too (Daschle on women's rights)

I also think he was a bit spineless in his leadership.

[Thrill]

6. Being a weak leader in the Senate has nothing to do with being HHS

He's in the executive branch now.

And Obama is strong on Womens Rights. And Daschle can only push OBAMA's agenda.

[LostinVA]

10. Being a weak leader has EVERYTHING to do with him being in a Cabinet position

[Thrill]

34. I think this is a totally different situation. In the Senate he had to answer

to the people of South Dakota. He couldn't be hardcore partisan coming from a state like that. Much different situation working in the executive branch

[LostinVA]

37. It's still a leadership and top admin position, so it worries me

It's a legit worry, and I'm allowed that.

[Thrill]

50. You can worry. Thats fine. But Dashcle only answers to Obama

And will push the Presidents Agenda

[Mithreal]

94. An argument for not having any Congressional Dem leadership

come from red states. Although I do hate the red/blue state idea. It's also an excuse.

[madfloridian]

12. Of course being a weak leader is pertinent. The choice of Daschle...

shows a sense of agreement with his policies.

[defendandprotect]

99. When you look at what's happening it's the other way around ...

"Obama's agenda" gives way to those surroub=nding him --

[bunnies]

5. No.

This forum ridicules those that have unrealistic and/or illogical 'expectations' of President Elect Obama.
This forum ridicules those who act like he promised to clone Dennis Kucinich and appoint him to every possible position.
This forum ridicules those who, without even giving the Obama Administration a single day to be in charge, are already treating him as if he's George W. Bush.
This forum ridicules those who go around griping about the lack of change, while ignoring the changes that are already set in motion.

And on.. and on.. and on..

"Those" are not questioning whats good for our Democracy. "Those" are willfully ignorant shit-stirring haters.


on edit: I see you edited the "this forum ridicules" part. Interesting. I'll leave my response as is anyway.

[madfloridian]

8. No, this forum is squelching discussion.

.

[bunnies]

11. Where? Where is discussion being squelched?

Where is the DU squelching mob going to peoples houses taking their keyboards away? Where?

[madfloridian]

14. Have you read the subject lines in GDP much lately?

Objectively?

[bunnies]

17. Yes, I have. And I see it going both ways.

There are people with legitimate arguments, and then there are people who behave like freepers. Telling a freeper type to STFU is not squelching discussion.

Logical conversations can not be had with people who blame Obama for not being who they 'thought' they voted for. Just like logical conversations can not be had with those who inherently hate all things Clinton.

It does no good. Nothing is *ever* wrong with intelligent conversation or debate, dont get me wrong. Its the people who have not been paying attention at all that get others all riled up.

[madfloridian]

41. So is my post okay? Is it intelligent enough? Is it logically written?

If so, why is it being slammed so much?

Is it the issue?

[LostinVA]

47. No, your OP is fine

[bunnies]

58. Your OP is fine, imho.

Guess I can only speak for myself. I dont understand the resistance to legitimate issues.

[Two Americas]

125. you are doing us all a great service

Day after day, in the face of unbelievable hostility and relentless personal attacks, you soldier on doing the research, presenting it in a powerful and comprehensible way, and fearlessly and honestly telling the truth as you see it.

You are an inspiration and a stellar example for all of us of what it means to be a free citizen engaged in the difficult and essential work of self-government.

[Two Americas]

123. this surprises me

One would think that everyone here would be well familiar with the exact tactics being used to suppress freedom of speech here, since those same tactics have been used by the right wingers to suppress all of us for years now.

Calling people "whiners" and on and on - we all know all of the smears - is a common and very effective tactic that is used to discredit and intimidate dissenters, and to try to deny them a fair hearing.

Fox news says "sure you would say that, you are a liberal and you hate America."

A few people here are saying "sure you would say that, you are a (whiner, hand wringer, purist, malcontent), and you hate Obama."

What is the difference?

[Two Americas]

122. amen

Keep speaking out madfloridian. There is a very small, but aggressive and domineering faction, pulling out all of the stops to intimidate and suppress free speech. The majority of people here support you and appreciate your efforts.

[GarbagemanLB]

9. Thank you!

[LostinVA]

13. H8er

[bunnies]

19. Dont make me come over there - you!

:rofl: :loveya:

[LostinVA]

21. Just stay there in Hillaryworld

hehehehehehehe

[bunnies]

38. Whatever, cultist.

Hows that hope flavored kool-aide treatin ya? :rofl:

[LostinVA]

39. Dude, being an Obamatron has made my year

hehehehehehehhe -- look downthread.

