Pelosi: Democratic candidates should not be forced to toe party line on abortion
Source: Washington Post
The Democratic Party should not impose support for abortion rights as a litmus test on its candidates, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday, because it needs a broad and inclusive agenda to win back the socially conservative voters who helped elect President Trump.
This is the Democratic Party. This is not a rubber-stamp party, Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters.
I grew up Nancy DAlesandro, in Baltimore, Maryland; in Little Italy; in a very devout Catholic family; fiercely patriotic; proud of our town and heritage, and staunchly Democratic, she added, referring to the fact that she is the daughter and sister of former mayors of that city. Most of those people my family, extended family are not pro-choice. You think Im kicking them out of the Democratic Party?
Those comments from one of the Democrats most powerful and high-profile women come at a moment of opportunity and struggle within the party. It has been shut out of power in Washington, controlling neither house of Congress nor the White House, and its ranks have been decimated at the state and local level.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-democratic-candidates-should-not-be-forced-to-toe-party-line-on-abortion/2017/05/02/9cbc9bc6-2f68-11e7-9534-00e4656c22aa_story.html
7962
(11,841 posts)melman
(7,681 posts)Well. I mean you'd think if you didn't realize all that screaming is really about hating one particular person.
You'll notice all the loudest and most prolific screamers are nowhere to be found in this thread, nor have they started any threads in GD about it.
And they won't. Because again, what they really care about is their intense hatred of You Know Who.
catsudon
(839 posts)when HRC said the same thing herself, no one cared... but geez, when the one who can't be named did it, all hell break loose.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"You'll notice all the loudest and most prolific screamers are nowhere to be found in this thread...
Again, you'll illustrate the courage of your convictions with specificity, yes? I'd certainly hate to think anyone would rationalize cowardice; but I guess we never know until we see that rationalization... again.
Are you asking the poster to break forum rules ? Why would you do that ?
melman
(7,681 posts)...again
But I guess what's (sort of ) being suggested is that I should name names. Which of course would get me an instant hide.
So not only would that be stupid and not at all courageous, but almost nobody would see it...including the one who baited me into doing it.
Strange.
7962
(11,841 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I pretend different opinions are merely hysterics as well. Our bias seems to compel it of us. And we rationalize the obvious as something else. Human nature.
Lucky Luciano
(11,242 posts)Last edited Tue May 2, 2017, 11:10 PM - Edit history (1)
She really didn't have to go there. We don't need to tack to the middle. That is precisely what makes people trust democrats less. Wishy washy bullshit.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Not sure if there is such a moderate Republican in this day and age though.
DURHAM D
(32,596 posts)cstanleytech
(26,085 posts)include people with differences of opinion on important social issues which is the complete opposite of the Repugnants.
DURHAM D
(32,596 posts)It is the law and has been for 44 years.
cstanleytech
(26,085 posts)The Polack MSgt
(13,159 posts)It is the law.
It is also an economic issue, an equality issues and a freedom issue. Social issue sounds dismissive.
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Cute little way to rationalize and trivialize established law as mere opinion.
DURHAM D
(32,596 posts)Marriage equality?
The 19th Amendment?
William769
(55,124 posts)DURHAM D
(32,596 posts)Good to see you.
Do you think Nancy misspoke?
William769
(55,124 posts)But as it stands, I don't like it. That's a core principal of the Democratic party and I for one do NOT want to see it compromised in any way shape or form.
rocktivity
(44,555 posts)You'd think she'd be a lot more concerned about keeping anti gay Dems than anti-choice ones.
rocktivity
bucolic_frolic
(42,679 posts)Gimme freedom, just don't force me to live according to the dictates of the other side
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)is something else.
Still, no one really is in 100% agreement with any party platform. OTOH, that's a biggie.
LisaM
(27,762 posts)On the other hand, there is a difference between someone personally not being pro-choice and how they vote on various laws when they come up. And I'm pretty sure that most of the pro-choice Democrats wouldn't vote to jail women for having miscarriages, letting employers track down years later whether potential job candidates have had abortions so that they can discriminate against hiring them, and, most importantly, would not vote to defund all the mechanisms that prevent pregnancy.
