General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWill We Abandon Womens Rights in the Name of Progressive Politics?
To recap: On Wednesday, Sanders gave an interview in which he said that he didnt know if Jon Ossoff, the Democrat who the day before had earned more than 48 percent of the primary vote in a longtime Republican House district in Georgia, was a progressive. It was an odd move for a powerful left-wing politician on a tour to rejuvenate Democratic politics to fire a shot of ambivalence at a Democratic candidate in any tight race, but it felt especially egregious given that Ossoff was now facing Karen Handel, a virulently anti-choice Republican who was forced to leave the Susan G. Komen Foundation in 2012 after trying to sever the organizations ties with Planned Parenthood, and who actively supported voter-suppression efforts as Georgias secretary of State.
Sanderss definition of what constitutes a progressive became even murkier when he suggested that the election of Heath Mello, whos running for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska and who as a state senator sponsored a 20-week abortion ban and mandatory ultrasounds for women seeking abortions would represent a shot across the board, that in a state like Nebraska a progressive Democrat can win. Not to be outdone, Perez amplified the message that reproductive rights are negotiable for the Democratic Party. If you demand fealty on every single issue, Perez said, then its a challenge. The Democratic Party platform acknowledges that were pro-choice, but there are communities, like some in Kansas, where people have a different position.
Well, sure. There are also communities in Kansas where voters have different positions from Democrats on immigration reform, labor protections, climate change, voting rights, and health care, and it would be vexing and not at all progressive for post-2016 Democrats to alter their stances on any of those issues.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/04/bernie-sanders-and-tom-perez-must-not-abandon-womens-rights.html
shenmue
(38,506 posts)Raster
(20,998 posts)I am sick and tired of the endless personality and "purity" divisions and declarations on DU. FUCKING. SICK. OF. IT. I am so freakin' tired of these "lines in the sand."
HOWEVER, The line in the sand I will actively observe, the purity test I do believe in: NO COMPROMISE ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS. Absolutely NO COMPROMISE on a woman's right to choose and determine her own healthcare choices AND MOST IMPORTANTLY her reproductive freedom. From this there is no surrender. There is no negotiation. There is no compromise.
BadgerMom
(2,769 posts)hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)NO compromise.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)It should be repeated frequently
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Does talk about ladyparts make you uncomfortable?
Although it's flattering that you are following me around DU.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Then again these constant attempts to endlessly refight the primary by flooding the board with anti-Bernie threads don't make me uncomfortable either, just rather tired and disappointed that some Democrats can't see any more pressing issues in the country right now. Like for instance the party on the other side that would love nothing more than to crush women's rights to reproductive health care and set back decades of progressive hard work.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)As I see from so many " You see, it's not like it's an economic issue" posts here.
Rather tired and disappointed that some Democrats can't see that it's not simply a "social issue" or "identity politics" it's a health care issue.
And there is nothing more than the party on the other side would like to do than reduce it to a "morality" issue.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)You're not exposing some huge flaw in half the party, you're trying to misrepresent a large number of extremely good people to make a point no-one disagrees with in the first place.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)mercuryblues
(14,521 posts)that some believe the fight for women's rights and healthcare is Anti-Bernie.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)emulatorloo
(44,057 posts)Bernie primary supporter here. Bernie's a tough guy. He can handle criticism.
I find this endorsement of Mello to be pretty problematic. Bernie's human so he makes mistakes.
However apparently some people appear to believe Bernie's infallible. So they have to scramble and change their positions because Bernie has spoken.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)someone who you have fealty to, but there comes a time for critical thought, and not responding to clear, evidence based problems they have. Because as human beings, they're going to have them.
And that time is now.
Vesper
(229 posts)Bernie made a mistake, he revealed some unpleasant aspects to his singular focus on his own talking points, he doesn't seem to care so much about the issues that affect people in very real and immediate ways.
The fight against anti-choice right wingers is very real and is something we cannot let up on, the sheer volume of bills and the sheer amount of money that goes into promoting attacks on women doesn't allow for relaxing our "rigidity" on this issue.
