Of Course Abortion Should Be a Litmus Test for Democrats

[mcar]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/opinion/trump-democrats-abortion-litmus-test.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

I relate to the flailing panic that is no doubt undergirding such a morally putrescent idea. Nineteen hyenas and a broken vacuum cleaner control the White House, and ice is becoming extinct. I get it. I am desperate and afraid as well. I am prepared to make leviathan compromises to pull us back from that brink. But there is no recognizable version of the Democratic Party that does not fight unequivocally against half its constituents’ being stripped of ownership of their own bodies and lives. This issue represents everything Democrats purport to stand for.

To legislatively oppose abortion is to be, at best, indifferent to the disenfranchisement, suffering and possibly even the death of women. At worst it is to revel in those things, to believe them fundamental to the natural order. Where, exactly, on that spectrum is Luján comfortable placing his party?...

But there is no model of economic equality that does not reckon with “identity politics.” There is no economic equality without the ability to terminate a pregnancy. There is no economic equality without the overthrow of white supremacy. What good is an economic opportunity if large swaths of the population can’t access it? Telling minority groups that it’s their responsibility to sit back and wait, to subordinate their needs for the good of the party — that implies that “the party” is not theirs as much as everyone else’s. And it sounds a lot like the people we’re trying to defeat.

Abortion is normal. Abortion is common, necessary and happening every day across party lines, economic lines and religious lines. Abortion is also legal and, contrary to what the pundit economy would have you believe, not particularly controversial. According to the Pew Research Center, nearly 70 percent of all Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, while 75 percent of Democrats believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. These are not numbers that indicate controversy.

[Me.]

1. Simple Things Women Couldn't Do 50 Years Ago In The US

Why would women give up the progress made and why should we be expected to.

Serve On A Jury
Get A Credit Card
Easily Accessible Birth Control
Run The Boston Marathon
Buy Women's Athletic Shoes
Have The Option Of Attending an Ivy League School
Keep Their Job If They Became Pregnant
Attend A Military Academy Or Fight In Combat
Refuse Sex With Their Husbands
Legally Obtain An Abortion
Take A Stand Against Sexual Harassment
Take Legally-Mandated Maternity Leave
Open A Bank Account
Become An Astronaut

[lark]

17. Here's another that really caused me grief as a young married woman.

In the past a woman couldn't sign anything in her own name. I couldn't sign Sandra Sweat back then, my new optometrist refused to take a check signed that way and refused to place an order to replace my broken glasses. He said I said to sign Mrs. Steven Sweat as my legal name. It's a small thing, but one I'm very glad has changed. It just galled me to HAVE to sign my husbands' name and I never have. Now it's no problem, back in the 70's, big problem.

[Me.]

27. As For Names.

Did you know that the names of Afghani women cannot he said in public? They are referred to as wife of, daughter of, sister of.

So I guess it’s ok if women capitulate on their reproductive rights if they don’t mind being less than and soon we won’t be able to say our names in public.

[lark]

45. No retreat baby, no surrender.

They can try to push us backwards, but we can #RESIST with everything in us.

[Me.]

46. Amen To That

[LakeArenal]

29. When I got married...

I had trouble getting mail in my maiden name. As a recent graduate, I was trying to send resumes and get transcripts. If my mail didn't come "Surname-Hisname" sometimes I didn't get it, or it was returned or lost. Very frustrating at the time.

I also could not get renter's insurance if I was co-habiting. Marriage or nothin' man...

[calimary]

31. I had a misadventure like that - yup, back in the mid-70s. When we'd just married.

I didn't change my name. I was already working and was established by MY name. I figured if I ever made anything of myself, that would allow a small layer of protection between myself and whatever family I might eventually have. Protecting their privacy, so to speak. As for my husband, he asked me fairly early on how I felt about changing my name when I married, saying he didn't see any reason why I should because HE wouldn't want to have to change HIS name for that reason, either, and didn't see why he should have to do that. I found that thinking most impressive (one of many reasons why I decided to go ahead with it, with him).

So after our honeymoon we set about trying to find an apartment together. We found a nice one that was even affordable. But when it came time to sign the papers, the manager on duty refused to rent to us - because we had two different last names. We showed our wedding rings and both insisted YES we ARE a married couple. The manager wouldn't believe us. We had to fight a battle - just to rent a freakin' apartment. In 1976.

We've come SOME way since then, as a country, as a society. SOME way. But MAN-oh-MAN do we have a long way yet to go.