To me, it is a really important issue and how we got to a place where most of the country is in favor of legalized abortion but we manage to election legislatures than aren't is beyond me. It's really the issue for women that we be able to have a say over our own bodies. I think we've got people scrambling on some of these issues which is unfortunate. And, while I'm for a big tent, a progressive Democratic candidate should be in favor of abortion rights.
Master_Monstruwacan
(71 posts)Roe v. Wade can NEVER be overturned.
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)Abortion is legal and will stay that way.
delisen
(6,039 posts)Ligyron
(7,592 posts)Really?
Who needs 'em.
More_Cowbell
(2,190 posts)And so will I. I'm done with supporting the DNC, anyway. I support individual candidates.
Whatever I donate would go to individual candidates. I'd avoid sending to organizations like the DNC because I don't want my money going to candidates I don't want to support or even may be very strongly against for either moral or political reasons.
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)It's another to sell out one of the main party bedrocks. What is next, becoming pro-slavery?
defacto7
(13,485 posts)where freedom is the default position when sides can't agree on a moral point. That's pure basics in a democracy. Once there's one side that decides personal values for all we are no longer a democratic society. Freedom 101: Be what you want to be, say what you want to say, believe what you want to believe.... as long as it doesnt take away the freedom of anyone else to do the same.
Freedom of Choice.... that's the default position. Cross that line and freedom is no more.
Exactly.
Skittles
(152,967 posts)let's call them what they are: RACISTS, MISOGYNISTS, HOMOPHOBES
shadowmayor
(1,325 posts)Don't like abortion? Then don't have one. Don't like gay marriage? Then don't marry a same sex partner. Easy enough. But, when you think your beliefs should be my beliefs, well we gotta real big problem. How about, I like all people, but I think that we should be allowed to own slaves because it's in that book? You know, that book where god likes abortion - See Numbers 5 11:31.
Are there so many (or so few) pro-life democrats that we need to court them now? I know, we're not supposed to criticize democrats, but there are times when our side says or does something that demands a firm rebuke. The anti-abortion carrot isn't the draw that many think it could be.
jalan48
(13,798 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)instead of the games on this thread.
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)Surely she knows that it's mostly women who are fighting this fight against the Orange Clown.
musette_sf
(10,184 posts)I also expressed my hope that we would soon hear her present a statement similar to that of DNC Chair Perez, stating that the defense and protection of women's rights is "non-negotiable".
Fortunately, Rep Speier, who has been my rep since the 12th District was redrawn to exclude my county, has stepped up this year to fight for the ratification of the ERA, and has applauded the felony charges against the domestic terrorists who are directly responsible for influencing terrorist Robert Dear to do the massacre at the Planned Parenthood medical facility in Colorado Springs. I hope that Rep Speier remains resolute in protecting and defending women's sacred rights.
50 Shades Of Blue
(9,777 posts)hamsterjill
(15,214 posts)I will NEVER vote for an anti-choice Democrat. It's a deal breaker for me and if someone does not understand that, so be it. I will not back down.
bekkilyn
(454 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)Like a Sanders or Baucus who comes from the farther borders of the party. What the Hell is Pelosi doing after she got support from many women and other pro choice people?
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)What a person chooses to do is their own business.
But our platform is clear and will not change.
A woman's body is her own and the state has no say in it.
There can be no compromise on this issue!
DURHAM D
(32,596 posts)Jno_Gilmor_
(127 posts)I care about how someone is going to vote, not neccessarily their personal beliefs. You can be pro-choice--believe all women should be able to make their own choices--and be personally against abortion. As long as a candidate supports choice I can support them. If they don't support a women's right to choose they don't deserve my vote or my money!
athena
(4,187 posts)Wasn't there an analysis that came out recently that showed that Hillary lost the EC because the Democratic base didn't turn out? It's the Democratic base the Democratic Party should be courting; not those woman-hating, LGBT-hating, immigrant-hating, minority-hating, science-hating Trump supporters.
