General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums...a Democratic U.S. House leader says party shouldn't shun abortion opponents
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/04/jim-clyburn-henry-cuellar-democrats-abortion-election/I disagree with him. I think there should be no place in our party for anti-choice lawmakers.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,750 posts)The Democratic party should welcome and embrace abortion opponents? How many of those abortion opponents have ever been pregnant? How many could possibly become pregnant in the future?
Oh, and do those abortion opponents also oppose the death penalty? Really? Why not? How about gun control? I guess life only needs to be protected before birth, but not after.
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)Do you want to win?
Voltaire2
(12,631 posts)People who want to take away our rights are my enemies.
Autumn
(44,765 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,576 posts)70% of the public support Roe v. Wade. We do not advance our cause by diluting the passion of our beliefs.
Polybius
(15,239 posts)I live in NY and saw several co-workers furious about the issue the other day, thinking that abortion will be banned. When I told them that it just means that states can choose to ban them and that they will remain legal here, they all pretty much said "whew, that's a sigh of relief!"
Once people realize that it's not gonna ban abortion nationwide, the percentage significantly drops.
niyad
(112,440 posts)hating gestational slavers intend, and have announced, that they intend to do at first opportunity. Then all forms of contraception. This leaked decision is only onevsalvo in their ongoing WAR ON WOMEN.
I'm simply talking about what a repeal of Roe would mean, not what they "could" ban next. If overturned, it would mean that states get to ban it, but they don't have to. I know Mitch said an abortion ban is possible.
ck4829
(34,977 posts)Vogon_Glory
(9,086 posts)As a political tactic, I dont think we ought to shun them. The Democratic Party is a grand coalition, after all.
On the other hand, I dont want them dictating policy to the rest of us. To that end, I think we need to elect enough pro-choice progressive Democrats so that their anti-choice views are irrelevant.
Tomconroy
(7,611 posts)Win elections.
Small tent. Same views: Lose elections.
I was saying the same thing about Nina Turner. Nobody in the party opposed her for having a different view, they opposed her for trying to tear down anybody in the party who had a view that differed from her own. Henry Cuellar has a D behind his name so I respect his point of view, but I believe he has a primary opponent, I don't know her name, who is a better fit, especially with all that's going on with the all-out assault against women's rights.
Emile
(21,916 posts)That's a bit of a stretch!
The issues should be about the needs of the American people...unlike Manchin who is only concerned with his wallet...or Sinema who loves to rub elbows with big business that mostly shit on a lot of her constituents...Cuellar who wants to deny women bodily autonomy!
This big tent has rats in it...
Tomconroy
(7,611 posts)How many federal judges would have been approved without them?
Tomconroy
(7,611 posts)without them?
empedocles
(15,751 posts)dutch777
(2,871 posts)As much as I support abortion rights, and many other progressive values, we have to keep getting Dems elected in places where that is a toss up not a sure thing. Being too hard and fast, given local sentiment on any given issue, will put us and keep us in the minority (along with gerrymandering and a host of other obstacles). Politics is a messy and less than pure business.
Voltaire2
(12,631 posts)ideological conformity.
Weve played this big tent game for 40 years and Im tired of all the winning.
Tomconroy
(7,611 posts)JI7
(89,182 posts)including anti choice democrats like Manchin which help us control Senate and get confirmation for judges .
Duncan Grant
(8,258 posts)JI7
(89,182 posts)Duncan Grant
(8,258 posts)I remember well all those democrats who were either silent or equivocators. I remember when democrats would never claim they gave gay people any kind of victory. I think its important to remember that.
JI7
(89,182 posts)is where progress was made on many issues and wouldn't have happened with republicans.
Duncan Grant
(8,258 posts)Democrats failed on LGBT issues time and time again. There were many opportunities to do the right thing. Eventually, with all the heavy lifting completed by LGBTQI+ people, it was politically safe to take a stand.
Thats the reality.
JI7
(89,182 posts)As we see in Florida.
It happened with Democrats.
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)100% correct.
msfiddlestix
(7,266 posts)Gay Women/Lesbians mostly voted for Dems, but I personally am acquainted with economically well off Lesbians who are actually Republican and also tend to vote Republican cuz tazes. Not informed as to their vote in 2016.