I'm appalled that people don't seem to get this, and the lame arguments they're trying to use to spin this into something other than the grievous error by Bernie. I saw the backlash against Planned Parenthood when they endorsed his opponent, I guess some people were always more about Bernie himself and less about the actual policies and organizations that do the progressive work.
Someone also said that we should only deal with abortion AFTER laws are passed. WTF? I guess they don't understand what kinds of laws these are that are being pushed and why they need to be fought every step of the way. Otherwise we end up with 20 week bans, suffering women and families and dead women. Oh, and laws on the books that say that it's justifiable homicide to murder doctors, and make a miscarriage a death penalty eligible crime. We already have a number of women in jail for miscarriage, but I guess since no one bothers to report on it or talk about it, it doesn't matter.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And criticism of a figure can be seen as a criticism of the group that identifies with that figure, even when it's not.
Fealty is another term.
Vesper
(229 posts)niyad
(113,027 posts)moriah
(8,311 posts)... this one isn't the hill I'd die on.
Try the thread where Bernie was accused of defending Ann Coulter because he criticized people threatening violence to suppress speech they disagree with.
brer cat
(24,513 posts)refighting the primaries? You bring up the pressing issue that the party on the other side that would love to crust women's rights, but complain when we discuss that very same pressing issue when Bernie chooses to write it off as a distraction not worthy of his time or interest.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)But let's stop the games, this has nothing to do with sudden outrage at current events, it's nothing more than an ongoing campaign over the last few weeks to refight the primaries and flood this place with anti-Bernie stories. It didn't start with this story, and it's completely transparent.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Is that clearer?
brer cat
(24,513 posts)Women's reproductive rights are not a f'ing game. When Bernie speaks that is a current event which is open for discussion. If you want to mischaracterize what he says, fine, but you can't impose that on other people.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)The party has a long history of supporting candidates who are pro-life or fuzzy pro-choice. Be mad at the party for that strategy, or don't, but this selective outrage about one of our outreach leaders endorsing a Democrat (gosh!) is crazy.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Again, I would suggest that you contact the author, and explain to them why they are wrong.
You didn't just contact the author and explain how right you thought they were, you felt the need to come here and post yet another thread about it. That gives me the right to comment on it too.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Vesper
(229 posts)I keep asking for proof of candidates who sponsored anti-choice legislation, including abortion bans. No one seems to be willing to provide them.
It's not selective outrage, it's the selective purity in service of a guy whose legislative history is being deliberately ignored.
I keep bringing up the 20 week ban he sponsored and the telemedicine killing bills, but people keep answering with spin about ultrasounds, which when you look at the bill doesn't match the talking points.
So, please. Document this long history of the party supporting candidates that have sponsored extremist right wing anti-choice bills and why the people who thought pragmatism was a dirty word and were proud of the purity, are excusing this impure endorsement of a small time mayoral race in which a documented right wing extremist is running with a D next to his name.
I'm mad at anyone supporting people with this type of legislative history after stating that we must not be rigid about supporting women's rights as he attacks a man for not adhering to his own rigid vocabulary.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Your attempts to silence us WILL NOT WORK.
Send that message back to headquarters.
Someone disagrees with you, so it must be some big conspiracy! Oh no! The nasty forum poster wants to SILENCE US!
Pathetic.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Do you think that anyone who disagrees with you must be part of some horrid scheme to silence you and undermine the party?
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)We aren't going to answer to or listen to you.
Though you are free to click and whine away.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)the "flexibility" of supporting access to basic health care, for women anyway, is part of a horrid scheme to silence you and undermine Bernie?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Because ERMEGERD, there are like 4 "Literally identical" posts on Ivanka at the W20 in Berlin!!!
Get on those posts and explain to them that they are bothering you!!
niyad
(113,027 posts)the primaries"
THIS IS ABOUT WOMEN'S RIGHTS.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)to enlighten them on what it is that they just don't get?
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)If a news site I read took up the habit of writing 4 different versions of the same story and flooding the front page with it, then I might well write and ask them to stop.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)gotcha.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"Literally?" I had no idea.
Can you provide links?