The harder the Democratic Party tries to win over Trump supporters, the more it will lose the support of its base. I am very disappointed in Pelosi for falling for the argument that the only group that matters is working-class conservative white men.
Then again, as I've been saying for months: when Democrats lose, they move right, not left. It's what happened in 2000, and it's what is going to happen now. If people wanted to move the Democratic Party left, they should have voted Democratic, not stayed home or voted third-party.
still_one
(91,966 posts)very anti-abortion, and against Roe V Wade. The Democratic party is pro-choice, and for Roe V Wade. We all know where Rick Santorum is on the issues. Except for abortion, and a women's right to choose, on every other issue, Casey would be considered a progressive.
If the choice is between an anti-abortion Democrat, and an anti-abortion republican, the Democratic party would be insane not to support the Democrat in this case, assuming the Democrat is progressive on the other issues verses the republican.
In 2018 Bob Casey will be up for re-election if he decides to run. It will be the primary process that will determine who the Democratic voters choose, but once that nomination has been finalized, I think the Democratic party has to be very careful and look at all the issues before making a blanket statement that they won't support the Democratic nominee over the republican one over abortion.
hamsterjill
(15,214 posts)Yes, I know that sounds crass, but we don't need to go to them; they need to come to us.
I think some of them will be re-thinking their support of Trump when they are personally affected by his policies.
Quixote1818
(28,904 posts)get involved and wants to leave Roe vs Wade intact.
Skittles
(152,967 posts)they are HYPOCRITES
still_one
(91,966 posts)against an anti-abortion republican?
The Democratic platform clearly states that the Democratic party is a pro-choice party. So when Representative Pelosi says that "Democratic candidates should not be forced to toe party line on abortion", I assume means the Democratic party should not withhold election funds to anti-abortion Democrats against their republican counterparts.
Bob Casey, an anti-abortion Democrat, was the re-elected in 2012, and is the first Democrat to win re-election to the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania since 1962. In 2018, Bob Casey will be up for re-election. If Bob Casey wins the Democratic primary, should the Democratic party withhold funds from his re-election campaign against the republican, because he is anti-abortion?
Expanding that, should the Democratic party withhold funds from any anti-abortion Democrat running against an anti-abortion republican?
In the case of Bob Casey, he is anti-abortion, but on almost every other issue he would be classified as a liberal, and definitely far better than a Rick Santorum, or Toomey.
The issue is not so black and white as some would lead us to believe.
bekkilyn
(454 posts)Find a pro-choice candidate to support against the anti-choice Republican. Just to clarify, candidates can have whatever personal or religious beliefs they want, but they need to be fully pro-choice when it comes to *legislation*.
Would you ask if it was okay for the Democratic party to support a pro-slavery candidate just as long as s/he were only running against a Republican pro-slavery candidate?
Hopefully the answer would be NO!
Because we don't support slavery. Ever!
Why should women's rights be treated differently?
still_one
(91,966 posts)If you have an anti-abortion Democrat who won the Democratic nomination because the voters in that state voted for him, running against an anti-abortion republican, what do you do? Please answer that question, because that is the political reality of what happens.
In 2012 when Bob Casey, an anti-abortion Democrat was running against Rick Santorum, who would you vote for in that case?
bekkilyn
(454 posts)Better to lose a seat than to give any sort of support to legislating human rights violations. The line needs to be drawn somewhere, and it's healthier in the long-term for the party to not back down when it comes to basic human rights at minimum.
still_one
(91,966 posts)this.
The majority of Democrats in Congress are pro-choice.
It is a fact that the party who has the majority in Congress controls the agenda.
Having the majority to control the agenda is critical. If the Democratic party had that majority, Women's rights would NOT be jeopardized as they are now.
