I could not pull the lever for a candidate who doesn't support Reproductive Rights!

[hrmjustin]

Just my two cents!

[elleng]

1. and you aren't expected to, but

some few in their local/state jurisdictions MIGHT, and such MIGHT get us a Democratic candidate instead of a repug.

[still_one]

30. 2008 Rick Santorum verses Bob Casey, 2012 Richard Murdock verses Joe Donnelly for example

[elleng]

31. Were Dems trying hard for congressional majorities?

[brooklynite]

44. Yes?

[still_one]

54. In 2008 they sure were, and I assume the same thing in President Obama's second term 2012

The point I was making was that I do not think there will be a lot of anti-choice Democrats, but there will be some, and their races very will could determine the Congressional majority.

The Democratic party controlled the majority in both houses in 2008 which hadn't occurred since 1995, and that occurred only because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats. Needless to say, it was a razor thin margin in the Senate.

The topic which is currently being discussed on DU is choice, but without out be specific, we all are aware that in previous years there have been individuals who have passionately refused to support a particular candidate based on a single issue. I believe that any attempt to reason with someone with that mindset is futile. They are not going to be swayed by argument that "the end justifies the means".

[elleng]

55. With you, still_one,

there will always be some.

[still_one]

56. I suspected we would be on the same page. I guess these recent declarations threads are a

cathartic experience, because no one's mind is going to be changed, on either side of this issue

[50 Shades Of Blue]

2. Same here. They can be personally pro-life all they want but if they

run on being anti-choice for the rest of us, they are not getting my vote.

[SharonClark]

3. I guess you didn't notice the 5 or 6 other threads on this same issue...

[BannonsLiver]

4. Five or six?

We have one poster who's started a dozen in the last 18 hours all saying essentially the same thing.

[boston bean]

19. Who is that?

[taught_me_patience]

5. A deeply original DU thread nt

[smirkymonkey]

40. This happens all the time with every topic.

Why is it suddenly an issue when it comes to women's reproductive rights?

[Lunabell]

6. Reproductive rights

Are human rights.

[hamsterjill]

14. And neither are negotiable.

[Lunabell]

34. Yes.

Am I autonomous? Or does my body belong to the state?

[UTUSN]

7. Just to be clear: "Reproductive rights" means *CHOICE*

[Squinch]

8. I don't think I could either, but just until we get some power back, I'm not going to

argue with other Democrats over it on any public forum.

Two reasons for this: first the topic seems to have blossomed lately in a way that I think was seeded by people who mean us ill. Nancy was asked a pointed question. She gave an answer that I disagree with, but as soon as she did, the trolls and bots were off to the races. They were suddenly everywhere, creating conflict among Democrats over the issue. It made people fight about it and then the dumbass DCCC jumped into it. When that happens, it's next to impossible not to jump in and say how destructive I think that is, but this time I'm not going to do that.

The second reason is that I don't know of any Democratic candidates currently running who are anti-choice. This is, for the moment, a wholly theoretical question but we are, nevertheless, cannibalizing ourselves over it in a way that prevents us from uniting to fight the wolf at the door.

I am horrified to hear my party saying the things I am hearing. And if a candidate were to be put up in my area who was anti-choice, I am pretty certain that I would not be able to vote for them. AND I will always remember those politicians who publicly DO push for anti-choice candidates. But for now I'm going to keep giving my monthly donation to PP, and working for those candidates in my jurisdictions who are solidly pro choice, and avoid participation in online arguments with Democrats. (If a Republican comes at me with that bullshit, though, I'm going to unleash all my frustration over this issue all over them.)

[Binkie The Clown]

9. Then abstain and let the Republican win.

Does the phrase "Cutting off your nose to spite you face" ring a bell?

People who think refusing to vote is a virtue annoy me.

They are every bit as bad as people who vote for 3rd party candidates that can't possibly win, and think they are being virtuous in doing so.

