anti-choice Democrats are the reason Nancy Pelosi was House Speaker in 2006 and 2008

[geek tragedy]

Since apparently history started yesterday in some of these debates, let's go all the way back to 2009 when Speaker Nancy Pelosi was shepherding the Affordable Care Act through the House.

A major issue in that was whether abortions could be funded using federal tax credits (btw, single payer and abortion will be an exponentially more explosive situation).

Pelosi brought to the House floor a vote to prohibit the use of federal funds "to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion" except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother.

64 Democrats voted for that bill, which was heavily opposed by NARAL, the ACLU and other progressive organizations.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll884.xml

Democrats at the time held 256 seats in the House (ah the good old days).

Subtract 64 from 256 and you get a number much, much smaller than the number needed to control Congress. It's the difference between Nancy Pelosi and Paul Ryan determining spending levels for Medicaid, food stamps, and the EPA. And for any and all bills dealing with abortion, equal pay, birth control, etc.

The difference between Obamacare and Trumpcare. Between funding for Planned Parenthood and defunding Planned Parenthood.

One does not have to be anti-choice to be able to do simple electoral math.

[Zoonart]

1. THANK YOU!

[ismnotwasm]

2. I think most of us have some understanding of how politics work

The landscape has changed however, with some truly horrific anti-choice legislation being introduced, passing, then being challenged in courts almost constantly. Abortion rights are seriously at risk. I don't see how having give on this issue helps at this particular time. What votes are we chasing? Single issue voters now?

Trump is filling these courts at a record pace. He may well get a second Supreme Court pick. Getting someone in who is personally and publicly anti-abortion isn't the issue as long as they vote pro-choice.

[geek tragedy]

5. best way to block that is to have Democrats as House Speaker and Senate Maj leader

and of course in the White House.

Harry Reid was anti-choice (check out his voting history), but rammed through all of Obama's pro-choice judges and obstructed Bush's anti-choice judges as Majority Leader.

"Damn your principles, stick to your party."

Awful anti-choice legislation can't get passed if it doesn't get a floor vote.

[ismnotwasm]

17. There is a difference between being personally against abortion

And voting for anti-choice bullshit. My point is we are not able to block a damn thing at this point. Trump is doing an incredible amount of damage right now. Eqivilating on abortion doesn't seem to me to be the right approach on a political scale much less a purely moral one. Women are dying.

[geek tragedy]

23. Reid had an anti-choice voting record--it went beyond "personal/moral opposition."

That is, until he became Majority Leader and had to respect the wishes of his pro-choice caucus.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Harry_Reid_Abortion.htm

I'm much less concerned with what a candidate says than with how their behavior in Congress--including first and foremost voting for the Speaker--makes a material difference in policies.

[boston bean]

38. Then call it what is fucking is. If someone is personally against abortion but doesn't vote to

restrict a womans access to it, they are PRO CHOICE, NOT, AGAIN, NOT Anti Choice.

God damn having to explain this concept is getting fucking tiresome.

[geek tragedy]

41. "personally against abortion" isn't a political position, it's politicianspeak

Reid had a terrible voting record on abortion until he became Majority Leader. He was anti-choice in how he voted on legislation.

[boston bean]

45. do more research.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Harry_Reid_Abortion.htm

[geek tragedy]

46. I provided that link in another place in this thread.

He voted for the 'partial birth abortion' ban, voted to ban abortions on military bases, voted to mandate parental notification.

He got better over time, but there were some real stink bombs there.

[ismnotwasm]

39. I AM concerned

I agree with you in principle but we have entered bizarro world. Just a few years later and we see the real fruits of the crazy tea party agenda. I am truly frightened and while I completely understand Red areas simply don't have a choice, I hate the idea of abortion as a political issue in the first place. I understand that it is, but I still am not seeing how allowing anti-choice Democrats to slide in will help.

The Democratic platform hasn't changed, thank god, and personally what I am objecting to now I would have objected to then.

[geek tragedy]

62. for anti-choice Dems, as long as they understand they support the larger agenda

and that there's no compromises on a national level in return, more than happy to have their votes to expand the social safety net, etc.

When abortion gets weaponized politically, we lose a lot more than we win.

Downplaying differences amongst Democrats--while certainly unpalatable--to me achieves the goal moreso than publicly rebuking those with such views.

I do think that anti-choice Democrats from safe seats (like Dan Lapinksi--fuck that guy) should get driven out of office in primaries.