And here I thought sharing different articles from different publications on a topic was allowed!
I'm so sorry to have burdened you with seeing those. It must be very trying having to see different posts on the same issue.
Have you seen the duplicate posts on "We have to stop the Bernie bashing and unite!" threads? That must have given you major headaches.
emulatorloo
(44,057 posts)Bernie primary supporter here, but I find his endorsement of Mello problematic.
Bernie's perfectly capable of handling criticism. He doesn't need overeager folks to twist themselves into pretzles and smear their fellow DU'ers to "protect" him.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)That doesn't make this endless flood of anti-Bernie threads any more reasonable though.
emulatorloo
(44,057 posts)by claiming they're trolls or "refighting the primary". They are just as bad as the over the top attacks on Bernie.
DU gets really crazy sometimes, it is definitely insane now. Why can't everybody just talk policy?
I think pretty much everyone here is solidly on the left and share the same core principles.
I honestly don't know why we're fighting all the time. It is starting to get pathological
It's the Republicans who want to take away choice. Not Dems.
You've made me think, there is no way I am going to post in any of these threads anymore. It is out of control and I think the best way to handle it is to let ALL of these threads sink.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)I keep biting, and I know its just feeding into keeping them alive. Time to stop.
emulatorloo
(44,057 posts)Thanks for the discussion and making me think about how we can work to stop this.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Like the one that access to abortion is public health issue, and not a mere "social issue?"
Like that one?
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)niyad
(113,027 posts)in more than one thread.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)We should get at least as many as those piece of shit threads.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)But just to remind you, the rules explicitly forbid refighting the primaries.
Response to Kentonio (Reply #158)
Starry Messenger This message was self-deleted by its author.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Take your own advice.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)I think there may be some young women who would love to hear what it was like before RoevsWade and the fight we had to get it. I think it's important to remind everyone that republicans are in power and this issue is very much at stake.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)abortion, against the strong objections of the medical community.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/teen-abortion-judicial-bypass-parental-notification
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)When I was a young woman, many still struggled and it was 20 years or better after RoeVsWade. I knew a young lady who was killed by her boyfriend after not being able to get an abortion in proper time. She tried.. but there was so much red tape still at that time. We have to remember too... Some women died just for getting pregnant.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)and obstacles to affordable abortion providers, or the lack of nearby providers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/03/back-alley-abortions_n_5065301.html
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)It required a referral from your physician.. some refused.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)why she would be a bad mother if she continued the pregnancy she discovered after she left an abusive man.
Orrex
(63,169 posts)If we surrender on women's rights and reproductive freedom, then we are no better than Republicans.
Yeah, we're not surrendering.
I remember when my parents got divorced. We lost the house because a woman could not hold a mortgage in her name. Even if she did earn enough money to pay for it. Now I know why my Mom fought over every little thing. To delay the divorce decree long enough for 3 of my older siblings to turn 18.
Women can have their own credit card and own their own home. Yet somehow they aren't smart enough to own their own bodies.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)Cha
(296,775 posts)mcar
(42,278 posts)So hell, no!
Gothmog
(144,884 posts)I will not abandon the defense of these rights just to remake the party into the image of sanders
Kaye_NY
(71 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,372 posts)Women's issues are not "wedge" issues.
..
Ligyron
(7,615 posts)" -and who as a state senator sponsored a 20-week abortion ban and mandatory ultrasounds for women seeking abortions"
I think he supported Drs telling the patient that an ultrasound was available if she wanted. Although why on earth anyone would want to see that before terminating a pregnancy is beyond me. Last chance to guilt someone about it I guess?
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)Many outlets inaccurately reported on what he actually put forth:
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-was-heath-mello-thrown-under-the-bus/
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)in part because it increases the cost of the abortion procedure to make that available to all women, even those who do not have a medical indication requiring that procedure.