There was a mindset among some self-identified progressives, that they would not vote for Hillary in the general election, by either not voting, or voting third party. That resulted in what we have today, not only with the WH, but the make-up of Congress as well.
Because of what happened in 2016, 2018 is do or die, and in my view not only for women's rights, but for America decades to come.
bekkilyn
(454 posts)And not expect me to compromise on basic human rights because I won't do it. Never ever not in a gazillion years. Not for anyone or any party.
still_one
(91,966 posts)representative are all pro-choice, but I will say this, if I was in Pennsylvania, and the Democratic voters in Pennsylvania nominated Bob Casey as the Democratic Senate nominee in 2018, and he is running against someone like Rick Santorum, without a second thought I would vote for Casey. I am as pro-choice, and women's rights as they come, but on this I agree with Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren, that everything needs to be considered.
If the Democrats take back the Senate in 2018, the few anti-choice Democrats in the Congress will NOT change the pro-choice agenda or positions of a Democratic Senate. On the other hand, if those few pro-choice Democrats lose, and that loss causes us to not regain the majority in the Senate, you can bet if there is another SC vacancy between 2018 and 2020, that Roe V Wade will be overturned, and the result of that will affect women in a negative way for decades to come.
bekkilyn
(454 posts)And trying to scare women into voting against our human rights with various "what if" conditions isn't a good strategy. After all, trying to scare people into not voting for 45 didn't work either. Give people things to vote *for*, giving people reasons to *trust* that the party will stand behind their rights unconditionally and unapologetically...that's how to attract voters. When I hear arguments like yours, my trust goes right in the gutter because it clearly tells me that there are cases (if I'd only see things "reasonably" where my human rights are for sale.
Nope, not going to do it. No compromise.
still_one
(91,966 posts)Elizabeth Warren while you are at it, because that is the argument they are using
bekkilyn
(454 posts)Now I do like Bernie and Elizabeth Warren, but I wouldn't necessarily vote for candidates just because either or both endorsed them. There are lines that cannot be crossed or compromised and basic human rights is one of those lines.
Bernie probably matches my own views on most things compared to other politicians, but I wouldn't expect to be in 100% agreement with him, and don't mind calling him out or holding him accountable when appropriate, and this is one of those times when it's appropriate. Even Bernie doesn't have my support on this one.
Unless Perez has wimped out and backtracked concerning pro-forced birth candidates, I have to give this one to him for standing up for what's right and something I'd like to see the Democratic party doing more often.
still_one
(91,966 posts)do not consider an anti-abortion Democrat, as being against "human rights". The reason I think I can make that argument is because if they really believed that someone was against "human rights", they wouldn't support that candidate.
Let's extrapolate that. Suppose we had a Democratic candidate who was against Civil Rights. That is not a far fetched argument, since in the 50's, 60's, and 70's there were "democrats" in the south, who were outright racists. The Democratic party made the correct moral decision with the Civil Rights Act, from Lyndon Johnson, and effectively lost those Southern democrats. They became republicans, and along with Nixon's exploitation, gave birth to his racist Southern strategy, and the Democrats for the most part, lost the South
Howard Dean started to change that through his 50-state strategy, but the price paid was accepting anti-choice, pro-gun, Democrats as part of the party.
The question comes down to this, can a pro-choice Democrat win in a red state?
Incidentally, Perez has NOT backed down on this. He has drawn a line in the sand, and by that action alone, regardless of what Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders, or any other Democrat, or someone who aligns with the Democratic party say, the official position of the Democratic party is that regardless of someone's personal views on abortion, if you want to be part of the Democratic party, then you must vote pro-choice.
It will be interesting to see if this becomes an issue in 2018. I have no doubt it will be an issue in 2020 though.
bekkilyn
(454 posts)I am glad to hear that Perez hasn't backed down. It's been really refreshing to finally see some backbone, and encouraging that at least someone in Democratic party leadership isn't willing to sell off people's basic human rights.
