Abortion is the most progressive economic issue.

[pnwmom]

It's not secondary. It's primary.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/opinion/why-abortion-is-an-progressive-economic-issue.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

The Democrats’ unity tour fractured into disunity almost immediately after it began. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont refused to say whether Jon Ossoff, the Democratic candidate trying to win a typically Republican district in Georgia while being outspoken in support of abortion rights, counts as a progressive. He then went on to stump for Heath Mello in Nebraska. Mr. Mello, who is running for mayor in Omaha, has sponsored legislation aimed at restricting women’s access to abortion, including a bill in 2009 that required women to be informed that they could look at ultrasounds of their fetuses.

The Democratic National Committee chairman, Thomas E. Perez, didn’t do much to dampen the growing outrage among progressives who see reproductive rights as core to their values. “If you demand fealty on every single issue, then it’s a challenge,” he said last week.

It’s not just a misstatement from Mr. Perez or a slight from Mr. Sanders. Democrats, in their postelection soul searching, are trying to learn the lessons from Donald Trump’s jolting victory and how they might win back the presidency. And some — all men so far, it should be noted — argue that the party should move away from so-called social issues like abortion and reproductive freedom.

Instead, these men contend, the party’s focus must be on economics. The glaring mistake they all make, however, is thinking that there is any way to disentangle reproductive rights from economic issues.

SNIP

[NurseJackie]

1. That's an EXCELLENT editorial!! It hits the nail squarely on the head.

The Democrats’ unity tour fractured into disunity almost immediately after it began. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont refused to say whether Jon Ossoff, the Democratic candidate trying to win a typically Republican district in Georgia while being outspoken in support of abortion rights, counts as a progressive. He then went on to stump for Heath Mello in Nebraska. Mr. Mello, who is running for mayor in Omaha, has sponsored legislation aimed at restricting women’s access to abortion, including a bill in 2009 that required women to be informed that they could look at ultrasounds of their fetuses.

Yes, that's a truthful and accurate statement. Things like this will destroy our beloved Democratic Party from within, but nobody seems to be listening. Nobody seems to care. Nobody seems to be willing to learn from their mistakes. It's all so ego-driven, and women are being ignored.

Things need to change. Schumer and Perez need to get together and think very carefully about what their next move will be.

[ProfessorPlum]

8. LOL!

[George II]

19. What's so funny?

[Foamfollower]

20. Sorta creepy.

[sheshe2]

21. Your amusement is so very sad.

Mocking women seems easy. Standing by them so difficult when it should not be.

[sheshe2]

22. Why do you hate us so?

[Bettie]

2. We can focus on human rights AND

economics.

It isn't an either/or thing.

But, on most issues there will be a person here or there who isn't perfectly in line with the party mainstream.

So, we can either insist on total purity or accept that we have a diversity of opinions and sometimes need to elect Dems who agree with us 90% of the time instead of 100%.

I don't think we need to move away from reproductive rights, human rights, etc. But we do need to add more focus on economics because neither set of problems can be solved without addressing the other.

[Me.]

6. Did You Just Miss The Entire Point?

"more focus on economics"

[Demsrule86]

13. Sorry...my rights are not negotiable.... and why should social issues be tossed under the bus?

[Bettie]

17. They shouldn't

neither should economic issues, which appears to be what others would like.

Zero focus on economics doesn't work either.

[Demsrule86]

50. Not true... no one said that...we need

economic justice and social justice.

[Bettie]

57. Then why do you (and others) rail against the idea

that both can be priorities?

Demanding absolute purity and perfect adherence to every issue will end up with no one passing the test. It will also end with Republicans in charge of literally everything. Think they'll make things better?

And yet, not so long ago, people (most of the same people who are demanding absolute perfect adherence now) were admonishing others who wanted to primary more conservative members of the senate because they only agree 80% of the time or so.

So, is it absolute purity you are after or is it simply hatred for one guy?

[Demsrule86]

60. I don't hate Sen. Sanders first of all. I am strongly pro-choice.

I remember when Sen.Sanders told the Rolling Stone in 2015 that, "once you get off the social issues-abortion, gay, guns -and into the economic issues ,there is a lot more agreement than the pundits understand" I looked up the exact quote.