That is a direct contradition to what the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has stated:
According to the ACOG, ultrasonography in pregnancy should be performed only when there is a valid medical indication. In 2009, the organization specifically stated, The use of either two-dimensional or three-dimensional ultrasonography only to view the fetus, obtain a picture of the fetus, or determine the fetal sex without a medical indication is inappropriate and contrary to responsible medical practice.
http://www.acog.org/~/media/Departments/LARC/TalkingPointsonUltrasoundMandates.pdf
The politicization of women's health is something that Democrats have long fought. To dismiss medical consensus on this is no different than dismissing the scientific consensus on climate change.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)Easy. An offer doesn't increase the cost of anything.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)even if they don't request it, it flies in the face of medical consensus. If a physician is giving a patient a medical (pill), rather than a surgical abortion in their office, they would not be able to do so unless they had an ultrasound in their office.
OB offices generally don't even have ultrasounds in their office, they refer patients to a facility dedicated to it. Is that clearer?
Again:
That is a direct contradition to what the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has stated:
According to the ACOG, ultrasonography in pregnancy should be performed only when there is a valid medical indication. In 2009, the organization specifically stated, The use of either two-dimensional or three-dimensional ultrasonography only to view the fetus, obtain a picture of the fetus, or determine the fetal sex without a medical indication is inappropriate and contrary to responsible medical practice.
http://www.acog.org/~/media/Departments/LARC/TalkingPointsonUltrasoundMandates.p
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...signs of anything abnormal about the pregnancy. Were those offers flying the face of medical consensus? Also, how does NOT performing an ultrasound increase the cost to patients?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And if there was no medical indication for them, then yes, they were running counter to ACOG's memo - which was dated 2009. Just the same as if they were one of those shopping mall pop up 3d ultrasound boutiques. Nothing illegal, of course, but a nice moneymaker.
I'm curious, did you take them up on the offer, and were they covered under insurance?
I went to a dentist who immediately had patients get a 180 xray, because they needed to pay for the expensive new machine, and didn't tell people that they had the option for the old school, much less expensive xray that was fully covered under most insurance.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)We did take them up on the offer and it was covered under insurance, as it should be for anyone receiving that type of service. I guess the ACOG's opinion doesn't carry much weight in regard to stopping all unnecessary offers of ultrasounds.
Now, back to the question at hand, how does NOT performing an ultrasound increase costs to patients?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)in the way that a physician is not a mammogram technology specialist.
Is that clearer?
I was referred to an ultrasound specialist because of medical indications in my pregnancy, even though my OB did use an ultrasound herself when she determined the placement of the needle for the CVS biopsy. She showed me the screen when she did that, but wanted a specialist to look for specific issues.
My insurance didn't cover ultrasounds that were not medically indicated, however, I'm sure an OB who is looking to pay for a new machine might find a code that fit.
What year was this ultrasound?
Also, I never stated that "not performing an ultrasound on a patient increased costs." Requiring a gynecologist to offer an ultrasound requires that you have the equipment and staff available to any and everyone. It would be like requiring every single physicians' office to have a lab and technicians in their office to do bloodwork, when it may be more cost effective to share a between many on a floor, or send a patient to a walk in bloodwork lab. Is that clearer? NOT having a lab within the the office doesn't increase costs to patients, but requiring that they do will increase costs. Is that clearer?
For example if you are in a physicians office taking the abortion pill, that would require that they have an ultrasound in the office ready and available to offer, which would either prohibit them from providing that service, or increase the cost to cover the ultrasound machine they would not otherwise have. Is that clearer?
You can read that right here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028975353#post79
Is that clearer?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)of the procedure, when there was no medical indication that called for an ultrasound.
And it is intended to "educate the woman" that she is "terminating an unborn child" as if she was unaware of that when she came in for the procedure.
It's not only insulting but puts a financial obstacle in the way of women getting a timely abortion.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)Please note that Mello didn't just vote for it...he was a sponsor.
20-Week Abortion Ban
This bill bans abortion at 20 weeks post-fertilization except an abortion is permitted if it is necessary to avert death of the pregnant woman or to avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function or it is necessary to preserve the life of an unborn child.