[MoonRiver]

48. So, are you ok with women losing the right to choose,

in order for Dems to win elections?

[Binkie The Clown]

50. I didn't say that, did I?

Single-issue people always find a way to twist anyone's words to fit into the "us vs. them" mold and declare anyone not in 100% agreement to be the enemy. I'd rather not go through life having that many enemies.

And what does all that matter anyway, when we're all going to die from catastrophic global warming. Are you OK with all human life going extinct while you quibble over an issue that cannot possibly be changed by one single Dem politician who happens to disagree with you about one issue?

Human existence itself is at stake while you object to how the deck chairs are arranged on the Titanic. Sad. If you're going to be a single-issue person, at least pick the most important single issue.

[JHan]

53. Where is the evidence that officially signaling a willingness to entertain pro-life candidates..

will bring significant net gains electorally?

Where is it?

The issue is not the pragmatism of Democrats, but the folly of reaching to a sliver voters for whom a pro-life position is a central concern when they vote- Such voters DO NOT vote Democrat, they vote Republican, so Lujan's announcement was a political miscalculation.

And why, in the face of women expressing our worries and fears about our rights coming under attack under this administration and across state legislatures, we're being told we don't understand Democrats need to retake the house? No shit. I had no idea..

And Global Warming is your main concern? -, if the DCCC* made an announcement that climate change deniers are welcome in the party, you'd be fine with that going by the logic being applied here right? - actually Dems might get more votes in Red States if they signaled a willingness to ease up on environmental protections and go full hog with coal - I assume you'd be fine with that, in the interest of pragmatism right?

Pragmatic reasoning takes into account the costs/benefits of compromise to mitigate harm in less than ideal circumstances. This announcement by the DCCC is not pragmatism, it is a fail, because the gains will not be significant enough to quell the outrage and anger- I will not be surprised if the DCCC sees a drop in funding- yeah , what a winning strategy.

[Solly Mack]

10. It's not only about reproductive rights.

It's about how women are viewed overall. Either we are autonomous people, free to make our own decisions about our own health care and well being, or we're not.

No matter what "pro-lifers" tell themselves, once they start imposing demands on a woman - it's not about the fetus. It's about controlling women.

Once they support restricting access to health care through front door protests (blocking entry), and laws that place onerous and unnecessary burdens on the health clinics - it's not about the fetus - it's about controlling the actions of the woman.

Once they start demanding wait periods - that places added financial burdens on women - it's not about the fetus - it's about controlling women.

Once you start forcing women to listen to what amounts to nothing more than a shame-lecture before they can have an abortion, it's not about the fetus - it's about controlling women.

Once you start bombing clinics and murdering doctors - it's not about the fetus. It's about terrorizing women for the purpose of controlling them.

Whether or not to have a child is a decision that impacts our economic and educational well being, as well as our mental and physical well being. And all of those things go into making the decision.


Abortion is not a single issue and never has been. To dismiss it as such is to dismiss women as people.

Attempts at controlling women through our sexuality and the (warped) patriarchal notions of the role of women - "a woman's place"- reflect what society thinks of women. Of how little society thinks of women. Of how little society values women. That bias against women, nurtured and conditioned by years of sexism and misogyny, has impacted every area of a woman's life - jobs, wages, education, housing, credit, marriage, child-birth and rearing, violence against women, justice, the vote etc..

Our ability to have children has been (and still is being) used as a means to discriminate against us. To try and control us through shame. And when science and technology allowed us more control over our own bodies, the misogynistic authoritarians couldn't abide it. They still can't.

Well, fuck them.

[hrmjustin]

11. This really should be its own OP!

[Solly Mack]

12. I've said that so many times in my life I've lost count.

Damn shame, really.

Thanks.

[musette_sf]

13. + 1

[Solly Mack]

39. Thank you.

I get a little peeved about anti-choice/anti-woman thinking.