Now, Sen. Sanders has a good record on voting for pro-choice policies, so I wasn't overly worried about such comments. Although, I found them somewhat disturbing which is why I still remember them.

However, now he has endorsed two anti-choice candidates who are economic populists but anti-choice...Mello in Nebraska and Perriello in Virginia. So it looks like Sen. Sanders is willing to trade away my reproductive rights in order to advance a certain economic agenda. Both of these candidates voted to restrict a woman's right to abortion and Perriello is also a Keystone guy. So what rights are you willing to willing to give up?

Also, I would not primary red state conservadems, but I would not endorse them either.

[Squinch]

3. Kick.

[ismnotwasm]

4. K&R

[Me.]

5. Dont Hardly Know What To Say Anymore

Except that Perez is turning out to be a huge disappointment. Though I don’t know if Ellison would’ve been any better considering how he cleaves onto BS. But it’s a sad day when the Times get it and many progressives don’t, however I am mighty thankful that piece has appeared when this debate has been raging here and everywhere.

[ProfessorPlum]

9. thanks for your very sorrowful concern

It is noted.

[Me.]

11. Ah Yes Professor Plum

your presence in these threads is always noted

[sheshe2]

23. Thank you for your concerned concern that concerns you post after post.

We see you.

[mopinko]

7. it is my recollection that roe v wade was decided, in part,

based on exactly this issue.

here is what i recall, and would appreciate the brain trust chiming in here-

i remember a story that cokie roberts told when rbg was confirmed. she was involved in arguing the case and made the argument that the decision to end a pregnancy had economic repercussions on not just the woman, but her entire family, including the baby that would be born if choice was denied.
she said that it became something of an in joke w rbg and justice kennedy- that she bumped into him at a party, and that he asked her "how's the baby?"

as i said, fuzzy old memory from when npr was a reliable news source, and cokie was a liberal.

[ProfessorPlum]

10. agreed, and most progressives support the right to choose

thanks for helping make this point over and over and over.

[ProfessorPlum]

12. Heath Mello has been on the right side of this issue for five years

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-was-heath-mello-thrown-under-the-bus/

and is a trusted ally of PP in Nebraska.

 What’s more interesting is what happened next—and what didn’t. In 2012, Mello voted with Planned Parenthood on two out of three bills tracked by the group—and was excused from voting on the third. After that, Mello, who had become the influential chair of the state legislature’s budget committee, voted with Planned Parenthood 100 percent of the time. By 2015, the group was celebrating a “fourth straight year…without enacting any new abortion restrictions in Nebraska, thanks largely to committed women’s health advocates engaged in the legislative process.”

[Demsrule86]

14. He voted for a 20 week ban.

[NurseJackie]

15. That doesn't sound like he's on our side at all!!

[Demsrule86]

25. When I looked at is record...I was shocked...went looking for the ultrasound thing but found this.

If you use the link and click on highlighted words in excerpt...it takes your to Nebraska documents.

"Mello is a sponsor of the final version of a 20-week abortion ban approved by the governor in 2010, and cast anti-choice votes in favor of requiring physicians to be physically present for an abortion in order to impede access to telemedicine abortion care, and a law banning insurance plans in the state from covering abortions. He was endorsed in 2010 by anti-choice group Nebraska Right to Life."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/omaha-mayoral-candidate-under-fire-says-he-would-never-do-anything-to-restrict-access-to-reproductive-health-care_us_58f8e868e4b018a9ce590a84

[NurseJackie]

26. He's on the WRONG SIDE! Why are people lying about his record?

[Omaha Steve]

29. Joe Biden once voted for a late-term abortion ban and received low marks from NARAL in 1999 & 2003

https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluation53279/joe-biden-jr#.WPqT4lPyve0s/

[NurseJackie]

31. LOL! What's he running for?

[Omaha Steve]

34. You didn't vote Obama/Bidden TWICE????

[NurseJackie]

35. LOL

[Omaha Steve]

36. Now that you have this info you couldn't seem to find in a hall of mirrors

IF he runs for President as rumored, you will work against him. You are consistent.