1103 LB 1103
LEGISLATIVE BILL 1103
Approved by the Governor April 13, 2010
Introduced by Flood, 19; McCoy, 39; Langemeier, 23; Pirsch, 4; Fulton, 29;
Coash, 27; Krist, 10; Schilz, 47; Heidemann, 1; Utter, 33;
Stuthman, 22; Wallman, 30; Dubas, 34; Sullivan, 41; Fischer,
43; Janssen, 15; Price, 3; Harms, 48; Cornett, 45; Gay, 14;
Nordquist, 7;[font color="red" size="4" face"="face"]Mello[/font] 5; Lautenbaugh, 18.
http://www.legislature.ne.gov/FloorDocs/101/PDF/Slip/LB1103.pdf
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Progressive politics will have to fall by the wayside in some races, and unfortunately too many of us lump women's rights under that umbrella.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Sup with that?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)samnsara
(17,604 posts)Iggo
(47,534 posts)I'm going to fight for your rights whether you want me to or not.
stonecutter357
(12,693 posts)RelativelyJones
(898 posts)or anywhere else. I don't care what your bishop, rabbi, imam or pastor thinks. No matter what you believe personally, you better be voting to preserve the right to choose. Otherwise, not interested.
Roy Rolling
(6,906 posts)I, personally, think abortion is a terrible form of birth control. But I totally support a woman's right to choose.
A party loyalty test only benefits Republicans, who think a party loyalty test is good policy. Do Democrats want to follow the lead of Republicans on this?
This is a personal medical issue, not a religious or political issue to be decided by someone else. Stop debating in those arenas under those rules.
mercuryblues
(14,521 posts)women do not use abortion as birth control. Civil rights are not a loyalty test. Without control over our own bodies all other rights have no meaning.
Iggo
(47,534 posts)mercuryblues
(14,521 posts)civil rights the people who are promoting party unity are willing to give up for the good of the party? pick one
American Disability act
Protects persons with disabilities from discrimination in many aspects of life, including employment, education, and access to public accommodations.
Age discrimination act
Prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance.
Disaster relief and emergency assistance act
Provides for equitable and impartial relief operations, without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, nationality, sex, age, or economic status.
Fair Housing Act
Prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
Prohibits sex discrimination in education programs that receive federal funds, to increase educational and athletic opportunities for females in schools and colleges nationwide.
How about equal rights marriage?
more at
http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/civil-rights-laws.html
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Squinch
(50,901 posts)I have a feeling I'm going to be using it often in the next few months.
athena
(4,187 posts)They save the lives of women. This is what we're talking about here. The lives of women -- i.e., a group of people who are not considered fully human by one of the two major political parties.
It's sickening that you propagate the right-wing idea that abortion is a form of birth control, as if we were not talking here about the death or enslavement of women.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)A Polk Township 13-year-old girl performed a self-induced abortion using a pencil. During the process the girl became horribly sick, began having contractions, and ultimately delivered the baby at home.
http://www.care2.com/causes/13-year-old-performs-abortion-at-home-time-to-rethink-parental-notification-laws.html
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You seem to think that women use abortion instead of contraception - is that what I am to understand?
And it is a public health issue, and contrary to what certain politicians say, is not merely a "social issue," to be lumped in with prayer in schools, nude beaches, or simply "believing that being gay is immoral."
Is the "Stop debating in those arenas under those rules" comment directed at me?
If so, can you clarify?
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Bernie doesn't want to abandon women's rights or anyone's rights.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I can see exactly what's happening here, and I can see exactly who it is that's willing to negotiate and compromise on things that were once considered to be NON-NEGOTIABLE and for which there was NO-COMPROMISE.
Don't try to tell ME that I'VE "lost my fucking mind"!!! What an insult!!
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Oops I'm sorry, it's quite similar.
It's just one local race, not the entire parties platform that's under attack.
Sorry for the sarcasm, I'm quite angry today. And a little annoyed that you ignored my pouring my heart out regarding our relationship the other day.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)And that's okay with you? WHY??
You're making excuses to ALLOW that type of exception coming from party "leadership"?? Really???
What other platform plank might you ALSO be willing to "compromise" on? LGBT equality, perhaps? (After all, if it's just "one local race" and just one issue, then "not the entire parties (sic) platform" would be under attack.