[elehhhhna]

72. This is gotten quite redundant, it's heading into "I'm owed beer and travel money" territory

We heard this the first 10 times and we still don't want to pander to the righteous ignorant hypocrites on the right.

I'm in Texas - these we antiabortion voting church fanatic folks are aborting downs syndrome fetuses at the same rate as everybody else. They can fuck right off with their hypocrisy and we are not gonna sacrifice life-and-death medical privacy, safety, and autonomy - even though to you, presumably a male, it feels expedient . End of story.

[guillaumeb]

53. An excellent response.

I wish I had said it.

[pnwmom]

71. But we're not better off with R's in the majority. n/t

[Tiggeroshii]

3. Just another purity test we don't need.

And clearly can't afford if we ever plan on being back in power any time soon

[elehhhhna]

52. Yes we can't afford privacy for women, or safe medical procedures,

Yes we can't afford privacy for women, or safe medical procedures,but we can afford a lot of unwanted children

[Docreed2003]

4. Serious question....and I'm not being condescending here

Would someone please define the meaning of anti choice? It seems like every thread about this issue lately has been filled with responses that seem vastly different. Because if antichoice is a dem that runs in a red district and has personal beliefs about abortion but is not willing or has no desire to push those personal beliefs that's one thing...an antiabortion zealot is quite another. In another thread today, there was a discussion about a rather famous dem who was very openly "pro-life" but some said, "Oh he's not anti-choice...because he isn't pushing his personal agenda". Others here have suggested that they'd never vote for "an antichoice" dem and the way it's phrased it's pretty clear they're referring to folks who are personally pro life, regardless of how they vote. So please, for the sake of my own ignorance, please someone break down a consensus opinion on what "antichoice" means!!

[geek tragedy]

6. it's a nebulous concept. nt

[Docreed2003]

9. Certainly seems so in some threads!

[LanternWaste]

21. No, it's not nebulous at all. The Cambridge Dictionary spells it out clearly

No, it's not nebulous at all. The Cambridge Dictionary spells it out clearly and specifically: opposing the idea that a pregnant woman should have the freedom to choose an abortion.

We can pretend it's nebulous if it's convenient to our arguments, but that reliance on inaccuracy directly results in an inaccurate premise.

[geek tragedy]

24. How about the Hyde Amendment--is that a litmus test for being pro-choice or anti-choice? nt

[boston bean]

42. The Hyde Amendment in my opinion is bad policy, it is not however a restriction on abortion.

It is a restriction on federal dollars support it.

[geek tragedy]

43. that's very, very close to my take on it. nt

[guillaumeb]

54. But that is, in effect, a restriction.

It meant that any Federal employee or family member had to self-fund the procedure.

[mwooldri]

31. Defining Pro/Anti-Choice is like trying to nail jello to a tree.

Possible, but not that easy.

I suppose the easiest way to describe an action as being "anti choice" is to support something that makes the process of obtaining a medical abortion of an unwanted pregnancy (by pill or by some other means) harder or impossible to do.

Things like bringing in a legal limit at when an abortion (based on desire to terminate) is unlawful that's unrealistically low (e.g. 12 weeks), force doctors to show patients ultrasounds, hear heartbeats, etc., requiring both parents to consent when patient is a minor... and so on. All these are anti choice acts.

There are some on DU who are totally anti anti-choice. But in my mind abortion is an ethics issue, not a political issue. It's also a women's issue. Most of the anti choice legislation I have ever heard about has been championed by men.

[loyalsister]

37. It's as if the real argument is lost in the language

I suspect that there are people who would never sign the consent form for a abortion for their daughter would always advocate against it in conversation. Yet, they have a limit where abortion is an acceptable option (in other words, choice). If a person sees abortion as an acceptable uner particular conditions, and they aren't working to ban it altogether, their position isn't as cut and dry as I have thought for a long time. I think the subset of antiabortion zealots have roped in people who are less extreme. Thus, people who could have been more flexible in their opinions have been manipulated.

I am extreme rigid am inclined to argue against any opposition. But, as this internal conflict over abortion has exploded, I am not entirely averse to exploring gray areas and cutting people some slack even when I don't agree with them.

I once read an analysis where a woman agued that using choice and privacy as the basis for the argument in favor of legal abortion might have had the unintended consequences of perpetuating the argument. She suggested that in retorspect it might have put an end to it if the ruling were based on the 14th amendment. The only way to balance the inequality of the biological demands in pregnancy is to allow for termination. I thought she had a point, but of course hindsight is 20 20.