GOT IT

[NurseJackie]

37. ROFLMAO

[Omaha Steve]

39. I'm performing 2 shows nightly

PLEASE be sure to tip the waitress!

[NurseJackie]

40. Waitress? Seriously?

[NurseJackie]

32. "We've come a long way, baby!"

[NurseJackie]

33. No one's gonna keep me down again!

[LexVegas]

16. ...

[musette_sf]

30. FACTS here:

“Planned Parenthood Voters of Nebraska has never endorsed Heath Mello for public office nor has Planned Parenthood Voters of Nebraska given Heath Mello a 100% rating, as some media outlets have erroneously reported,” the group said in a statement.

Heath Mello's Regressive Record:

- LB 1103 Prohibiting Abortions After 20 Weeks of Pregnancy Bill Passed - Senate (44 - 5) Yea

- LB 594 Abortion Screening Requirements Bill Passed - Senate (40 - 9) Yea

- LB 22 Prohibits Insurance Coverage of Abortion Bill Passed - Senate (37 - 7) Yea

- LB 521 Requires Physician Presence During Abortions Bill Passed - Senate (38 - 9) Yea

- LB 675 Establishes Procedures for Ultrasounds Performed Prior to Abortions Bill Passed - Senate (40 - 5) Yea

[ProfessorPlum]

45. do you have a link

please

[NurseJackie]

46. LOL!

45. do you have a link
please

Dude. Seriously. Google is your friend. Good grief. All from one site... votesmart/org ... and this isn't the first time this information has been provided. You've been all over these threads like white on rice, it's really difficult to believe that you've somehow managed to "overlook" it before.

LB 22 - Prohibits Insurance Coverage of Abortion - Key Vote

LB 1103 - Prohibiting Abortions After 20 Weeks of Pregnancy - Key Vote

LB 594 - Abortion Screening Requirements - Key Vote

LB 521 - Requires Physician Presence During Abortions - Key Vote

LB 675 - Establishes Procedures for Ultrasounds Performed Prior to Abortions - Key Vote

[ProfessorPlum]

47. those votes are all older than five years

and I was specifically asking about the source of the quote.

LOL!!

[NurseJackie]

49. LOL! "those votes are all older than five years" (LOL LOL LOL!)

47. those votes are all older than five years

HA! LOL! It's like it never happened at all!

47. those votes are all older than five years

HA! Should the cut-off point be LAST MONTH??

47. those votes are all older than five years

No, wait! Wait! How about looking back no further than LAST WEEK?? He'll REALLY look like a paragon of Progressive Virtue then. LOL!

and I was specifically asking about the source of the quote.

No you weren't.

You weren't specifically asking about anything at all. There was NOTHING specific about your request. You simply said "45. do you have a link please" ... a very generic request lacking specificity that you now claim.

That may have been what you specifically wanted, but anyone can see that you were not "specifically asking about the source of the quote"

[George II]

55. I'm sure the Nebraska state government website has the details.

[ProfessorPlum]

48. Ok, I found the original link

and, as you point out, "Planned Parenthood Voters of Nebraska" is the source of the quote.

Not Planned Parenthood.


Planned Parenthood Voters of Nebraska is a Facebook site, not an official site of Planned Parenthood, and could easily be a source of False News.

So, I'm open to hearing what PP's actual take on Mello is - if you can find a genuine quote.

[George II]

56. "PP's actual take", as in "Planned Parenthood" or "Professor Plum"?

[Amimnoch]

62. LOL

[YoungDemCA]

18. It's also electorally toxic in many parts of the country.

Including many places where Democrats need to win if they ever want to (re)gain control of Congress - along with many state legislatures and Governorships and other state offices.

[Demsrule86]

61. So are gay rights, interracial marriage, separation of church and state and health care.

Should we cave on all of this too...or are you only willing to throw reproductive rights under the bus?