No, you're totally wrong. You couldn't be MORE wrong! We haven't "lost our fucking minds" (as you insultingly suggest) we're not insane, we're not irrational, we're not unreasonable.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)I was right then. Everyone's lost their fucking minds.
And you've still ignored my honesty regarding us. Good job.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)As a whole.
Is still the party of women's rights and LGBTQ rights yes?
And if you were finally acknowledging our relationship then this:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8972625
See I was trying to make amends and you seem to have overlooked it.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Why do you believe it to be "insane" to vigorously fight to keep my rights?
Why do you believe that people have "lost their minds" if they refuse to compromise? I think all the continued references and accusations that people like me are mentally unhealthy (or mentally unstable) are a bit disturbing and insulting.
Our concerns are valid and our responses are entirely appropriate. What purpose does it serve for you to be so dismissive and insulting by (basically) calling us "crazy". Why is it that women are always accused of being irrational or crazy or insane or having "lost our minds"???
But, hey... thanks for explaining why my gesture of kindness to you was rudely snubbed... I guess your explanation makes written sense (even though I can't personally relate). It's all good, I'm not going to hold a grudge or hold it against you. By the end of summer, in my mind, it'll be "Retro-who?" and I'll have forgotten all about you again.
That should give you some idea of exactly how unimportant old disagreements are to me. It's a realistic view of discussions and interactions on a political internet forum. It's a view and attitude that works well for me, and I recommend it to anyone who tends to take things too seriously.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)You really don't care.
And that proves a lot.
I voted for Hillary despite the threat that she would never take some of my issues seriously.
Because Bernie lead me there. I'm not a single issue voter. I don't throw my arms in the air because something isn't perfect. That's what Bernie or Busters did.
The party is fine. Bernie's criticisms are just criticisms. He isn't signing executive orders.
Take note that I'm only posting this for public record and not a continuing discussion with you. I don't keep lists. I just remember people.
Take care.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)You really don't care.
I'm not one of those persons who feels a need to establish a "connection" with everyone I meet, or with every one I reply to. I can offer a kind word of support to a complete stranger (such as yourself) but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to let their personal problems (whatever they may be) have a negative effect on MY life.
I think it's unrealistic and a bit silly for anyone to expect that of me, or of anyone at all, for that matter.
My entire life and sense of personal value does NOT hinge on this type of digital interaction. I also have a REAL LIFE in the REAL WORLD. I'm not obsessive. This is just an entertaining pastime that I take FAR less seriously than others.
ProfessorPlum
(11,253 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Foamfollower
(1,097 posts)It seems to me you have been following Nurse Jackie around to post "LOL!" in response to ehr poses in a few places ever since she "LOL!"ed at you in your thread?
It sorta creeps me out.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)that would go a long way towards convincing people of that.
Saying those who point this out "have lost our fucking minds" will go a long way towards convincing people your opinion isn't a knee-jerk response to any critique of said politician.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Hmm I agree with you.
I'm not knee jerk. Just not wholly informed and frustrated.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"But we can reform labor rights, raise wages, tax the rich their fair share, and regulate the banks do all that and more and STILL debate social issues such as abortion on the State level. And if ever a majority decided, could also reverse Roe v Wade. But why should so many remain so poor in the mean time?"
http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/2015/09/bernie-sanders-delivers-at-liberty.html
"Once you get off of the social issues abortion, gay rights, guns and into the economic issues, there is a lot more agreement than the pundits understand." Bernie Sanders, July 9, 2015
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/weekend-with-bernie-sanders-20150709
These are guys getting hung up on gay marriage issues, Sanders told Schultz. Theyre getting hung up on abortion issues. And it is time we started focusing on the economic issues that bring us together: Defending Social Security, defending Medicare, making sure that Medicaid is not cut, that veterans programs are not cut. Bernie Sanders 2013
ttp://www.rawstory.com/2013/10/bernie-sanders-tells-ed-schultz-southern-democrats-are-tired-of-being-abandoned-by-the-party/
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Okay so he should reframe it.