[mwooldri]

7. In my mind, abortion should never be a political issue.

It is an ethics issue, sure as well as a medical one.

But the fact is abortion is legal. You also have less abortions happening in countries where it is legal versus places where it is not.

There should be a whole bunch of Republicans who can vote for a pro-choice bill, and there should be a number of Democrats who won't support the same pro-choice bill.

Party whip on both sides should be removed when it comes to abortion. But that's my opinion.

[geek tragedy]

10. the main disputes at the federal level are (1) judges and (2) spending.

imagine if there's a single payer bill advanced--one that would wipe out the for-profit insurance industry, and the question then turns as to whether abortions should be covered by the single payer plan, which would draw from tax funds.

[lapucelle]

8. How very reasonable...

Apparently personal autonomy in matters of reproductive healthcare is an expendable civil right, but we should be wary of corporatist tools of the establishment like Harris/Booker/Patrick.

Bend the knee indeed

[geek tragedy]

12. Would you prefer a Congress that has Nancy Pelosi as Speaker with 50 anti-choice Democrats

providing her the majority, or one with Paul Ryan as Speaker with zero anti-choice Democrats?

Under which of those scenarios do you think women's civil rights would be better served?

[lapucelle]

29. I have a policy against

engaging in in the improbable hypothetical game.

[geek tragedy]

33. It's not hypothetical. Its' the difference between 2007-2010 and 2011-present

Have women's rights been positively affected by the replacement of conservative Democrats with rightwing Republicans?

[lapucelle]

44. Of course it's a hypothetical,

and an absurdly extreme one at that.

Women took a big hit in 2016, but neither conservative Democrats nor rightwing Republicans delivered it.

[geek tragedy]

47. Republicans have controlled the House since 2010. nt

[lapucelle]

68. I worked very, very hard to elect a Democratic congresswoman

in my red district, and last year, I was a county phone bank captain, and I spent September and October Saturdays away from home in a swing state registering Democrats and devising voting day plans for the poor and the working poor who are, in affect, disenfranchised by the circumstances of the lives they lead.

Right now I'm helping to get a young Democratic WOC elected Village Justice in the town where she has lived her entire life. Turnout will determine whether or not she is elected.

We all need to participate to the fullest extent that we can. The other side seems to have a better record of showing up than we do. That's a big part of the problem.

[DoodAbides]

11. Does the same theory apply with the criminal bill in Clinton's 90's? Or possibly NAFTA.

Serious question. I am not doing the research, but if your argument is going to be history, then lets jump into history. Not pick and choose, to make a point.

[DoodAbides]

14. How did that affect the AA community. Now that I am actually thinking about it, interesting question

A lot more got put in jail, and a lot more started dying at the hands of cops. Who was the crime bill's vote were we after?

[geek tragedy]

16. I will just say this:

There is close to a zero percent chance that there will ever be 218 Democrats in the House who hold the "correct" view on every single core issue--climate change, corporate power and income inequality, abortion, racial discrimination, social safety net, health care etc.

It is possible to assemble a coalition wherein there are at least 218 votes for all of the above, but with dissenters on each.

[DoodAbides]

22. "close to a zero percent chance "...

No shit. Women and girls live, Black lives, Gay lives.... matter, though.

This is not challenging. It is not even hard.

If a person has a problem with another human being needing a safe lawful medical procedure only due to religion, then they can hold true to their religious belief while following the Constitution. Separation of Church and State. If they are not capable of that very basic thinking, foundation, .... Then, what can we say. They are not a Democrat.

This is not hard.

Integrity.

Women and girls live, Black lives, Gay lives.... matter,

[geek tragedy]

26. Okay, so we remain a minority party for the next several decades

That'll teach 'em.

[DoodAbides]

30. There is no way you can even get that statement with anything being discussed.

That tells me we went to a talking point, which is where I generally walk away.

[geek tragedy]

32. you just putatively excommunicated all anti-abortion voters from the Democratic Party.

Start telling vast swaths of the public they're not welcome in the party, what do you think they'll do?

If they are not capable of that very basic thinking, foundation, .... Then, what can we say. They are not a Democrat.

Coalitions are uncomfortable.