[bunnies]

59. Kinda reminds of that movie "Freaky Friday".

hehehe.

Oh and btw - when will you *EVER* stop bashing teh dems?! HUH!

[LostinVA]

60. I know -- it cracks me up (this and the movie)

You forgot to call me a "Dem" bashing Dems. Because we know how I bash them Dems.

I may have to buy a "Palin in 2012" t-shirt. :eyes:

[bunnies]

70. You definitely should!

I'm wearin my Hillary 2012 t-shirt as we speak! Try as I might, I just cant stop the shillin!

[LostinVA]

73. How's your PUMA board doing = still moderating there?

:rofl:

[bunnies]

75. Ignore us at your PERIL!!!

bwwahahahahaha!

[LostinVA]

79. Yeah, how did that vote-stealing scheme work for ya?

:eyes:

[Mithreal]

96. Unrealistic? Ok, I concede, please feel free to point out to all

dreamers who listened to PE Obama when he said we have not focused enough on the way things should be that we are all "willfully ignorant shit-stirring haters".

I profess no tolerance for trolls, however, troll treatment for simply questioning or disagreeing with the PE is insanity.

On edit, I read some of the other responses, seems you do not have a problem with the op, so ok.

[Renegade08]

16. You're smearing Tom Daschle. Stop it with the republican rovian tactics.

Your quotes seem to suggest that Daschle wants to ban all abortions. Your rovian like cutting and pasting, however, conveniently omits the important fact that the bill was dealing only with PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS, not abortions in general.

Questioning and wondering - good for democracy.

Distorting, smearing, deceiving - not good for democracy.

[LostinVA]

18. Good God -- are you STILL here???

:eyes:

Oh, there is no such thing as "partial birth aborions." It is an anti-choice, RW codeword. IT DOESN'T EXIST.

[Renegade08]

22. LostinVA, get over it. The primaries are over. Hillary lost.

[LostinVA]

23. I am over it, my little apple-cheeked Pookiekinspoo

And, what does Senator Clinton have to do with this thread???

OOPS!

[Renegade08]

27. Everything, of course. If Clinton had won, my guess is you and others

would be bashing anyone who'd be reasonably critical of her and her picks.

[LostinVA]

29. I am bashing no one, but I can understand how you're projecting

Time and alot of work can cure that.

:apls:

Do you like to play Uno?

[Renegade08]

36. Usually the first one to accuse the other of projecting is projecting.

Carl Jung's rule of psychological warfare #43.

[LostinVA]

42. You forgot to mention Hillary in that post -- there's plenty of time to edit

Hurry now, like a little rabbit.

[Renegade08]

32. And you're the one who wrote about wanting to live in hillaryland forever

and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever . . .

Hillaryland Forever - sounds like the title for a great fantasy story.

[LostinVA]

35. That's not me, that's Bunnies -- my humor-impaired Punkin

[Renegade08]

44. Punkin? I bet you say that to every brilliant, principled pot-stirring blogger

who stands up to "democrats" who bash democrats for no really good reason.

[LostinVA]

46. I'm not a Dem -- I'm a DSA -- and I don't see anyone blogging

[Renegade08]

54. DSA? You seem more like a Mackinnon-Trotskyite.

With an admittedly disarming sense of humor.

[Shakespeare]

63. You know an awful lot about LostinVA for someone who signed up a week ago.

[Renegade08]

25. partial birth aborions?? Are they an alien race from the planet Aborion?

Call it whatever you want, the OP is a misleading smear of Daschle's record. That bill was dealing only with one narrow kind of late term abortions. The Rovian-like OP fails to note that point in trying to paint Daschle as anti-choice.

[LostinVA]

30. Silly little sillykins -- no one is buying it

:pals:

And, trying to mock someone about their typos whilst eating yogurt is just even more pathetic and silly.

:pals:

[suzie]

92. The bill was also likely to be vetoed, which Daschle knew.

He also knew there were not enough votes to override the veto.

Seems like Daschle was trying to get reelected from a state which has tried twice to pass Draconian abortion laws.

However, it seems that was a bad thing.

Daschle didn't get re-elected and the Senate passed into Republican hands. Which allowed a number of federal judges with decidedly anti-woman, anti-abortion, anti-contraception mindsets to be appointed to office for life.

But, according to the OP, perhaps that was a good thing.