[mopinko]

62. i didnt take either husband's name. in the 70's

you had to send a copy of your marriage license w your tax return to file married w different names.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

36. Your optometrist was completely and totally wrong

even in the 1970's. By then women had mostly stopped using "Mrs. Steven Sweat" and were using "Sandra Sweat" in almost all but the most retrograde of circumstances.

I once had to refuse to sell an employee ticket to one of our flight attendants (I was an airline ticket agent back then) because she'd requested the passes in the name of "Mrs Charles Hanson" and all of her identification was in the name of "Susan Richards". Obviously I'm making names up here. But there was NOTHING to connect those two names. If she'd requested the tickets in the names of "Charles Hanson and Susan Richards Hanson" I'd have been fine. That was probably in 1978.

I'm guessing you lived in a very conservative and, dare I say? backward part of the country then.

I recall as a girl being really bothered by the "Mrs His Name" thing. It never seemed right.

Somewhere in the 1970's I decided I'd never change my name when I got married, and I didn't. Once and only once was it a problem, and that was when I was trying to retrieve a credit card my husband had left behind at a restaurant the night before. The issue was solved when I pulled out the checkbook that had both or our names and the address that matched my drivers license.

[lark]

44. Actually that happened in San Jose, CA.

Surprisingly enough. I am blind as a bat, but wouldn't order glasses from that ass. I called around and found an optometrist that would sell me glasses in my own name and bought them 2 days later. In the meantime, I couldn't see a thing. It was a good thing I wasn't driving right then, lol.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

55. Wow. San Jose, CA.

That's a bit of a shocker. And the optometrist was still wrong. Glad you found a different one right away.

[lark]

61. I can tell you at the time, I was totally outraged.

I had just moved from FL to CA so was really shocked to be treated this way there.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

66. I don't blame you.

I didn't get married until 1980 and as reported above, once and only once in some 25 years of marriage (we're now divorced) was the two different names an issue.

But in your case you had changed your last name, the traditional thing to do, and that doctor's insistence you be Mrs His Name is so totally wrong.

[NCjack]

39. The other side. Forty years ago, my wife did the family banking. One day,

I needed money immediately, and I went to my branch bank and presented a draft for some cash. The answer came back quickly "No! we don't know who you are, but you are not a person with this checking account." As I began my protest, the manager came out and said "he's OK -- he's Jane's husband.". My cash was issued without further examination of my ID.

[kentuck]

2. No.

If there has to be a litmus test, it should be the right to choose. Even though some Democrats may oppose abortion, they should not oppose the individual rights of women over their fetus.

Just my opinion.

[mcar]

4. I think the way the author puts it is right - and agrees with you

"Legislatively opposed" to abortion.

We have several good Democratic legislators who are personally opposed to abortion but do not work to restrict women's rights. But any who would try to make anti-abortion policy should not be supported by the party.

[MGKrebs]

9. I concur.

[ehrnst]

30. Legislatively opposed anti-choice or "pro-life"

Anyone who supports the legality of abortion is "pro-choice."

[romana]

40. Yes

This is the key phrase. They MUST accept the pro-choice position legislatively.

[Dorn]

15. Exactly correct -- abortions are reduced with education and contraceptives not with limiting choices

A woman's right to choose is paramount and remember the state's ability to control your body is being pushed too.

[demmiblue]

3. Yep. K&R

[hatrack]

5. Why not anti-vaccination Democratic candidates? Why not flat-Earth Democratic candidates?

For that matter, why not Democratic candidates who reject climate science, who want to ditch the 17th Amendment, or who promise to vote in favor of obligatory, Christian school prayer and Ten Commandments monuments on every courthouse lawn?

After all, the important thing is to win, right?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

6. Winning may not be the most important thing, ...

... but losing has consequences.

Like getting anti-choice, flat-earth justices on the supreme court.

[SCantiGOP]

26. You nailed it, Justabozo

[mcar]

10. Yep

We need to dispense with the idea that we should be appealing to people who will never, ever vote Democratic.

We should be working to get Democrats out to vote. We should be trying to find out why so many Dems don't vote. We should be fighting voter suppression.

I know we ARE doing those things but it seems like "we have to reach out to the poor, misunderstood Trump voters" gets more attention.

[MGKrebs]

11. If you had two candidates who both rejected climate science

would you just not vote?
In politics you don't get to vote for Jesus. You only get the better of choices. And sometimes is the least worse choice. But not choosing is still a choice.

edit: And it doesn't mean you have to give up fighting for climate science. That exists outside of politics.