?quality=90&strip=info&w=575&ssl=1

[DoodAbides]

35. I did no such thing. They did by their inability to separate state vs religion.

Last edited Fri Aug 4, 2017, 02:55 PM - Edit history (1)

I did not "do" anything. I know the liberal Catholic. They were able to easily say, separation of state and religion. Biden.

Now, because we have the red, fundamentalist, fire breathing Catholics of the south breathing a different story, does not change the fundamental argument, in integrity. I believe in having integrity when talking about peoples lives. Literally, their life.

So do many Blue Catholics, the Pope being one.

[GulfCoast66]

70. Back it up there!

While I disagree with your overall point, that is not what got my dander up. Fire Breathing Catholics of the South!!! WTF. You know how few Catholics there are in the south? This is by and large protestant land. When you cast aspersions against the south please get your facts correct. But this is a fact based community. Now I will be the first to agree there is a litany of aspersions to cast against the south and I will be right there with you casting them. But make sure they are accurate.

You want fire-breathing Catholics who vote for Trump and republicans look to Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. Those were all Trump states with high catholic populations but somehow it is about the south?

And you think the pope is Blue? Dream on. He is still as Anti-woman and anti-LGBT as they have always been. Just wraps it up in nicer packaging.

Have a nice evening.

[GulfCoast66]

69. NAFTA???

Supported it then, support it now. Its been the policy of Democrats since FDR to support free trade. What does that have to do with the right to privacy?


I have no problem voting for someone who personally thinks abortion is immoral as long as they also believe that a woman's body in hers and hers alone and that abortion is a right same as all other rights.

[BainsBane]

13. Of course that explains why Pelosi has to be replaced

with an anti-choice Democrat who refuses to denounce the GOP's efforts to repeal ACA.

That makes total sense.

[DoodAbides]

15. Goodness. I have to try and wrap my mind around this statement.

I feel like I need a white board and sharpy. Maybe colored ones. We are making ourselves into pretzels to argue what we know is wrong.

This is getting fun.

[BainsBane]

20. Oh, yeah

I think you'll need more than one white board though.

[DoodAbides]

25. I am game. It is that important. To me, to lives that are affected by law. nt

[DoodAbides]

27. 2018. I am ready for you.

What a way to start a weekend. All that Trump is doing to himself, this is shaping up to be a hell of a couple years.

[DoodAbides]

18. I do love the smarts and thinking minds of the Democratic Party. nt

[geek tragedy]

19. Who refused to denounce the GOP efforts to repeal the ACA?

The minority party in the House of Representatives functions like furniture.

[BainsBane]

28. Ryan

The guy "progressives" held up as Pelosi's replacement. This was on TV, when directly asked. You've long insisted that Pelosi isn't a compelling "face" on TV. That's your guy.

Progressive is such an interesting term. Merriam Webster faces a real conundrum if they try to rework their definition to accommodate what we've seen in the past several months.

[lapucelle]

34. Can't tell the Ryans apart without a scorecard...

http://www.ontheissues.org/OH/Tim_Ryan.htm

Oh wait....

[geek tragedy]

40. derp. From your link:

I was pro-life, but we should leave decision to women.

...

voted NO on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion

access safe, legal abortion without restrictions

[lapucelle]

49. Derp indeed.

It was nice of Mr. Ryan to finally come around once it seemed safe, but he's been voting on these issues for many many years. He has a mixed record at best.

I'd like to hear him say something now that the issue is going all squishy again. I'm sure he's aware that progressive apologists are making it known that they will compromise on somebody else's civil rights. He's so good at saying stuff. Maybe he should speak up now.

[geek tragedy]

36. One should generally know the facts before making claims about them.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tim+ryan+ohio+trumpcare

[lapucelle]

50. I agree.

He has a mixed record at best.

I was pro-life, but we should leave decision to women. (Jan 2015)
Expand education & access to contraception to avoid abortion. (Jan 2015)
Voted NO on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Rated 10% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Expand contraceptive services for low-income women. (May 2006)
Rated 80% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services. (Nov 2013)
Access safe, legal abortion without restrictions. (Jan 2015)
Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception. (Jan 2009)

Here's hoping he doesn't change his mind again.

Oh, and thank for what I'm sure you think is linky goodness, but I don't eat spam.

[GeorgeGist]

48. Be careful. You might hurt something ...

stretching so far.