But I'm not upset with him for his philosophy that economical issues should be corrected and then everything else can follow. Because what if that's true?
Is it easier to get women's rights figured out before the economic issue? Vice versa?
I don't think we can do them at the same time. What do you think?
(Look we're having a constructive conversation OMFG)
Squinch
(50,901 posts)Iggo
(47,534 posts)What do you mean we?
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)without any hesitation if it will help us take back some power from the lunatic Republicans and Tea Partiers who dominate this state and all the levers of power in Nashville.
Nanjeanne
(4,915 posts)Unfortunately it won't matter to many here -- but it certainly matters to me.
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-was-heath-mello-thrown-under-the-bus/
Whats more interesting is what happened nextand what didnt. In 2012, Mello voted with Planned Parenthood on two out of three bills tracked by the groupand was excused from voting on the third. After that, Mello, who had become the influential chair of the state legislatures Budget Committee, voted with Planned Parenthood 100 percent of the time. By 2015, the group was celebrating a fourth straight year .without enacting any new abortion restrictions in Nebraska, thanks largely to committed womens health advocates engaged in the legislative process.
ProfessorPlum
(11,253 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Thanks for the kick!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Nanjeanne
(4,915 posts)issue is not about that so what the AMA says about a sonogram isn't really relevant. Wish it were. But the argument against Mello is based on alternate facts not truths about his stance or vote record.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)He voted for a 20 week ban.
He voted for requiring a physician be present (right wing method used to close down abortion centers)
He voted for a denial of insurance for abortions.
That is not 'fake news'. It is in the Nebraska government voting record.
You can got to the link provided and click on the highlighted words in the except...it will take you to the actual vote records.
"Mello is a sponsor of the final version of a 20-week abortion ban approved by the governor in 2010, and cast anti-choice votes in favor of requiring physicians to be physically present for an abortion in order to impede access to telemedicine abortion care, and a law banning insurance plans in the state from covering abortions. He was endorsed in 2010 by anti-choice group Nebraska Right to Life."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/omaha-mayoral-candidate-under-fire-says-he-would-never-do-anything-to-restrict-access-to-reproductive-health-care_us_58f8e868e4b018a9ce590a84
Nanjeanne
(4,915 posts)By Hillary Clinton and others as long as they aren't supported by Sanders.
Or the other Dems who have spoken out in support.
Got it! Thanks.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Nanjeanne
(4,915 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Sanders supports, no matter how progressive a record they have, for they shall be called "Shills."
There is no dissent whatsoever tolerated by many here on issues that Sanders deems "universal."
Nanjeanne
(4,915 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Nanjeanne
(4,915 posts)Different people here on DU.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)come out against ultrasounds that are not medically indicated as bad medical policy.
His record showed that he supported requiring doctors to offer ultrasounds to women when there was no medical indication.
Which part of that is an "alternate fact?"
ACOG position:
http://www.acog.org/~/media/Departments/LARC/TalkingPointsonUltrasoundMandates.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20130709T0142491575
Mello's positions on choice that go against ACOG's guidelines on abortion access:
Voted yes on prohibiting insurance coverage for abortion in 2011:
https://votesmart.org/bill/13254/34934/103098/prohibits-insurance-coverage-of-abortion#.WP9umogrIdU
Voted yes on Prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks in 2010:
https://votesmart.org/bill/11163/29878/103098/prohibiting-abortions-after-20-weeks-of-pregnancy#.WP9u1IgrIdU
Voted yes on government specified ultrasound procedures
https://votesmart.org/bill/9570/26024/103098/establishes-procedures-for-ultrasounds-performed-prior-to-abortions#.WP9wAYgrIdV
get the red out
(13,460 posts)To do so isn't "progressive". Which non-white male rights would have to go after that to get a Democrat elected?
Volstagg
(233 posts)But supporting the Dem in an election is not throwing women's rights out the door? What should Sanders have done? NOT supported the Dem? Seems like you would then criticize him for that. There are dems that do not support abortion. If that is the case, should we then support the republican who will likely be WORSE on women's rights?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)while he just proved willing to throw women's rights in the trash.
