Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Life vs. choice questions/ Pro-life Democrat for Pres?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
cdp Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 10:07 AM
Original message
Life vs. choice questions/ Pro-life Democrat for Pres?
Edited on Fri Dec-03-04 10:12 AM by cdp
I know so many people who want abortion to be illegal, so they have voted for Republican presidential candidates in every single election. For many of these people, that is the SOLE reason for their Republican vote. But the Republicans get in office and abortion is not made illegal during their term.

Question#1 - What have past Republican presidential candidates (Reagan, HW Bush, W Bush's first term) done for the pro-lifers? I am too young to remember most of these presidents, but I know that abortion wasn't made illegal under their watch.

Question#2 - If a pro-life Democrat was elected president, and abortion stayed about the same as it did during, Reagan, HW Bush and W Bush's first term, what would bother pro-choicers about that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BamaLefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. Choice!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
insane_cratic_gal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Snippets
here are some snips..

The first ban on an abortion procedure since abortion was legalized came in November 2003 when Bush banned "intact dilation and extraction," misnamed as "partial-birth abortion," a term coined by the National Right to Life Committee but not recognized by any medical association. This procedure is vilified for taking place during the third trimester of pregnancy, but it is very rarely used (only .05% of all abortions), only when a fetus is deformed or the mother's life is in danger.

The ban makes no exceptions for when the health of the woman or fetus is at risk or when the pregnancy is due to rape. Many healthcare professionals oppose the ban, including the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Nurses Association, and the American Medical Women's Association.


This assault on abortion rights comes alongside a series of vicious attacks on women's rights by the Bush administration. Bush declared the Sunday before the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade to be "National Sanctity of Human Life Day."

Bush Attacks Women's Right to Choose
Hands Off!

By Erika Blechinger

Last year we celebrated the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and the mass grassroots movement that forced the Supreme Court to legalize a woman's right to a safe abortion.


This right is a vital necessity for women to be able to control their own bodies and lives, especially poor and working women.

Though a woman's right to choose is now supported by a majority of Americans, Bush and the religious right are bent on rolling back access to abortion. But women are fighting back. The four largest women's organizations have joined together to organize a massive protest to defend women's abortion rights on Sunday, April 25 in Washington, D.C. The protest organizers estimate that it will be the largest abortion rights demonstration in the capitol in over a decade, if not in U.S. history.

The first ban on an abortion procedure since abortion was legalized came in November 2003 when Bush banned "intact dilation and extraction," misnamed as "partial-birth abortion," a term coined by the National Right to Life Committee but not recognized by any medical association. This procedure is vilified for taking place during the third trimester of pregnancy, but it is very rarely used (only .05% of all abortions), only when a fetus is deformed or the mother's life is in danger.

The ban makes no exceptions for when the health of the woman or fetus is at risk or when the pregnancy is due to rape. Many healthcare professionals oppose the ban, including the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Nurses Association, and the American Medical Women's Association.

The "Partial Birth" Abortion Ban fosters an anti-abortion climate that has already limited the availability of abortions to a mere 13% of U.S. counties according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. The ban is an alarming intrusion of government control over women's private lives that opens the door to further limitations on the right to choose, threatening to turn the clock back to the days when thousands of women died every year from illegal, unsafe, back-alley abortions.

Women's Rights Under Attack
This assault on abortion rights comes alongside a series of vicious attacks on women's rights by the Bush administration. Bush declared the Sunday before the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade to be "National Sanctity of Human Life Day." He tried to connect abortion with terrorism, stating: "On September 11, we saw clearly that evil exists in this world, and that it does not value life... Now we are engaged in a fight against evil and tyranny to preserve and protect life."

This is coming from a president who lied about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and terrorist links, killing thousands of Iraqis, Afghans, and U.S. soldiers in the process. While Bush spends $400 billion/year on the military and handed out $1.7 trillion in tax breaks for the rich, he has cut funding for healthcare, childcare, and elderly care, disproportionately harming women who are expected to pick up the slack for the reduced services.