[Willie Pep]

51. There used to be more pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans.

Last edited Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:17 PM - Edit history (1)

There still are some of both at the state level but at the federal level they are becoming rare. There is a lot of debate as to why politics is becoming more polarized. Some say it is just the parties and not the people and others say it is the country as a whole becoming polarized. My own sense is that the people are not polarized but that regular voters are. Regular voters tend to be more politically aware and active. But they also tend to be wealthier and white and this gives the GOP an advantage over us. Republican voters are more likely to vote especially in midterm elections.

I think this is why the Democrats have to be more of a big tent party although both parties are big tents because of the nature of our two-party system. In a multiparty system people like me would probably vote for something like a European-style Christian Democratic Party as our first choice.

The Democrats don't have the money and voter advantages of the Republicans and gerrymandering and voter suppression is just making the matter worse. To win Democrats have to work harder than Republicans to get our people to the polls and to get more poor people voting because this is the big untapped source of Democratic votes that we are missing out on. But many of these poorer people are very religious, especially in red states, so you may need to run people who can appeal to their religious sensibilities.

[geek tragedy]

55. a good 25-30% of voters tend to be social conservatives but economically liberal

When they make decisions based on abortion, police accountability, etc they vote the wrong way. When they're worried about their kids' health care, or creating jobs, they vote our way.

[Willie Pep]

56. That would describe me.

I am a Catholic and know a lot of people like that. I think you are right with regard to how the voting breaks down. Some people value abortion restrictions above everything but as I have tried to argue to some pro-lifers the Republicans don't care about people when they are out of the womb and their policies will drive more women to seek abortions whether legal or illegal. I actually think the Democrats are the more consistent pro-life party if you look at the big picture.

But unfortunately it is hard to make this case to some people and that is why I think it can help us to run pro-life Democrats in some sates and districts where it might be hard to win without the "pro-life" label. Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly and Bob Casey are all much better than the likely Republican alternatives.

[geek tragedy]

57. Manchin and Donnelly and Casey had zero hesitation to go to the matts for Medicaid nt

[obamanut2012]

58. YOur stance on this in multiple threads is appalling and disappointing

[geek tragedy]

59. probably because I am not doing a good job of explaining it.

I am not arguing that we should run anti-choice candidates in conservative districts, or encourage anti-choice voters to vote Democratic, because I want to validate their views.

Rather it's because I see them as instruments in advancing all elements of our agenda--including protecting a woman's right to choose.

There is a vital distinction between "run competitive candidates" and "move the party to the right."

We did the former in 2006 and 2008. We did the latter in 1992 and 1996.

[leftstreet]

60. But you'd be asking Dems to betray their constituents

Thanks for the additional explanation of your point

I see real vulnerability for those candidates who secure the votes of anti-choicers, but then go on to endorse pro-choice legislation

[geek tragedy]

61. not really. They don't have to betray constituents if they never have to face a vote.

It's not like the House is a free-wheeling place where any group of 220 Representatives can vote on a bill they like.

Speaker and House Rules Committee (stacked with loyalists to the Speaker) determine what gets votes.

Since the vast majority of the House Democratic conference is pro-choice, that will be reflected in which bills get a vote.

[leftstreet]

63. Oh. You said protect a woman's right to choose

Rather it's because I see them as instruments in advancing all elements of our agenda--including protecting a woman's right to choose.

I thought you meant pushing/signing legislation that would advance and/or enhance that.

If I'm reading you correctly, you mean they could help maintain the status quo, and (essentially) not have to worry that ANY legislation would come up to endanger them with their constituents

[geek tragedy]

64. Exactly. The best case scenario from Congress on abortion is no legislation. nt

[leftstreet]

65. We'll have to disagree

but I appreciate your taking the time to explain your points

I think we'll need more and more reps willing to stand up to the forces dedicated to stripping all of us of our rights. (Just in the case of legal abortion, many would be astounded at how that legal right has been chipped at for decades, up to the reality that most states have very, very few providers at this point.)

Status quo is a certainly a short-term goal, just not mine

[BannonsLiver]

66. the status quo is kind of a disaster right now

I hope people are paying attention to what is happening in state legislatures around the country. That's where the bulk of the chipping away at reproductive rights has come from in recent, though I'm sure you know that. Lots of sickening laws on parental notification and requiring women to look at an ultrasound before a procedure. There's been some really nasty nasty legislation passed at the state level. Look at Texas, for example.

I know national Dems are an easy punching bag but I hope folks remember to hold their state reps accountable as well.

[6000eliot]

67. No.

Just no. No anti-choice Democrat will EVER get my vote or my support.