[Skwmom]

20. If that's a critical issue for you, why don't you focus on his SC appointments?

[madfloridian]

28. I don't have a say in them either. It doesn't bother you?

Yes, women's rights are critical to me.

[LostinVA]

31. Don't bother with this one, MF

[Vattel]

26. I agree

with your criticism of those who seem to demand that we all just fall in line. I much prefer Obama's position on late term abortion to Dean's if Dean doesn't think that late term abortions should be regulated. Dean is right that "no respectable physician would ever do a late term abortion except for the most serious reasons," but laws are needed to control physicians that are not respectable.

[ErinBerin84]

33. interesting.....

[madfloridian]

45. Now that I posted it...most of DU's GDP are now anti-abortion

It's amazing. Or maybe just anti the abortion needed late term for a woman's health?

[LostinVA]

51. I also love the use of RW/anti choice buzzwords like "partial birth abortions"

Don't worry about it.

[Mithreal]

97. That's the key point. It's a RW talking point.

Anyone who uses them is either one of them or is ignorant of the damage using them causes.

Unfortunately I have been ignorant, I am sure I will be again.

If a person really is a Dem then I guess pointing this out should be good enough and he or she should go do the homework.

Do you know if there is a site that has all the rightwing talking points explained clearly? I can think of several that come close to doing a decent job, but would be nice just to link to it when self-identified Dems accidentally or suspiciously parrot RW talking points.

[Honeycombe8]

40. Why does it matter what his views on that are? All that matters is whether abortions will be funded

in the new healthcare legislation.

I am uncomfortable with some of the thinking around here that insists not only that public servants must have a certain position on a certain issue, but they must "think" the "right way." It doesn't matter whether a politician believes one way or another. Personal beliefs are just that: personal. All that matters is that the politician recognizes the legalities that exist and the reality that others are also entitled to their personal beliefs, even if different from the politician's.

Reasonable people can differ on abortion rights. A person can personally be against abortion, but recognize that it is something that many others favor a choice in, and that it is legal.

[madfloridian]

43. Yes, reasonable people differ on everything.

That is why I wrote a reasonable post.

[Moonwalk]

117. I'm a little mystified, MF, by the way you seem to respond to posts....

I haven't been on this forum long, but I keep seeing this pattern. You say, "Everyone will pick on me, but here's what I think!" Then you post your criticism, not seeming to notice that you've made it personal. That is, you've included an assertion that you're this lone Cassandra warning us of dire things, and that those who disagree with you are really trying to shut you up. This makes your op's look like you set things up in order to play the martyr. Like you want people to say to you, "How brave and wise you are MF! Thank you from saving us from ourselves!" And, in turn, make any who disagree with you--reasonably or not--look like they're persecuting you.

It seems to me that you define yourself to victory every time on this score. You insist that your posts are reasonable, as if you, alone, have the right to define them as such. Likewise, you seem to think you can define those who disagree with you as unreasonable. Hence, you always are on the side of the angels. This doesn't seem reasonable to me. A reasonable discussion doesn't assume that everyone who disagrees with you is trying to shut you up, or is blind, or isn't on your side.

So let me be clear. You did not write a reasonable post. You wrote a somewhat reasonable post. It's somewhat because it's conclusion is a slippery slope argument. Which is a logical fallacy. We can agree that this guy's record is less than stellar on abortion rights. However, that doesn't prove he will do terrible things to abortion rights when he's in charge. After all, LBJ's record prior to becoming president would have made anyone in the Civil Rights movement think the man would oppose equal rights for blacks, yet he pushed bills for that through with a vengeance. So, if the record isn't totally anti-abortion, and if the man isn't a bible-thumper, why should reasonable people agree with your leap that this appointment is going to lead to dire consequences? I, and other reasonable people, need more evidence to make that leap. We need to know why you think he has an anti-abortion agenda now (as compared to in the past), what evidence you have, currently, that he will undermine Obama's pro-choice agenda (and to what degree), and why you think Obama will let him do this (that means evidence that Obama lets his subordinates run rough-shod over his goals). Without these, it is unreasonable for us to blindly agree with you on all points, however reasonably you think you put them.

We can agree that he's not our favorite choice and that, if you or I were we president-elect someone else would be our choice. But is the sky really falling? I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that question. Why do you see this past record as leading to something dire and terrible?

[Two Americas]

126. respond to the message

Speculating on the motives or mind set of the messenger, rather than responding to the message, is the exact reason why someone miught say "everyone will pick on me." I agree with her - she is under relentless attack.