[YoungDemCA]

65. There's a difference between caving on issues and de-emphasizing certain polarizing issues.

I thought the Democratic Party was supposed to be a "Big Tent." How big of a tent are we going to be?

Where we can we find common ground with voters who don't necessarily agree with the official party stance on every issue?

[Demsrule86]

66. so you only cave on certain issues...the ones you don't care about I guess...

I have voted for anti-choice candidates when the other person was GOP...but you don't endorse them, you don't normalize them and you don't support them in a primary when a better candidate is running (Virginia) I am so sorry my reproductive health is so polarizing. You want to de-empahasize women's rights you will lose many more votes than you will gain. You have to understand understand that this is a life and death issue for women.

A few years ago, I miscarried. I was left to bleed to death on a gurney in Georgia while my 'pro-life' doctor waited for proof the 'baby' was gone...the ultrasound was insufficient proof apparently as was the excessive life threatening bleeding...I was unconscious by the time my husband arrived just in time to save my life by firing the doctor and convincing a young resident to save my life with a D&C and massive blood transfusions...three weeks in the hospital and aids tests for years...and I was left infertile. It took a year for full recovery...so there will never be any compromise on this issue for me.

[brer cat]

24. K&R

[killbotfactory]

27. Good news. The democratic party, Perez, or Bernie Sanders is not backing anyone...

who has promised to restrict a woman's reproductive rights.

Now if we can only get the rest of the party to support a living wage, healthcare for all, and increasing access to higher education to all who qualify and not having them be in debt to a criminal bank for the rest of their fucking lives.

[Demsrule86]

51. Have some of those listed pulled the endorsement for Perriello in Virginia then?

[Recursion]

38. Yup. There is no economic populism without reproductive freedom

That's a contradiction in terms.

[Cha]

41. The Democrats unity tour fractured into disunity almost immediately after it began. Senator Bernie

Sanders of Vermont refused to say whether Jon Ossoff, the Democratic candidate trying to win a typically Republican district in Georgia while being outspoken in support of abortion rights, counts as a progressive"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/opinion/why-abortion-is-an-progressive-economic-issue.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region

Yeah, that's what we've been sayin'

These men need to get woke..

Instead, these men contend, the party’s focus must be on economics. The glaring mistake they all make, however, is thinking that there is any way to disentangle reproductive rights from economic issues.

"Yet he would happily exclude from the progressive movement even those he formally supports, like Mr. Ossoff, who don’t seem to talk enough about income inequality to satisfy Mr. Sanders."

Tough.. it doesn't "satisfy" BS.

I wish it would be referred to as Pro-Choice.. no one likes "abortion".

[NurseJackie]

42. Schumer and Perez need to reassess.

[Cha]

43. I think Perez got told and reversed..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Jackie!

[NurseJackie]

44. I'm hoping for more reversals...

... in the very near future.

[BainsBane]

52. Which is exactly what we have been saying for several days

Yet it continues to fall on deaf, indifferent ears.

[BainsBane]

53. The article goes on to enumerate how lack of access to abortion increases poverty

And economics reverberates throughout women’s lives when they can’t get the abortions they need. In a study of women who sought an abortion, those who were unsuccessful were three times as likely to fall into poverty over the following two years as those women who were able to get one, despite beginning in comparable financial situations. They were also more likely to wind up unemployed.

Women who can get the abortions they seek, however, are more likely to follow through on their employment or educational plans.

[Demsrule86]

54. As another poster said, those you who are asking women to give up their rights for the greater good,

what rights are you willing to give up?

[Exilednight]

58. This is just pure ignorance of an opinion.

Women get abortions for several reasons. Some for economic issues, others because they were raped, some because their pregnancy could kill them, and yet others for any other reason they seem.

No one should judge why.

Boiling this down to a single reason is dangerous to those that have other reasons.

[pnwmom]

59. You've mis-read the piece. It's not saying the women ONLY get abortions for economic reasons. n/t

[Orrex]

63. Let me recommend this post 50 times.

rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec

[GeorgeGist]

64. Nonsense ...

there are plenty of issues more important eg. Helathcare, jobs, education, justice