[musette_sf]

60. as one of my favorite latter-day pundits (Charles Pierce) said,

"Realpolitik or no, it is not a smart thing to declare publicly that you're open to pitching the privacy rights of 51 percent of the population—and of what is generally your entire margin of victory around the country—overboard. If an anti-choice Democrat wants to run, you let that candidate stand up and take the heat alone, instead of telegraphing to your most loyal voters that the party establishment is open for business on this issue."

[Solly Mack]

61. I read that. He's right.

I remember people calling the LGBT community on DU purist and non-pragmatic for wanting equal rights.

It happened. Anyone that denies it either wasn't here or is choosing a revisionist history for whatever reason that motivates their denial of the facts.

I've been here since early days 2001.

I've seen people argue that a woman's right to reproductive health should be left to the states and removed from the national debate because it turns off some voters.


Left to some states, human rights become "bathroom bills", gerrymandering/voter suppression, and women's health clinics getting closed down.

And voting rights are human rights. If you can't vote, then you're left out of the process that determines the laws that govern your other rights.

Yay, us! (Not)

There's nothing purist about the rights of women being protected. Nothing purist about the rights of the LGBT community being protected. Nothing purist about the rights of African-Americans being protected. Nothing purist about the rights of LatinX Americans being protected.

If the protection and support of human rights is to be attacked as purist (and the word is used as a pejorative by many) then I can only surmise that there is an underlying contempt for all human rights being expressed.

A willingness to sell people out to gain the promise, even if not the actual fulfillment, of a win.

Jeff Sessions, along with Trump and the rest, are all too willing to attack human rights. We've heard it from their mouths and we've seen it with their actions.

It's a dangerous time in America to not be white, male, straight, and even Christian. It usually is - by the way - but right now, it's worse.

Being attacked from the outside and from the inside, by supposed allies, doesn't exactly make for a lot of trust.

I know people can hold one view of abortion while still upholding the core values of choice - but then said person would be anti-choice would they? I've read the Democrats for Life site, they aren't about supporting choice as their ultimate goal. So any candidate they supported would be suspect. And no candidate they support should get party dollars/endorsements. As Charles Pierce said, you don't tell them "the party establishment is open for business on this issue."

[ismnotwasm]

23. Thank you

[brer cat]

24. Amen, sister.

And thank you! It is all about control and power.

[Solly Mack]

38. It is.

Bottomline, that's all it is.

[Kali]

26. I can't find the dang LIKE button!

this will have to do -

[Solly Mack]

37. I hate it when that happens. (not finding the like button when I need it)

Thanks, Kali.

[bettyellen]

27. This! All of this!!!

[Solly Mack]

36. Especially the last part. :)

Thanks, bettyellen.

[smirkymonkey]

41. Bravo!

[Solly Mack]

42. Thank you

Just speaking from the heart and mind..and my experiences as a woman.

And for my mother - who knew the lack of choice intimately.

[MrsCoffee]

43. This is the best post I've read in a long time.

Thank you.

[Solly Mack]

45. I won't go quietly. None of us will.

We can't afford to - we owe a debt to the women who came before us. We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to the future.

We can't go back. For going back means women dying. (and not just physical death either)

Thank you!

[Ms. Toad]

15. Did vote for Obama in 2008, when he was expressly opposed to same gender marriage?

I don't see why there is any difference.

[hrmjustin]

16. I did and I voted for him expecting that eventually he would change his opinion.

[Ms. Toad]

47. Then why the absolute standard on abortion rights?

I don't see distinction.(FWIW, I did not expect Obama to change his position - and voted for him accepting that he would not acknowledge my marriage, or support its legal recognition. As I would vote for the otherwise most progressive candidate, without regard to any single issue on which we differed.)

[Foamfollower]

18. The choice issue at the national level is older than the same gender marriage issue.

Right now, neither should be foregone.

[Ms. Toad]

49. I don't believe either isssue, in isolation, is reason to stay home from the voting booth

or to vote for a third party candidate, etc.

I don't see that the age of awareness of the issue has any bearing on anything.