The OP claims that her post is reasonable. Nothing wrong with that. I agree with her.

Just because someone criticizes one thing, that does not mean they are claiming that "the sky is falling." Making exaggerated and derogatory characterizations of someone else's opinion is a way to ridicule it and to encourage other readers to dismiss it.

The OP is not, and never does, demand that anyone "blindly agree with her on all points." That is yet another way to unfairly and dishonestly discredit the OP and her message.

Suggesting that anyone who criticizes anything is therefore being a perfectionist or a purist is another suppressive tactic.

[LostinVA]

53. I think Federal-level Dems should be pro choice -- period

[Renegade08]

56. Daschle is pro-choice.

[madfloridian]

57. Could you provide some sources for that?

[Generator]

72. Well this is a fun one, and another positive review from NARAL

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=30650

A Pro-Life Nightmare: Daschle Appointed as the new Secretary of Health and Human Services
By Randy Sly
11/20/2008
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

The appointment of Tom Daschle places a strong "pro-choice" leader at the helm of the agency that would oversee the possible Freedom of Choice Act.'

It wasn’t that many years ago that Tom Daschle was the pro-life movement’s worst congressional nightmare. Over the years, as a Senator and Senate Minority Leader, he constantly supported pro-choice legislation and initiatives.

In 1997, for example, Daschle proposed what he called a "compromise" regarding partial-birth abortion, banning the procedure while allowing exemptions for any woman who claimed mental or physical health reasons for having such a late-term procedure. Most saw this tactic as a smokescreen to guarantee the option to abort children by this grisly procedure akin to infanticide.



NARAL gives him the old 50/50 rating.

However, I found this quote:


http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/11/19/will-tom-daschle-be-the-secretary-health-and-human-services-repro-rights-community-wants

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, believes Daschle will be an effective representative for reproductive health access and rights issues in the White House, telling RH Reality Check, “Sen. Daschle will bring thoughtful progressive leadership to the Department of Health and Human Services. We appreciate his recent efforts to help defeat two abortion bans in South Dakota. We had a good working relationship with him during his tenure as Senate leader and look forward to continuing that relationship as he assumes this pivotal role in the Obama administration."


I would prefer DEAN too. But I think this kinda proves he's pro-choice.

[madfloridian]

77. Yep, guess he's pro-choice after all.

And that compromising bill in 1997 was just posturing for the right wing.

[madfloridian]

85. So back in 1997 what he and Clinton did....

was that what you call triangulation?

[Generator]

86. Yep

And I don't agree with it and I don't think Daschle is the best choice-we may have other reasons for him not being the best choice-but I don't think that him being not pro-choice is the the biggest concern.

[madfloridian]

88. I know what you mean, but the rights of two groups are being rather dismissed...

by our party, and have been for years. I don't know about CA's Prop 8, but I know that in FL Amendment 2 sailed through with not much Democratic opposition at all.

To know that Daschle and Clinton back in the 90s were using the rights of women as a political football is upsetting.

That's been the pattern now. And now we have more and more anti-gay rights and anti-choice Democrats in congress.

Anything can happen.

[Honeycombe8]

112. There is "pro-choice" politically, and "pro-life" personally. There's a difference.

There is a difference between CHOOSING one way personally, yet believing in having the CHOICE for EITHER available for everyone.

But believing in pro-life as a PERSONAL CHOICE does not mean that person wants to interfere with someone else's PERSONAL CHOICE.

Big difference. Mario Cuomo personally believed in pro-life, he explained once, but he was pro-choice civilly, believing that everyone had the right to make that decision for herself. That is what being pro-choice means.

[PVnRT]

48. The responses in this thread are not surprising

Instead of discussing the content of the post, we have a bunch of jackasses trying to change the discussion. This entire forum is going into the shitter fast.

[madfloridian]

52. Yes. It is scary what has happened in GDP

It is not quite as bad elsewhere, but getting there.

[Runcible Spoon]

118. don't forget the usual vapid little cheerleaders

I agree the intellectual and rhetorical quality of DU has been radically diluted, but people like you, Madfloridian and TwoAmericas keep me coming back for real discussion

[madfloridian]

49. We are all anti late term abortions now.

even for the health of the mother, because someone criticized Daschle.

You made my point. Exactly.