Winning at all costs isn't winning.
demosincebirth
(12,518 posts)TeamPooka
(24,156 posts)No matter what party leaders say, the grass roots will have final say over this matter in the ballot box.
brooklynite
(93,879 posts)Senator Bob Casey is "pro-life" but doesn't apply his philosophy to funding Planned Parenthood or imposing restrictions on reproductive rights.
bekkilyn
(454 posts)I would ever knowingly vote for a candidate who is a pro-forced birther. Basic human rights issues are NOT up for compromise. EVER, whether they have to do with gender, race, ethnicity, disability, etc.
the_sly_pig
(740 posts)However, a woman's right to control her own body is absolute. Control over one's own body is as fundamental a human right as possible. Those that believe otherwise are not Democrats.
Democrats have every right, as everyone else, to oppose abortion. However, if you wish to be a considered a Democrat you will not work toward the elimination of fundamental human rights.
Whether Nancy makes that distinction is an issue in itself.
Skittles
(152,967 posts)countryjake
(8,554 posts)the_sly_pig
(740 posts)and have absolute control over her own body, which includes abortion. I thought I made that pretty clear in my post. No need to get your undies in a twist.
countryjake
(8,554 posts)in any Women's Protest March for our rights, before RoeVWade. It was only long after, during the seventies, when the pro-life/forced-birthers began their campaign to take away from us what we'd won that "Choice" ever entered the picture.
We fought for the right to Abortion, our human right!
Back then, there were hundreds of thousands of us who most certainly were Pro-Abortion and nary a one of us was afraid or ashamed to shout it out loud!
And that's why women have the Right to Abortion today.
delisen
(6,039 posts)I have anti-choice relatives just like you!
The legislative leaders have a narrow analysis and narrow focus. They want to believe if they make some adjustments in emphasis-go light on Human Rights for now and and emphasis we are the party of working families everything will work out.
We will pick up seat but not because of the simple-minded analysis.
They should actually be doubling down on human rights but they don't know that yet
Don't expect them to be visionaries or see the big picture. That is going to be up to us.
They are nuts and bolts people and are good at what they do-getting positive legislation passed and blocking bad legislation.
The newly emerged Clinton sounded very confident today. She sees the the big picture and she is focused on women and girls.
Sanders thinks he is a revolutionary; Clinton thinks she is not--they are both wrong.
demmiblue
(36,751 posts)Oh, bullshit, Speaker Pelosi.
As a result, within the Democrats, I dont think that youll see too many candidates going out there and saying, Im running as a pro-life candidate,? she said. Its how far are you willing to go on the issue but lets not spend too much time on the subject.
Its kind of fading as an issue, she said. It really is.
THIS (Ilyse Hogue):
The platform approved by Democrats at their national convention in Philadelphia last year went further than the Party has ever gone to stand up for the womens rights. It didnt just seek to protect abortion access it sought to expand it, Hogue said. If the Democratic Party is going to gain back power, it cant go backward, it cant back down and it cant trade away these principles.
bekkilyn
(454 posts)Her current stance of welcoming and encouraging pro-forced birthers into the Democratic party with open arms is only icing on the cake. I don't care what her personal beliefs are, but I thought the Democratic party was supposed to be about standing up for basic human rights, not compromising them. If she can't handle that job, then she needs to move aside for someone else who won't compromise on human rights issues.
Xolodno
(6,341 posts)Pro-Life people can be for better sex education, free contraception, more money for adoption services, more money social services that provide for adopted children, single mothers, etc.
Its GOP nut jobs who say carry a pregnancy to term if you are raped, push abstinence only education and cut social services...in other words, Repubs are the number one cause of abortions.
The Polack MSgt
(13,159 posts)If the Democrats who live in that district are forced birth believers, I guess they'll get what they deserve.
Just make sure that the DNC does not push away pro-choice Democrats or impose their choice top down
countryjake
(8,554 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)Wow, we do have an unusually large tent now!
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Thrill
(19,178 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)is not a good thing from certain quarters here on DU.