[Foamfollower]

17. As was pointed out to me, the anti-choice people refused to vote for anybody wh was not anti-choice.

That stance has made an extreme minority the "majority" where elected officials are concerned.

We must fight the anti-choice fire with their own fire.

[wryter2000]

57. Good point!

I don't know why anyone thinks courting people who will never vote Democratic is a winning strategy. We should be getting our base out, not insulting the majority of them.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Choice is not negotiable.

[Yates Amatitio]

21. agreed

agreed and i similarly I will never support a so-called fiscal conservative Democratic candidate. Choice, addressing income inequality and addressing social progress are requirements in my mind...all equal all essential to our message.

[bhikkhu]

22. I don't know that I could either

Living on the west coast, I fortunately don't think I'll have to worry about it.

But I'll say it anyway, as being male, in the past I was prone to saying I didn't need to have an opinion because I would never be pregnant.

I said that to someone a couple years back, and then was asked to consider - what if things were reversed and normal intimate relations resulted in males becoming pregnant, what if I did have to have an opinion? Thinking about it a little, there is no doubt in my mind that it would be entirely my choice whether to bear a child into the world with my body. Entirely and absolutely my choice, no one else's, regardless of the law or anything else.

Women have that right, and its not for the government or any religion to infringe upon it.

[BigDemVoter]

25. Same here.

I cannot vote for an anti-choice candidate. Luckily I don't live in an area where I will ever have to worry about that.

[still_one]

28. curious, are you in red or swing state?

[Warpy]

29. Me neither. It would be like voting for slavery in the 1850s, just couldn't do it.

The DCCC doesn't seem to get how important the issue is to women and many of the men who love them.

(We're not often on the same side, nice that we are on this one)

[OnDoutside]

32. Were you a Bernie or Bust as well ?

[Willie Pep]

33. But what if you were in a state like Louisiana?

What if your choice was between David Vitter and John Bel Edwards for governor? Neither were pro-choice but with Edwards in office over 400,000 people have enrolled in Medicaid and Edwards passed an executive order to ban discrimination against LGBT people in government jobs and contracts. People in Louisiana would never have gotten those things with Vitter in office.

I consider myself to be pro-life but I vote for Democrats because I consider them to be on the whole the more pro-life party. But because I disagree with most Democrats on abortion I do end up voting for people who I have strong disagreements with on that issue. The same goes for other issues. But when I balance the two candidates I almost always find the Democrat to better than the Republican.

I can understand why the majority of Democrats would not want to support an anti-choice candidate in a blue state where a more progressive candidate could be competitive. There are even some pro-choice Republicans in blue states. But in red states it makes sense to run pro-life/anti-choice candidates if the only other option is a hardcore right-wing Republican. It is better to get some of what you want rather than none.

[SHRED]

52. This is a very important point

Thank you.

[JNelson6563]

35. And we all need to work hard to make sure

we have pro-choice candidates on the ballot!

Just going to use this opportunity to remind everyone that candidates don't magically appear and good ones don't run when they think they'll be left out in the wilderness without a strong support network locally.

[BSdetect]

46. The big issue is more important

[samnsara]

51. i can see them not personally supporting it but if they promise....

...and demonstrate they WILL back our reproductive rights I can support them... Tim Kaine comes to mind....

[Voltaire2]

58. I'm with you on this issue.

[MineralMan]

59. I doubt you will ever have to even consider it.

I don't know where you live, but if you have a Democrat as your House rep, odds are high that your representative is strongly pro-choice. There are only half a dozen or so Democrats in Congress who aren't and that's in both houses combined. The rest have NARAL ratings in the 90-100% range. The few Democrats who do not are from red states or red districts and hold their seats narrowly.

So, it's unlikely that you will ever have an opportunity to refuse to pull the lever for the Democrat on your ballot.

Now, if you live in a red state or district, that may not be the case. But, if you are, odds are high that your representative is a Republican already.