It was shocking to me at the time I learned this. And I've always been mystified by the so-called "Log Cabin" Republicans. But when I became personally familiar and discovered the wealth gap, and had to hear about their rationalizations as to their political proclivities, that was an eye opener.
niyad
(112,440 posts)Tomconroy
(7,611 posts)agingdem
(7,759 posts)We have "Democrat" Joe Manchin..blocked a senate bill to secure abortion rights/ruled out changing the filibuster to protect Roe v Wade ..but he's pro-choice.."Democrat" Krysten Sinema will not back a bill killing the filibuster to protect Roe v Wade, loses endorsement of NARAL but she's pro-choice...however, both doomed Build Back Better, are pro big business, voted no to a filibuster carve-out for the John Lewis Voting Rights Bill...so if the party includes Democratic abortion opponents but they support doing away with the filibuster, support voting rights, support Build Back Better...which is better or is it a draw?
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)But hes still the best we can get out of WV
agingdem
(7,759 posts)sadly, he owns us...
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)We don't really have the luxury of rejecting votes that agree with us on some issues and not others.
hamsterjill
(15,214 posts)There needs to be a concentrated effort to make him less interested in grandstanding and no, I dont give a damn what that takes.
Dont ask me to describe anything. But there are ways and we all know it.
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)So make a deal with the devil to get MAYBE a scrap. Yes, that's works out so well to this point yes? Just look at all this winning!!
tirebiter
(2,520 posts)Despite Henry Cuellar and whoever else is antiabortion for whatever reason.
Duppers
(28,094 posts)Response to Duppers (Reply #8)
jfz9580m This message was self-deleted by its author.
Duppers
(28,094 posts)Raine
(30,540 posts)verses a purist party like the Republicans, so we become more like them if we do that.
Voltaire2
(12,631 posts)So just maybe not the best strategy?
JI7
(89,182 posts)Tulsi Gabbard, and other fake "progressives" that attack democrats during election time to help republicans win.
Voltaire2
(12,631 posts)Im sure Gabbard would be thrilled to know she has such power over the electorate.
Just maybe there are other reasons why we are n this situation?
JI7
(89,182 posts)that support abortion rights.
We saw what happened in 2016 with Tuldi Gabbard lying about the DNC and helping push the attacks from Republicans and Russia.
Sympthsical
(8,936 posts)But I also mistake flowers for nails from time to time. They look so much alike.
mountain grammy
(26,573 posts)I hope Cisneros wins the primary.
gibraltar72
(7,486 posts)Slammer
(714 posts)There's not enough anti-abortion Democrats on Capitol Hill to fill a phone booth. So there's no reason to shun them or read them out of the party.
Now if they're reaching Manchin-levels of obstructionism and single-handedly blocking a Democrat administration's agenda, then you can argue that they're a problem.
By deliberately ostracizing such lawmakers over abortion, you're making it less likely that the (admittedly few) anti-abortion Democrats will come out to vote for you in the mid-terms. And you're making it less likely that the (admittedly many) anti-abortion Independents and Republicans will come out to vote for you in the mid-terms.
There's a lot of Independents and Republicans who are fed up by the Trumpists and who don't have their belief on the abortion issue at the top of their list of important issues.
Those people have winnable votes unless we deliberately go out of our way to make it clear that they have no place in voting for Democrat candidates.
Hell, I have family members who are against abortion but who are going to go out and vote a straight Democrat ticket. At least unless someone tells them to go away and get lost because their kind of people aren't wanted as Democrat voters.
BumRushDaShow
(127,330 posts)I remember back in 2010, there were at least 12 of them who along with Bart Stupak (remember him?) refused to vote for the ACA unless abortion access had some kind of restriction, which initially meant that the "Hyde Amendment" wasn't enough. There were actually 64 Democrats who voted for Stupak's "Amendment".
Rep. Stupak says he won't vote for bill if it contains Senate abortion language.
By HUMA KHAN
March 4, 2010, 6:40 AM
WASHINGTON, March 4, 2010 -- Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., today said he and 11 other House members will not vote for the health care bill unless it includes more stringent language to prevent federal funding from going toward abortion services. "We're not going to vote for this bill with that kind of language," Stupak told "Good Morning America's" George Stephanopoulos today, referring to the Senate health care bill, which includes less restrictive language than what the Democratic lawmaker proposed in the House.