[Vattel]

62. I disagree with Daschle's 1997 bill

(assuming that it would have allowed no exceptions for the health of the pregnant woman). i also disagree with the idea that late term abortions should not be restricted at all. Wouldn't most DUers agree with that?

[madfloridian]

64. I think it would only come up in a very serious situation.

Late term is much more likely to be for serious health concerns of the mother and/or child. I think it is best left to the doctor and mother.

When the government steps in there is a criminalization issue to it. There should not be.

The right wing made a issue where there should not have been one.

[Vattel]

66. I guess the disagreement between us

comes down to how much faith one ought to have in the unregulated decisions of physicians.

[madfloridian]

67. Actually I don't think congress should play a role in the doctor's office

and personal decisions of life and death.

That puts a doctor and the patient in fear.

So we really do disagree.

[Vattel]

68. fair enough

[madfloridian]

55. That has to be record time for a video to go missing.

Wow.

[kid a]

69. he's no friend to the "pro-life" crowd

http://www.lifenews.com/nat4588.html

Here's their take:

"The last two years of Daschle's tenure depict the kind of pro-abortion voting record he maintained.

In March 2003, Daschle voted for a Senate resolution endorsing Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy and ushered in an era of nearly 50 million abortions. While Daschle voted for the national partial-birth abortion ban that the Supreme Court eventually upheld, he cast two votes on pro-abortion measures that would have weakened it to the point of being ineffective.

Daschle also supported making taxpayers fund abortions in a variety of circumstances, including funding groups that promote and perform abortions overseas and the performance of abortions at military base hospitals.

He also voted for an alternative to the Unborn Victims Bill, the measure that provides protection and justice for women and children like Laci and Conner Peterson who are victims of violence, that would have been far weaker. The measure Daschle backed would deny that the baby had suffered any injuries or death in such an attack.

Daschle's record was so poor that the National Right to Life Committee gave him only a 27 percent pro-life voting record from 2003-2004, a 0 percent record in 2001-2002, an 11 percent record in 1999-2000, and a 20 percent record from 1997-1998.
"

[madfloridian]

71. He tried to compromise so much with them...but it was never enough.

He only had a 50% rating from NARAL. I think he might have pro-choice tendencies, but he just kept on compromising.

You can only compromise so much with extremists.

[gmudem]

74. What does that have to do with him helping Obama pass healthcare legislation?

I honestly do not understand how that is related. Obama is strongly pro-choice, therefore we know his policies are going to be strongly pro-choice no matter what some of his cabinet secretaries believe. It is clear that Daschle was chosen for this job because of his knowledge of Senate rules and procedures, as well as the Senators themselves. This pick shows that Obama is completely serious about passing universal healthcare legislation. This is a great pick.

[babylonsister]

80. Not a thing. Thanks for noticing. Daschle will be/has been hired

to carry out Obama's policies. That doesn't matter to some people as long as they can create doubt or discontent. Same as it ever was.

[madfloridian]

81. That position has great power....may I quote Hillary's words on it.

The Bush administration is up to its old tricks again, quietly putting ideology before science and women's health. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is poised to put in place new barriers to accessing common forms of contraception like birth control pills, emergency contraception and IUDs by labeling them "abortion." These proposed regulations set to be released next week will allow healthcare providers to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it. We can't let them get away with this underhanded move to undermine women's health and that's why I am sounding the alarm.

These rules pose a serious threat to providers and uninsured and low-income Americans seeking care. They could prevent providers of federally-funded family planning services, like Medicaid and Title X, from guaranteeing their patients access to the full range of comprehensive family planning services. They'll also build significant barriers to counseling, education, contraception and preventive health services for those who need it most: low-income and uninsured women and men.

The regulations could even invalidate state laws that currently ensure access to contraception for many Americans. In fact, they describe New York and California's laws requiring prescription drug insurance plans to provide coverage for contraceptives as part of "the problem." These rules would even interfere with New York State law that ensures survivors of sexual assault and rape receive emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms.

We've seen this kind of ideologically driven move from the Bush administration before. Senator Patty Murray and I went toe to toe with the Bush administration to demand a decision on Plan B by the FDA. We won that fight and we need to win this one too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hillary-clinton/an-outrageous-attempt-by_b_114064.html

NOW...do I think Daschle would to that? Most likely not....but that position DOES have the power to do so.

[gmudem]

84. And assuming he doesn't want to get fired, he will do what Obama wants him to do

It's really that simple in my view.