Ever since the women's liberation movement forced the Supreme Court to legalize abortion in 1973, the religious right has been dead set on overturning this decision. But given the public's support for a woman's right to choose and the balance of forces in U.S. society, the right wing has been forced, instead, to resort to gradually chip away at women's abortion rights.

But we should be clear - their real agenda is to eventually ban abortion completely. That is why it is absolutely crucial that as many women and men as possible come to Washington, D.C. on Sunday, April 25, to demonstrate support for a woman's right to choose safe, legal abortion and birth control.

We need to organize abortion rights teach-ins or protests at our campuses, workplaces, and communities in the build-up to April 25 to get busloads of people to Washington, D.C. We need to make April 25 a wake-up call to every person who is not aware that reproductive rights, women's health, and women's lives are on the line.

Should We Support Kerry and the Democrats?
We can't wait around expecting judges or Democrats to protect our rights. We need to take to the streets now to defend our rights ourselves. This is how women succeeded in winning the right to choose in the first place. The same is true for how women won the right to vote, which was certainly not won by voting!

The leaders of the main women's organizations (NOW, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Feminist Majority, and Planned Parenthood), however, argue that a key priority is turning out the vote for John Kerry and the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, the Democrats' record proves that we can't rely on them to consistently stand up to Bush and the right, much less wage a serious struggle to advance the interests of women.

If Kerry and the Democrats were serious about defending abortion rights, why don't they use their authority and access to the media to help mobilize for April 25 and call for mass protests to stop Bush's attacks on women? They only pay lip service to our demands during election years.

Bush's recent late-term abortion ban only passed due to the support of 17 Democratic Senators, including Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, along with 62 Democratic Representatives.

Campaigning in the 1992 election, Bill Clinton pledged to pass a Freedom of Choice Act to guarantee the right to abortion, but after his inauguration he barely mentioned it again. During the entire eight years that Clinton and Gore occupied the most powerful office in the country, they failed to challenge the numerous restrictions on abortion rights that were passed. Rather than expanding the accessibility of abortion services or making them free, Clinton actually signed into law abortion restrictions for Medicaid recipients, Washington D.C. residents, and federal employees.

The Democrats have a long history of betrayals from Jimmy Carter's signing the Hyde Amendment to numerous laws that roll back abortion access in states and cities under Democratic control.

The big-business Democratic Party stands completely opposed to the fundamental interests of the majority of women. Rather than funding healthcare, education, and childcare, they spend billions on the Pentagon and imperialist wars. It was Democratic President Clinton who carried out a savage attack on the poor, especially women of color, when he destroyed welfare in 1996.

Our real allies in the struggle against Bush's assault on women are the anti-war movement, the labor movement, LGBT people fighting for same-sex marriage rights, and people of color opposing racism. On all of these issues, big business and the Democrats are on the other side of the barricades. By linking up with these other struggles we can multiply our power and beat back Bush and his right-wing, corporate agenda.

Organizing powerful, mass protests like April 25 can make it politically unfeasible for politicians from either party to erode women's rights. But let's not stop there. Let's use April 25 as a springboard to build a massive women's movement that fights sexism on all fronts. Real choice means:


Safe, accessible, free abortion on demand for women of all ages
Safe, free birth control and an end to forced sterilization
Money for jobs, healthcare, and education, not war and occupation
Free, high quality healthcare, education, 24-hour childcare, pre-natal care, and elderly care
A $500/week minimum income for those caring for children, the elderly, or the needy, and for those who are unemployed
Paid parental leave from work
Equal pay for equal work
An end to sexual harassment, domestic violence, and rape