Stupak said he is willing to take the criticism that will be hurled at him if he blocks the bill because of the abortion language, but that he won't back down on his principles. "I want to see health care pass. I agree... people are being priced out of the market. We must have health care but, boy, there are some principles and beliefs that some of us are not going to pass," he said. "We're prepared to take the responsibility. I mean, I've been catching it ever since last fall. Let's face it, I want to see health care. But we're not going to bypass some principles and beliefs that we feel strongly about."
The ongoing abortion debate threatens to stall the health care bill and reflects the deep divide among Democrats. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs today said the president would like to see the House pass the health care bill before he departs for his international trip on March 18, but that does include passing the "fixes" that the White House has proposed.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., today said that the bill makes no changes to the existing law on abortion.
"There is no change in the access to abortion, no more no less. It is abortion neutral," Pelosi told reporters. "If you believe that there should be no federal funding for abortion, and if you believe that there should be no change in policy... we will pass the bill." Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius told Stephanopoulos on "GMA" that the bill is not about abortion, but about changing the health care system to ease the burden on families and small businesses facing skyrocketing insurance premiums.
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/HealthCare/abortion-issue-derail-obama-democrats-health-care-efforts/story?id=10006591
By Chris Good
March 23, 2011
Former congressman Bart Stupak was the lynchpin of health reform's passage, and he paid a price for it in the end.
The pro-life, Michigan Democrat led a small but powerful bloc of Democratic lawmakers to oppose the bill because of its language on federal funding of abortions. Seemingly at the last minute, Stupak and the White House hammered out a compromise, his pro-life allies supported the bill, and it passed by a thin margin.
After that, Stupak received a death threat. Facing outside spending in his district and a vitriolic political climate, he decided not to run for reelection. Now, he's a visiting fellow at Harvard's Institute of Politics.
On health care reform's first birthday, Stupak told The Atlantic about getting "bitch[ed] out" by angry citizens in airports, how he and President Obama reached the deal that secured the bill's passage, and that Rahm Emanuel knows better than to get in his face.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/03/bart-stupak-a-year-after-health-care-getting-bitched-out-in-airports-how-the-deal-went-down-and-more/72938/
Per this, there were 6 others with him at the time of his announcement of finally agreeing to it (of that group, there is still one still in Congress - Marcy Kaptur) - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stupak-to-vote-yes-on-health-care-bill/
After he left congress, he was a huge supporter of Hobby Lobby (and their case).
There are still some in there and I hate to say. Below were some remaining post-ACA after trying to torpedo the ACA to forbid abortion services (bolded are still sitting members of Congress) -
Jim Cooper TN-05
Dan Lipinski IL-03
Stephen Lynch MA-08
Sanford Bishop GA-02
Jim Costa CA-16
Henry Cuellar TX-28
Jim Langevin RI-02
Tim Ryan OH-13
Richard Neal MA-01
Marcy Kaptur OH-09
Mike Doyle PA-14
(we know Tim Ryan just won the primary to run for Senate in OH)
And the one about to get a laser focus includes my own Senator, whose father was the defendant (as Governor) in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Granted, Bob Casey, Jr. is definitely NOT his father and has been much more moderate on the issue. But I know some of the local (and probably national) media have started to bubble about it...
He was one of two Dems who didnt join 48 other senators in co-sponsoring the Womens Health Protection Act.
Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in December 2021 Carolyn Kaster / AP Photo
Lizzy McLellan Ravitch
May. 03, 2022, 1:15 p.m.
Bob Casey is an outlier among his Democratic colleagues in the U.S. Senate. As a pro-life Democrat, he wants to limit the number of abortions that take place in the U.S. but he also doesnt approve of Republicans recent attempts to weaponize the issue. A draft of a U.S. Supreme Court decision leaked Monday night, indicating a likelihood that the justices will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Casey responded to the leaked opinion in a statement Tuesday afternoon.
If this draft opinion becomes the final opinion of the Court, I have serious concerns about what overturning almost 50 years of legal precedent will mean for women in states passing near or total bans on abortion, Casey said. Congress should be working to reduce the number of abortions and unintended pregnancies and doing much more to support women and families.