[madfloridian]

89. It never hurts to look at the past a little.

He and Bill Clinton were playing gotcha games with the Republicans about women's rights. Their bill was tougher on women than the GOP bill. Why?

[izzybeans]

76. Interesting article on the Daschle amendment re: late-term abortions

it seems a lot of our heroes were getting there hands dirty in this.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/05/14/abortion/

[madfloridian]

108. Amazing article....thanks for posting it. Boxer spoke up for sure.

"Today, the president told Daschle he "would be supportive" of the compromise, according to White House spokesman Mike McCurry. "It is consistent with the president's view that abortion, post-viability, should be restricted," McCurry said.

Still, the outcome of the vote is not certain, and debate today was emotionally charged."

And Boxer:

"Countered California Democrat Barbara Boxer, "On the other side of this debate they are very good at getting votes. And they are very good at being politicians, but I don't think they are worth a wit in the gynecological operating room! I don't want them in that operating room, telling a doctor what procedure to use for my daughter, or my niece."

Meanwhile, critics on both sides of the issue are accusing Daschle of playing politics. Some foes of late-term abortion say his language might even increase the number of procedures."

I wish someone had the courage to post this article...looks like the audio is still there.

I am not brave enough to post anything else about it.

The winners are.......!!!

Those who call names and say demeaning things.

Karl Rove proved that's a winner, after all.

[Unsane]

78. Huh? Daschle practically IS a woman.

[Jennicut]

102. LOL!

Bob Casey is pro life, should he be kicked out of congress?

[madfloridian]

82. That is a hugely powerful position. I think Daschle will use it wisely. BUT

The rights of women can be undermined by the leadership there.

Quoting Hillary's own words on it about the Bush administration.

The Bush administration is up to its old tricks again, quietly putting ideology before science and women's health. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is poised to put in place new barriers to accessing common forms of contraception like birth control pills, emergency contraception and IUDs by labeling them "abortion." These proposed regulations set to be released next week will allow healthcare providers to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it. We can't let them get away with this underhanded move to undermine women's health and that's why I am sounding the alarm.

These rules pose a serious threat to providers and uninsured and low-income Americans seeking care. They could prevent providers of federally-funded family planning services, like Medicaid and Title X, from guaranteeing their patients access to the full range of comprehensive family planning services. They'll also build significant barriers to counseling, education, contraception and preventive health services for those who need it most: low-income and uninsured women and men.

The regulations could even invalidate state laws that currently ensure access to contraception for many Americans. In fact, they describe New York and California's laws requiring prescription drug insurance plans to provide coverage for contraceptives as part of "the problem." These rules would even interfere with New York State law that ensures survivors of sexual assault and rape receive emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms.

We've seen this kind of ideologically driven move from the Bush administration before. Senator Patty Murray and I went toe to toe with the Bush administration to demand a decision on Plan B by the FDA. We won that fight and we need to win this one too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hillary-clinton/an-outrageous-attempt-by_b_114064.html

NOW...do I think Daschle would to that? Most likely not....but that position DOES have the power to do so.

[JerseygirlCT]

83. That's definitely disturbing. nt

[madfloridian]

87. I agree.

He will use the post wisely, I imagine....but it shows that our Democratic leaders have been playing mind games with the GOP for years on women's rights. Like we are second class citizens.

Also our party should be the party that strongly stands up for the rights of gays, the leaders are not doing that either.

[JerseygirlCT]

104. I'll be very happy when neither of these things are acceptably

used as political footballs anymore.

Civil rights ought not to be up for grabs or up for gaming.

[AuntPatsy]

95. I really don 't understand the animosity you seem to get with every op of yours,

If anything your ops should aid in inspiring some good intelligent debates that no longer seem to take precedent with far too many Dur's, honestly I cannot help but wonder just how many are signed up on this site just to cause disention....its very sad...and your point is good as are some of the replies both for and against...the real sad part is when someone just comes on your thread to simply attempt sarcasm that has in the long run so little value for any of us here attempting to sort it all out....

And though I for one personally am giving President Elect Obama time to prove his merits I honestly do not see the harm in discussing his actions of late, what bothers me most though is when people use the media as proof that their claims are valid when the media has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that their word just cannot be trusted period without further study in other avenues for factual data...

[madfloridian]

106. It is being done because they can.

And there is nothing I can do about it.

It is a way of making sure Dean's name is not mentioned at DU.

I understand that I have to accept it or not post.

[madfloridian]

109. Oh, and some of it is organized...

elsewhere.

I know it but can do nothing.