[dsc]

12. I would be amazed if we didn't have some anti vax Democratic candidates

RFK jr is anti vax. There are as many anti vax people on the far left as the far right.

[LAS14]

16. Every situation should be judged in its own context.

If the Democratic candidate is right on everything else, and the Republican who would win instead is wrong on everything, why shoot ourselves in the foot?

[ehrnst]

32. +1000 (nt)

[romana]

41. How about

Anti-single payer Democrats! We gotta win, right?

[LeftInTX]

69. We've got an anti-vaxer Democrat running here

It is for a small local position which does not involve legislation. The anti-vax stuff is unrelated to her campaign. I would have never known she was anti-vax, except someone started talking about vaccines and she joined the conversation. She seems like a qualified candidate for the position that she is seeking.

[Solly Mack]

7. K&R

[The Wielding Truth]

8. No one is being forced by law to get an abortion. It is and should always be a choice. A personal

freedom.

[brooklynite]

13. As long as we understand that "pro life" is not "anti choice", that's fine.

[ehrnst]

22. "Pro-life" means being opposed to legal abortion. It's a political term.

It means anti-choice.

[brooklynite]

47. No, it doesn't...

It means being opposed to abortion personally. "Anti choice" means being supportive of denying abortion rights to others.

Tell me, will you be advocating a primary challenge to Sen. Bob Casey? He's never voted fo restrict access, but maybe that's not good enough for you?

[geek tragedy]

14. "Abortion is ... not particularly controversial."

Imagine believing this while living in a country that just elected Donald Trump and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.

This person seems to be okay with Democrats being a minority party in perpetuity.

75 percent of Democrats believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases

So, this person's solution is to tell the other 25% to go vote Republican, as they would not be welcome in her Democratic party.

Giving the Republicans a permanent majority ought to do wonder for her policy agenda items.

[ehrnst]

23. Those 25% of Dems don't think it's a dealbreaker if they're Dems.(nt)

[geek tragedy]

24. are they welcome in the party?

Also note that Democrats are not a majority of the population.

[ehrnst]

28. The stat was 75% "of Democrats" think that it should be legal

in all or most cases. The 25% might be opposed to it for young girls without notification, think that it shouldn't be paid for with Medicaid, etc, so we don't really know what exactly they oppose. We don't know that they would vote against choice, because that's not what the numbers tell us - without knowing the question asked.

As we have seen on DU, there are a number of people who think that it is immoral, but think it should be legal. If you simply ask if they agree with abortion in all circumstances, likely they will say "no." If you ask that same person if Roe should be upheld, they will likely say yes. If you ask them if there should be restrictions, they will likely to say yes - because physicians always restrict procedures to medically appropriate situations. If you ask them if there should be restrictions that are not sanctioned by physicians, you might get a no.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/26/5-facts-about-abortion/

If they identify as Democrats, then it is apparent that the platform on women's medical health isn't a deal breaker for them being Democrat, particularly since there is no rule that says you have to identify as a party member to vote for a candidate of that party, outside of closed primaries.

That 25% (whatever is that they agree with) aren't being told to leave the party, and unless something has come up in the last day or so, no one is required to be pro-choice to identify as or vote Democrat or for a Democrat.

If supporting what the medical community states is neccessary for public health makes them "feel unwelcome" I doubt they would identify as Democrat.


Should we try to welcome white power advocates to the party? Anti-vaxxers? Flatearth, the world is 6000 years old believers? I mean if we want to "win elections" and think that trashing our ideals is appropriate to do so - there are a whole lot more people think that there is no man made climate change than oppose Roe v Wade. Maybe we should throw that under the bus? Oh wait - it affects white straight men.

http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/10/clinton-trump-supporters-worlds-apart-on-views-of-climate-change-and-its-scientists/

[geek tragedy]

43. to be blunt, we don't have the luxury of turning anyone away

Barack Obama got the votes of many racists.

Lots of anti-vaxxers are on the left.

There is a BIG difference between funding the most competitive candidate possible in socially conservative districts and weakening the party's platform on women's rights.

[BadgerMom]

18. K/R

I agree.

[left-of-center2012]

19. As was said on ABC's "The View"

You have the right to oppose abortion,
but,
you do not have the right to tell others they can not have an abortion.

[hamsterjill]

20. Some things are simply not negotiable.

Choice is one of those things. If we have to win by throwing women under the bus, then we don't deserve to win.

Democrats need to openly and honestly confront the issue of abortion. There need to be explanations with facts and figures of how rational sex education and birth control availability affect the number of abortions. There needs to be a confronting of the various untruths perpetuated by the so called "pro-life" groups (i.e., videos that show fetuses fully formed at 3 weeks of age, etc.).

There needs to be open confrontation with facts and figures about lies told by the so called "pro-life" groups about how abortion physically affects women (i.e., increased breast cancer risk, women dying from abortions, etc.).

AND, there needs to be facts and figures presented about how illegal abortion causes back alley abortions and harms women.

Take the "taboo" away from this subject. Talk about it openly and matter-of-factly. Because making it a taboo is how the right wing evangelicals made it into such a hot button issue.

[calimary]

34. That's exactly right, hamsterjill. The right to choose is NON-NEGOTIABLE.

To me, it's not even on the table. It's not even in the room where that table is.

The right to choose is AN ABSOLUTE. It is NON-NEGOTIABLE.

[hamsterjill]

35. Absa-Fucking-Lootely!

We will never go back!

[ismnotwasm]

25. 'Abortion is freedom"

Exactly.

[alfredo]

33. I can live with a Dem that is against abortion.

I can live with a Dem that is against abortion, as long as they don't want to give their beliefs the force of law or put up roadblocks in the way of women needing an abortion.

[ehrnst]

37. I don't care about anti-choice Dems, just don't give anti-choice Dem candidates national money (nt)

[alfredo]

49. I see anti abortion and anti choice as something different.

Anti abortion is a personal belief, anti choice is denying others reproductive choice.

[DonCoquixote]

38. Hey Blue Dogs

If you want to help Bernie, go ahead and do this, because even Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi will realize you are willing to throw THEM under the bus.

Sarcasm flAG FLOWN HIGH LIKE A jOLLY rOGER

[Orsino]

42. As long as the best available Democrat is better than the Republican...

...I would hope that anyone would consider voting for an anti-choice Dem. As with the GOP, anti-choice isn't going to be a principled stance, but rather a compromise to get elected by reddish voters, so that weak-ass Dem could maybe find a backbone down the line when surrounded by fighters. It can work out in the long run.

But goddamn, I'm not going to demand that someone ask to be shat upon. Those who abstain on this principle, I got no hate for you here. I'll vote in your place.

[niyad]

48. the pretzel twisting around here defending that anti-choice d's and why we HAVE to

vote for them has been disheartening, to say the least.

[alfredo]

50. Anti choice is a disqualifier, but being personally against abortion but

Pro choice is acceptable because they are saying they will respect the choice of others.

[MineralMan]

51. Well, it is for me. I would never, ever vote for

a Democrat who was not in full support of a woman's right to choose. Period. Fortunately, I live in St. Paul, Minnesota, where we elect strong progressives to all offices.

That's where I live. That's where I vote. Nobody who wasn't in that kind of full support could ever make it to a general election ballot here.

I suppose that's not true in some places, perhaps, but I don't vote in those places. People who live in those places do.

So, it's a litmus test for me. So far, everyone who has run for office where I live and vote has met that test.

[mcar]

56. As long as the person isn't pushing legislation

to take away women's rights, they can personally be antiabortion. Joe Biden, Bob Casey, Tim Kaine are all good Democrats who do not foist those beliefs onto us.

[MineralMan]

57. It's choice. Those three Democrats would probably not

choose to have an abortion if they were women. But, they support womens' right to choose, nevertheless. It's a choice. It's an individual choice to make. Supporting that choice is a rational decision, even if you wouldn't make that choice or would never even be in a position to make that choice.

Like those three, I'm a man. So, I will never have to make such a choice. I only make choices for myself, so the choice any woman makes is none of my business, nor do I have any opinion to offer to someone who must make that choice. Each person is an individual and has an absolute right to make reproductive choices for him or herself. Period. Personally, I made the choice not to reproduce at all way back in 1965.

[mcar]

58. That's right

[TheBlackAdder]

60. +1. In a Women In Politics college course--For the past 40 years, 45% of women voted Republican.

.

45% of women voted against the ERA.

A solid and unwavering 45% of women voted for paternalism and for GOP matters for 40 years.

Nothing changes this.


===


Being Pro-Choice DOESN'T IMPACT A THING.

These women who vote paternalistic and the males in their households generally vote conservative no matter what a Democrat offered, because they look at the entire party as being Pro-Choice, anti-"Religious Freedom." They follow their church's directives.


Most are doing so because of Fundamentalist, Evangelical, Pentecostal or Charismatic influenced reasoning.

.

[LeftInTX]

70. Remember you asked about Blue Dogs last week?

I mentioned Henry Cuellar. He's a pro-lifer

Here is his voting record on the issue:


Voted in favor of H.R. 7 "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015" http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/50973#.VY7wBPlVhHw (votesmart.org)

Rated 0% by NARAL Pro-Choice America http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/27100/gene-green#.VZXB1nUVhHw (votesmart.org)


https://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/5486/henry-cuellar/#.WYJIQlGQzIU

Here is his district. It includes Laredo, Rio Grande City and the Randolph AFB area:

[Azathoth]

52. Yawn

To legislatively oppose abortion is to be, at best, indifferent to the disenfranchisement, suffering and possibly even the death of women

Or, it is an attempt to balance the needs and moral rights of the mother against the perceived needs and moral rights of the developing human life inside her.

Anyone who thinks abortion is not a deeply morally troubling and contentious issue is not a useful voice in the debate.

[demmiblue]

53. ...

[Azathoth]

54. Eye rolls don't make an argument

Anyone who thinks abortion is a "normal," uncontroversial, morally unambiguous issue is objectively out to lunch.

[DLevine]

59. It's morally reprehensible for the government to force a woman to give birth

against her will. Her health, well-being, and often her very life is at stake. Her body, her choice.

[Azathoth]

64. Come on, let's separate out medically necessary abortions

The issue isn't rape, incest and medical necessity -- I'd wager that most Americans accept abortion in those cases.

The issue is elective abortion, situations where the mother medically can have the child but chooses not to. The state intervenes all the time to protect children from their parents. If you believe that the fetus is a developing human life, then an abortion essentially means that the mother's economic, social, and personal circumstances should outweigh that life's right to continue living and eventually pursue its own dreams and make decisions for itself.

I don't necessarily embrace that point of view, but I've had long discussions with serious people who do. Just because the loudest anti-choice advocates also happen to be the most regressive and misogynistic, doesn't mean that everyone who opposes elective abortion thinks the same way. It's a deep cultural issue for many, and making it (and other cultural issues) litmus tests for the party is going to make it very hard for Democrats to play on equal ground in those communities.

[DLevine]

65. "The state intervenes all the time to protect children from their parents".

A fetus is part of a woman's body, not yet a child. Yes, I realize there are people who absolutely disagree with that, but the bottom line is we have to allow a woman to make that very personal choice for herself.

I also believe the Democratic Party must have our backs and not support those who would take such a basic human right away from us. If we have no right to our own bodies, we are not full citizens. I understand those who say there are places where only an anti-choicer can win, but I believe it is better to run a pro-choice candidate and lose than betray core Democratic principles.

[Azathoth]

68. "If we have no right to our own bodies, we are not full citizens."

I understand what you are saying here, but again, that doesn't always apply. Laws banning human cloning, laws banning drug use, possible future laws banning certain cybernetic and gene therapy procedures -- we have always lived in a society where there were some kind of limits on what we could do to our bodies. Add in the fact that a fetus is not necessarily PART of the woman's body, but rather a separate life process attached to it in a manner analogous to a conjoined twin, and things get even more murky.

I, personally, disagree with making such a contentious moral issue a "core principle" of the party. I think we have enough objectively moral common ground -- making healthcare affordable for everyone, ensuring that a working person can earn enough to support herself and her family, ensuring that no one suffers discrimination or disadvantage because of who they are, etc. -- to build core principles around. That doesn't mean I think we should field candidates who are fanatically anti-choice, because by the same logic, any absolutist position on the subject excludes vast parts of the country. But I don't think a moderate pro-life position should be an absolute barrier to running as a Democrat, especially on the state and local levels where we desperately need to make a comeback.

[DLevine]

71. There is a risk to carrying a fetus to term.

Some women die, or develop health issues. Abortion is generally less risky. Let each woman decide for herself. Who are we to make the decision for her?

I wonder how many "pro-lifers" would support a law that makes it mandatory to donate a kidney to someone in order to save a life. I doubt many would be willing to agree to that.

Anyway, I think we just have to agree to disagree on this. To my mind, the right to a safe and legal abortion is a basic human right, and I hope the Democratic Party will support pro-choice candidates.

[Doug the Dem]

63. Agreed

Just like "not betraying the country to Russia" should be a litmus test for GOPhucks. (Can you imagine how fast Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave right now?)

[kerry-is-my-prez]

67. AND a female president as a litmus test for the U.S. How long is it going to take??

[JHan]

72. K & R mcar, good read.