So better he just stay OUT OF IT.
And also stop insulting the Democratic party.
lovemydogs
(575 posts)I am a woman and a progressive.
Progressives have stood with women for over a 100 years.
Progressives have had some iconic women in their ranks like the original Mother Jones. Ida Turnbull.
Progressives believe in economic rights first because economic stability leads to gains for all people.
ismnotwasm
(41,956 posts)Of feeling a lot of "I told you so"--if not saying it.
All the arguments, here and elsewhere about patriarchy, rape culture, what it means to walk through life as a female-who in many instances is not regarded as fully human, especially when it comes to women of color. From the dismissing of terms such as "yellow fever" to the animalistic portrayals of the black female body.
To the disingenuous defense of certain words when used against women (I'm not talking censorship, I'm talking meaning) in the context of a hostile culture.
Arguments about what pornagraphy and prostitution mean, in terms of outcome--putting aside all bullshit "morality" arguments--these are situations that objectify the female body, and subjugate it to restricted economic agency.
We had warnings--4Chan, MRA's, white supremacists assholes--all that seemingly rotten structure in the backwash of the internet suddenly now has integral structure.
Has the female body ever had independent agency? Our rights have been under fire my entire life. It should come as no surprise that there are those who want to keep those rights as a salable bargaining chip. All things female are for sale in our culture.
niyad
(113,027 posts)Thank you
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)lovemydogs
(575 posts)I have long been a progressive. I have agreed with and supported Bernie Sanders because I have thought many of the same things over the years.
I am a woman and have been a feminist before feminism became popular when I was a kid. My mother taught us girls to think independently and do for ourselves and that women are equal to men.
I have been a big backer of New Deal policies and ideas.
I have never agreed with or cared for the DLC/New Democrat Clintonism that has ruled the party for the last 25 - 30 years.
I always felt they were too republican leaning, too reliant on exclusive professionals while ignoring those on the ground experience and knowledge, experiencing things in the everyday. I felt Clintonism was too corporate friendly and backed privatizing over solid government workers who knew their stuff. I felt clintonism also pitted interest groups against one another as well as abandoning unions and working people.
I don't know how anyone can think Progressives are anti woman.
If its because we laud the tradition, a long tradition in the party, of being open to different ideas and to not demonize someone because they may not agree with me 100%. I try to learn and listen to other people.
Making the party an exclusive club who exclude anyone who may not follow lock step to 100% thinking is only copying the republicans.
Its what made the republicans crazy. They became a cult and not a party
ismnotwasm
(41,956 posts)Charming.
I have not heard this term outside of a rhetorical device. Is this a thing?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)niyad
(113,027 posts)to say, or act, otherwise.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)They are usually taken, as in the case of access to abortion and contraception.
If men in power determine we don't need those rights, often there isn't much one can do to prevent it.
Especially if the men who are supposed to be our allies view them as cards to be dealt away.
I've often heard that women "let rape happen." And we know how misguided that idea is.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)Without all the social issues....the economic vision is crap for the majority of women, GLBT, POC, disabled, and immigrants.
I keep wondering WTH is wrong with the frail males...
animals are migrating due to changes in their environment
plants are moving north or to higher altitudes due to changes in their environment
women survived the loss of secretarial, stenographer, bank teller, shop assistant...and so many other changes in their environment...
POC have been fighting for a CHANCE to have equality for decades.....
but frail males need protection although they fought against helping any of the other groups? I realize that is not a fair description of is not all males especially not all males in DU or in my household.
They need to do some soul searching and grow a part.
betsuni
(25,368 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And the same groups are calling it out.
pecosbob
(7,533 posts)Predator corporations and their enablers are enemies of the people. Stop voting for the enablers.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)neosocialist leftists.
That's not really much different than our rights being downgraded by those on the right, in the service of white straight men.
I'm not fooled by which side they claim to be on, and I won't support enablers.
Which 'neoliberal centrists' are you referring to?
kentuck
(111,051 posts)I believe some issues will be taken off the back burner and will be put on the front burners with other issues that have pre-occupied Democrats for several elections.