After the SCOTUS draft leaked, pro-choice advocates renewed calls for federal lawmakers to pass a law that would preserve abortion rights. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Womens Health Protection Act last fall. The Senate then voted in late February, but the act failed to get majority support.
Just two of the 50 sitting Democratic senators held back from co-sponsoring the bill. One was West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who ultimately joined Republicans (as he has on other issues) and voted against moving the act forward. The other holdout who declined to sponsor the bill was Casey, who has throughout his political career described himself as a pro-life Democrat. His father, former Pa. Gov. Bob Casey Sr., was famously pro-life.
https://billypenn.com/2022/05/03/bob-casey-abortion-senate-pro-life-democrat-scotus/
The entire thing above is just to make people aware because some of these people ARE getting pounded by some of their constituents now.
Emile
(21,916 posts)the democratic party platform?
AntivaxHunters
(3,234 posts)Novara
(5,755 posts)Jeebus, we never learn.
tavernier
(12,322 posts)I know many people who are personally opposed to abortion but adamant that they dont have the right to tell another woman what to do with her body or her beliefs.
JI7
(89,182 posts)by that I mean people that vote based on this issue. Many so called progressives don't think this issue is important enough to vote on as we saw with what happened in 2000 and then again in 2016 and many other elections.
Until we can get more people that vote based on the importance of choice we need anti choice people like Manchin who has voted with Democrats on most judges including SC which helps us protect this.
Duncan Grant
(8,258 posts)You should realize by now just how self-serving, unprincipled and spineless I really am or as I like to call it, pragmatism. Thank you for supporting me (and not you) calling the shots.
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)Paladin
(28,204 posts)It's worked out so well for us, so far.
JI7
(89,182 posts)Judges including SC Judges which decide these cases .
There are not enough pro choice people in the country for only pro choice people to make a difference.
Paladin
(28,204 posts)We're going to end up fighting in the streets against trump's goon forces, to save what remains of our democracy. That's where things stand at this point.
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)But chuckle when I hear "We need Manchin to keep control of the Senate." Anyone who thinks the DEMS currently control the Senate is delusional. Doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result.
JI7
(89,182 posts)Republican control of the Senate was why Garland never got a vote even though he would have been confirmed if a voter was allowed .
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Everything's just peachy, then. Good to hear.
JI7
(89,182 posts)is better than not getting one or Republicans getting one.
I know there are people that don't actually care about this issue though pretending to care .
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)For clarity, here's what I'm taking issue with:
"We control the senate"
Nominally, yes, we control the senate. But since we don't have enough votes to pass major legislation, we don't really control the Senate in practical terms.
BoomaofBandM
(1,766 posts)Mz Pip
(27,404 posts)Just as long as their anti-abortion beliefs just stay personal. Biden personally opposes abortion but believes women have the right to make their own decisions.
Being personally opposed to abortion is one thing. Voting for anti-abortion laws is another.
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,153 posts)surrounding George W. Bush as he signs the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Bill in 2003. He was an outstanding congressman except for that stance. I was happy to vote for him because every other position he held was solidly in line with mine, and his seniority gave his mostly rural district an outsized influence at capital investment time.
I don't see anti-abortion Democrats like that anymore, who are happy to increase social spending and public investment. I see anti-abortion Democrats who are Republican Lite on other stances as well. So if I'm against an anti-abortion Democrat, it's because they're against other things I believe in as well. I do not want them anywhere near the federal level or in state executive offices.
Mad_Machine76
(24,355 posts)FOWTS
Autumn
(44,765 posts)Very disappointed knowing what is happening to see a legend not standing with women and their rights.
hamsterjill
(15,214 posts)There should be NO Democrat unwilling to support choice. End of story.
aocommunalpunch
(4,223 posts)Not some random Dem House leader. He wants to back this anti-choice nonsense? Fine. Make him own it. He's not being subtle.
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)we shouldn't allow misogynists.
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)That story disappeared pretty quickly.
jalan48
(13,798 posts)AntivaxHunters
(3,234 posts)because I'm not sure my comments wouldn't get me in trouble.
It's not just Clyburn though. And I'm absolutely livid & pissed as hell.
niyad
(112,440 posts)defends, and demands full autonomy for women, the fact that we have Dems who do not support more than half the population makes me ill.