[AuntPatsy]

115. I still don't understand the reasoning for keeping quiet about Dean?

[madfloridian]

116. Me either.

Something is going on. I have a post ready for tomorrow about all the "leaks" from the inner circle about him even though he has stepped down and is remaining quiet.

I don't know yet.

[Uzybone]

98. Keep questioning and cherry picking quotes

I don't question Obama on womens rights and he is the boss.

Daschle hasnt even been scheduled for confirmation hearings yet. He will clear up all this rubbish at that point.

I think its ridiculous to say that since Daschle made a stupid comment 11 years ago, that means Obama is wishy washy on womens health issues.

[madfloridian]

107. It was not a comment. He proposed a bill. It was not ok.

Everyone says he has changed his mind now.

That's good.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

110. Hey look. OB is ridiculing again.

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

101. Main thrust is let's have OPEN discussion and not suppression ...

because some censors here mistakenly think it helps Democratic Party --

Again -- it is small "d" democracy we need to protect and human rights so

let's stop wasting timem--

But I don't see an ERA coming from Daschle --

and is he also DLC ...????

[Bushies gotta go]

103. dang

is there ANYTHING that Obama can do to make you happy? Maybe call you first and check in with your feelings?

[ellyguster]

105. Thank you for the original post

and the other links provided about Daschle's record on reproductive rights.

[madfloridian]

111. izzybeans posted a CNN article from 1997...Daschle would have banned all abortion.

We do need to remember things like this.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/05/14/abortion/

"President Bill Clinton indicated today he would support a ban on late-term abortions if Congress accepts legislation offered by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle.

The president last spring vetoed a more restrictive ban on a specific procedure doctors call an "intact dilation and extraction," which critics call "partial-birth" abortion. That bill contained an exception to save the life of the mother.

Senators today began debating an identical measure, which the House passed March 20 and the president indicated he would veto again.

Enter South Dakota Democrat Daschle. He plans to offer an amendment that would ban all forms of abortion, including the so-called "partial-birth" procedure, on fetuses that are viable outside the mother's womb. In addition to saving the life of the mother, Daschle would provide another crucial exception to prevent "grievous injury" to the mother's physical health."

Barbara Boxer spoke up:

"Countered California Democrat Barbara Boxer, "On the other side of this debate they are very good at getting votes. And they are very good at being politicians, but I don't think they are worth a wit in the gynecological operating room! I don't want them in that operating room, telling a doctor what procedure to use for my daughter, or my niece."

She is right, they were playing political games with womens' rights.

[puebloknot]

113. I agree. Being *worshipful* of Obama, discussing "What Obama Wants" ...

... is getting me where I live.

Let us not forget that soon-to-be President Obama is ultimately, constitutionally the servant of The People. Our input should not stop once we cast a vote.

High civilizations like Germany, Italy, and Japan lost their way in the 1930s and '40s because they were followers. They got on board and mocked dissenting voices, much as there is a mocking tone to some of the posts regarding Obama's choices for his cabinet. While none of can have direct input to those choices, we can and should continue to express our concerns about the people he is choosing and what their record has been, what it might be in the future. DU is a good place to start, to share views.

Therefore, though I'm too late to officialy RECOMMEND, I recommend this post highly.

I recall this same sort of admonition, once we gained the majority in 2006, to chill out over the holidays and trust Pelosi and Reid. Those of us expressing concern were hit with messages of the sort we are seeing now, suggesting that we were having childish temper tantrums because we were not getting our way. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!

In many ways, I am thrilled to have Obama at the helm. He is articulate and intelligent, he has a sense of humor, he speaks to the problems we are faced with with solemnity. Nevertheless, he did not attain his high office without some strings attached, and we need to start right now, and keep on into the future, letting the Powers that Be in Washington know that we will remember what they have done when we vote again in two years, four years ...

[madfloridian]

114. Thank you for a sensible response.

Yes, the same thing happened in 2006.

The progressives are sort of holding back a little now, but they are getting restless.

In his conference call to bloggers Dean sort of asked that they not put him on the spot so to speak by mentioning cabinet posts by name.

He is going to have decisions to make. It is pretty obvious that his name has not been mentioned by Democrats since the election. He needs not to alienate the grassroots...even if he goes into a private position.

I am getting some stuff together as are many others...but the administration won't need us again for at least 4 years. Maybe 2 for some states.

We got Obama elected, now the boards are filled with monitors making sure we do not speak up.

[Runcible Spoon]

119. what I don't get is the people celebrating MLK in one breath...

and then shitting on "idealists" with this whole "purist" meme and celebrating Obama as a "pragmatist". Logical inconsistency much?

[puebloknot]

127. Logical inconsistency much, indeed! nt

[ProSense]

128. Bill Clinton wanted to ban abortions? Here is the PBS text

KWAME HOLMAN: Two years ago, the Senate joined the House in passing a ban of a particular kind of late-term abortion procedure. But a few months later, President Clinton vetoed the so-called partial birth abortion ban. He said such a procedure is the only alternative for some women with catastrophic pregnancies and is used only rarely.

SPOKESMAN: HR. 1122, an act to amend Title 18, United States Code, to ban partial birth abortions.

KWAME HOLMAN: Now, most Republican supporters of the ban--such as Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum--are back, armed with new reports suggesting thousands of such abortions are performed each year, rather than the hundreds previously estimated.

SENATOR RICK SANTORUM, (R) Pennsylvania: Those set of facts they now admit to are different than what they were saying before and different in material enough way that members who relied on that information last time, if they rely on a different set of facts this time can come to a different conclusion. That happened in the House of Representatives. Several members who voted against the partial birth abortion ban changed their positions in light of those--that new information supported the legislation and supported it in such--to such a degree that it passed with over 290 votes which is the necessary vote to override a presidential veto.

KWAME HOLMAN: The House did that in March. Santorum says it's time for the Senate to do the same.

SENATOR RICK SANTORUM: So now we have this little baby that's outside of the mother, and a doctor takes some scissors and jams it right here, right in the back--the base of the skull. And that soft baby skull--you know, those of you who've had children, how soft that--skull is. And they thrust the scissors into the base of the skull.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997 defines the procedure as partial delivery of a fetus before it is killed. That would be banned, except to save the woman's life. Physicians who perform such a procedure otherwise would be subject to a fine, up to two years in prison, or both.

SENATOR SPENCER ABRAHAM, (R) Michigan: We should be able to end this process, and we should be able to end it in the context of this legislation, which provides, I think, protections for the life of the mother in sufficient fashion to meet whatever standards society might demand.

KWAME HOLMAN: A Democratic amendment was briefly considered and rejected, giving way to the major alternative of the abortion debate. The bill by Minority Leader Tom Daschle has attracted support of Republicans and yesterday the endorsement of President Clinton.

SENATOR TOM DASCHLE, Minority Leader: That is really the fundamental difference between the two pending bills. We ban abortion; they ban a procedure. They allow all the other abortive procedures available--dilation and evacuation, induction, hysterotomies, hysterectomies--those are still legally available. What we ban are all of those procedures--all of them.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Daschle alternative would outlaw any abortion after a fetus can survive outside the womb, generally after six months. Such abortions would be legal only if the pregnancy threatened the woman's life or poses risk of grievous injury. Most Republicans, however, argue the Daschle ban amounts to no abortion ban at all.

SENATOR MIKE DeWINE, (R) Ohio: If we pass the Daschle amendment and require this concept of physician certification, that the pregnancy would risk grievous injury, I believe that clearly would render this bill meaningless. I think it's a moral dodge. I think it puts us to sleep. It's a way we can try to convince ourselves that it's okay; this amendment's okay, even though, in effect, we're tolerating something very, very bad. Give myself an additional 30 seconds, Mr. President. But Mr. President, we are not okay. We know what's going on behind the curtain, and we can't wish that knowledge away, however much we would like to. We have to face it and we have to do what's right. And that means passing this bill to ban this barbaric, inhuman, unconscionable practice. And, again, with respect my distinguished colleague, Minority Leader, it also means--it also means we must vote this amendment down.

KWAME HOLMAN: But Maine Republican Olympia Snowe, a co-sponsor of the Daschle bill, disagreed.

SENATOR OLYMPIA SNOWE, (R) Maine: To critics who say the Daschle language contains a loophole because it leaves it to the doctor to determine when a fetus is viable, well, I ask, who is in a better position than a doctor to determine this? Certainly not the federal government, certainly not the United States Senate. And I know that some would think they're omnipotent, but certainly not the U.S. House of Representatives, certainly not politicians to make this determination. This is a determination that should be made by the physician and the physician alone.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Senate is scheduled to vote on the Daschle alternative later tonight. Passage would set up a confrontation with the House, which overwhelmingly endorse the Republican abortion ban.

more