Rolling Back Abortion Access

(even against dems too i'm afraid)
The number of abortion providers has fallen by 66% in the past 20 years.
Since 1995, states have enacted 335 anti-abortion measures.
33 states have laws requiring parental consent for minors.
18 states require a waiting period and "counseling" (usually anti-abortion).
In 1977 the Hyde Amendment was signed into law by Democratic President Jimmy Carter, denying all federal funding for abortion and eliminating access for large numbers of poor women. Weeks after the passage of this amendment, Rosie Jimenez, a Medicaid recipient and mother of two, bled to death from a back-alley abortion


Federally, Congress has banned access to abortion for virtually every woman who depends on the federal government for her health care, including Medicaid recipients, women in the military and military dependents stationed overseas, women in federal prisons, Native American women, federal employees, and even Peace Corps volunteers. Anti-choice lawmakers have used the appropriations process to restrict access to reproductive health care, here and abroad, at virtually every turn.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
21. But that ban never became law
This article mentions more than once the partial-birth abortion bill, but that was struck down by the courts just like the Republicans knew it would be.

Republicans know they will lose the next election in a landslide after they ban abortion. They will make some minor restrictions beyond what we have now, but no more than that. The issue is used to manipulate voters, maybe on both sides. Certain groups are able to raise a lot of money from pro-choice voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpsideDownFlag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
3. i think that's a great idea! the only way we can win is by outpubbing
the pubbies, after all.

bleh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgorth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
4. Put on your flame proof suit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cdp Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I just hope a few people actually answer the questions...
I don't care about all the flames and "out pubbing the pubs" posts and "this election was stolen why does this matter" posts that I will surely get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
insane_cratic_gal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. To answer
Everything that bothers me currently about the repukes messing with choice. Would infuritate me with a democrate: Reid (cough)

It would not change for me should a democrate pro-lifer enter into the field .. I'd still be equally as pissed off. I've written to Reid myself .. given my opinion as a verbal shove inline.

Dem's are not yes'em type of people.. we eat our own.. some thing it's a bad thing on the other hand it is part of what dems are about. Protecting the rights and liberties of the american people. If they falter now, they won't get my support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cdp Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. but
Edited on Fri Dec-03-04 10:53 AM by cdp
"Everything that bothers me currently about the repukes messing with choice"

Which is what? You mentioned the W. Bush ban, and I know things they SAY bother you, but what did Reagan and HW Bush specifically DO that bothers you?

I appreciate the fact that you are actually answering my questions. I am interested in what people have to say besides "what a dumb idea." I am just asking what people think about THE idea, it certainly isn't MY idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
6. women's rights have been slowly eroded for 24 years.
That will continue under any anti-choice administration republican or democrat.

Most women will never vote for a anti-choice democrat. Dumb idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cdp Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Can you answer one of the questions?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
7. Anti-Choice Democrat for president = 90% of Dems vote for somebody else
Edited on Fri Dec-03-04 10:39 AM by Walt Starr
Me included.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cdp Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Can you answer one of the questions?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. You really don't understand the issue, do you?
It's all about the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the ultimate decider in this.

Reagan and Bush moved the court closer to overturning Roe. Both made ENORMOUS strides against choice.

Bush II is about to appoint a court that will overturn Roe.

Neither side has the numbers to amend the constitution.

It's all about the court. Your questions are meaningless because they are not framed in a way that takes the reality of the situation into account.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
12. W gave lifers the nod as soon as he crawled in the WH (back door)
Edited on Fri Dec-03-04 10:57 AM by robbedvoter
He signed an order cutting funding to clinics for women around the world.
The agit-prop named "partial birth" abortion law was yet another present to this minority you want to cater to.
Then, there are the Lacy Patersen attempts to make the embryo a person in criminal cases...
In the meanwhile, the rest of us had this to say:


Thanks for caring :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
14. Your thread title is misleading
the so-called pro-life movement is all abouot control and nothing about life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThorsHammer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Pro-life here
Walt, there are many of us pro-life folks who do want to address the larger social problems (edcuation, health care, jobs, sex education, single parent homes, etc) that often lead to abortions. Yes, there are many control freaks who only care about the baby/fetus until it's born and could then care less, and you will find many of these in D.C., but there are many of us who are willing to look at the big picture and want to help others rather than throw them in jail.

cdp: 1) Nothing. As others have mentioned, it is more a function of the SCourt, and nothing has changed there. IF R v. W were to be overturned, they (neocons/theocons) would lose a huge wedge issue. They used to be able to claim that they wanted to ban abortion, but that the 'liberal congress/courts/take your pick' were in the way. Despite their advantage in the presidency, congress, and courts, I doubt they'd do anything, and it looks like they've moved on to gay marriage as their new wedge.
2) A pro-life Democrat might siphon off some votes from those who vote based only on one issue, but would also lose a lot of votes (as mentioned by others in this thread) from those who are strongly pro-choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Sorry, I actually consider you pro-control
and nothing will chnage my mind about how evil it is to be anti-coice and pro-control.

It has absolutely nothing to do with life, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThorsHammer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. OK, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this
IMO, it all comes down to whether one believes the fetus to be a baby or just a fetus. If you believe it to be a baby, as I do, then it has everything to do with protecting its life. If you believe it to be just a fetus, as you and most everyone else on this board do, then it has nothing to do with life and is just a matter of choice for the mother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. IMO, it has nothing to do with life even if the fetus is considered a huma
it's still abiut control. You are making the decision that a woman should not have control over her own body. You seek to control her liberty, giving the fetus more rights than the woman.

That's all about control, nothing more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThorsHammer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. I see what you're saying, but that's where we disagree
Edited on Fri Dec-03-04 01:13 PM by ThorsHammer
If it is just a fetus, then yes, the woman should absolutely have more rights and liberty than it. If it is a baby, then its right to life trumps that barring extenuating circumstances. I can see where you are coming from, and how your perspective is completely logical based on your beliefs. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here, as we've reached the point where further discussion isn't productive.

EDIT (forgot to add this) - While I still don't think abortion is right, I also understand the reality of the situation. I don't want women thrown in jail nor forced to back alleys. I would much rather have safe, legal, and rare than risky, illegal, and common, which is why I'd rather focus on the root causes (mentioned in my first post of the thread) than on the legality. We may disagree on fetus/baby, life/choice, etc, but in all reality the law won't be changed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Thanks, I am adopting this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
19. There will never be a pro-life Dem nominee.
At least not in this decade. The pro-choice groups have too much power in the party. They would tear any pro-life candidate to shreds. It isn't even an option for the party.

On the other hand, I think it is very smart to point out to pro-life voters that the Republicans have done nothing for them. We already have a majority Republican supreme court and roe v wade hasn't been overturned. In two years abortion will still be legal even with Republicans controlling all levels of government and I think we should use that fact to our advantage in the next election.

Republicans only pass the partial birth abortion bill without an exemption for the woman's life being threatened because they know it will never become law. They can use it against Democrats in Congress who vote against it and rail against the courts that strike it down. They all know that bill will never become law no matter how many times they pass it. We should make the point that pro-life voters are being manipulated because this is a campaign issue for Republicans but not a real legislative issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
22. "Why Democrats should become more like Republicans" Thread #9,999
Getting very old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Yup. recipe: first insist we lost, 2. count the ways we can grovel
3.be deluded that there is a reward for giving in to the power play. Rinse, Repeat. Post, post, post.
I have yet so see some proof the original poster has any Dem bone in him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-04 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
25. That's because we let the Republicans frame the issue
We should have our candidates lecturing people on how bad abortions are and at the same time say that they will not control what those people do with their bodies. Those people should control themselves. This is a pro-choice stance but it will appeal to those opposed to abortions. The American people eat this stuff up. Bush says he is for or opposed to stuff when his record says his position is the opposite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC