• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Top Democrats, Bernie Sanders Defend Anti-Abortion Members Of Their Party

Status
Not open for further replies.

Keri

Member
That;s kind of the way it is. I know Democrats don't give a shit about black people unless it helps them win and will toss me under a bus. But, it's still better than republicans throwing me under the bus and backing up over me six or seven times. It's the lesser of two evil, but fuck it, it's better than picking the greater of two evils.

Honestly, it's a tough scenario. I understand picking the lesser of two evils, but I think that, if any minority groups accepts limitations on their rights...it's all over. If there aren't repercussions, it will be a century, before those rights are returned. If we don't send a message to the Democratic party, that certain policies are non-negotiable, well...then they'll become negotiable. They'll bargain away our rights, to attract other voters, unless they know they're risking losing our votes.

For the record, if the Democratic party ever started accepting limitations on any minority groups fundamental rights, I'd pull my support for the party, to send a message.
 
I'm not talking about imperfect representation. I'm talking about a scenario where Democrats accepts limitations on women's rights. Personally, I would never expect a minority to continue to vote for a political party, that accepted limitations on their civil rights, purely for my benefit. Because obviously, it's only through the loss of the demographic, that a political party adjusts its policies. I feel like I've been careful to highlight the specific situation I'm commenting on.

You mean like having a bunch of Democrats afraid to say "Black Lives Matter" on stage? Or having to compromise on Immigration Reform? Or any of the dozens of compromises they have made over the past decade related to LGBT rights? Just because you don't know of them doesn't mean it doesn't happen...

For the record, if the Democratic party ever started accepting limitations on any minority groups fundamental rights, I'd pull my support for the party, to send a message.

It's only recently that such a stance was even remotely possible. The past 60-70 years has been about incremental progress for minorities.
 
Hillary was willing to support a late term abortion ban, as long as it had provisions for the health of the mother. That's exactly what Mello voted for. I'm not sure how his position is much worse that Yas Queens.

Come back when Hillary was criticized by NARAL/Planned Parenthood. And was endorsed by Nebraska Right to Life. And sponsored a law banning insurance plans in the state from covering abortions. And required physicians to be present during an abortion to hurt access to telemedicine abortion care. And cosponsored an ultrasound bill (even if voluntary, still anti-choice and shouldn't be an issue).
 
W/ Kaine's labor record- VA is a RTW state (and the chances of that changing are like 0), so it's effectively a pre-requisite to running here. Was there something he was actively pushing for that you had an issue w/?
Kaine supports RTW and has no intention of overturning the part of Taft-Hartley that makes it legal. I feel a Democrat should be pro-labor and should advocate for overturning anti-labor legislation.
 

Keri

Member
You mean like having a bunch of Democrats afraid to say "Black Lives Matter" on stage? Or having to compromise on Immigration Reform? Or any of the dozens of compromises they have made over the past decade related to LGBT rights? Just because you don't know of them doesn't mean it doesn't happen...

There's a difference between losing a right and accepting lesser gains. When I say "abandon" and "compromise," I'm specifically envisioning the Democratic party accepting the illegalization of abortion. We've not seen the Democratic party, support the loss of already existing rights before, have we?
 
There's a difference between losing a right and accepting lesser gains. When I say "abandon" and "compromise," I'm specifically envisioning the Democratic party accepting the illegalization of abortion. We've not seen the Democratic party, support the loss of already existing rights before, have we?

Why are we talking about this though? It's an absurd hypothetical and nothing the current Democratic Party is doing is worthy of drawing the comparison.
 

KingV

Member
That's fine and all, but democrats already do win elections in Omaha. I'm not particularity convinced a Mello is needed there, but that's who they're stuck with.

Which other democrat wAs in the primary? Because here locally, I remember the current mayor, a 26 year old trump supporter, and Heath Mello.

Without Mello, you would have a mayoral race with two republicans

I actually live in Nebraska. I don't like mello, but he's literally the only dem that ran in the mayoral primary. So there you go.
 

Keri

Member
Why are we talking about this though? It's an absurd hypothetical and nothing the current Democratic Party is doing is worthy of drawing the comparison.

Because I said that if this became a larger trend in the Democratic party, I might as well vote Republican. And several people wanted to discuss it in depth?
 
Also, for the many posters who were asking "What's wrong with offering a choice to see an ultrasound??"...

Nebraska
Nebraska enacted a law (LB 675) incorporating a host of new counseling requirements for women seeking abortion: Patients must now be told that no one can coerce a woman to have an abortion and must be offered a list of facilities offering free ultrasounds. Generally, such facilities are "crisis pregnancy centers," which offer free pregnancy tests or ultrasounds in the hopes of convincing women not to have abortions. The statute also requires any physician who uses ultrasound in the process of providing abortion services to: (1) perform the ultrasound at least one hour prior to the abortion; and (2) simultaneously display the ultrasound image to the woman so that she may view it if she chooses. The statute then requires the patient to certify that she has been given all of the required information and offered the opportunity to view the ultrasound.

https://www.reproductiverights.org/project/a-year-in-review-2009-legislative-wrap-up#nebraska

It's not as simple as a doctor asking the patient if she would like to see the ultrasound!

This happened in March 2016. NARAL probably didn't comment on it because she was obviously going to be the Presidential nominee at that point.

She said it in an interview.

Okay, now please address the rest of my post. Your whataboutism doesn't work here.
 

I'm also pretty sure the late-term bill (20 weeks in that case, not 24) Mello sponsored didn't include certain exceptions (like rape and incest), which is something Hillary would 100% require.

I could be wrong on the specifics of that bill, but if true, there's is a very tangible difference there, which isn't to say Hillary's position is above reproach.
 
It's always kind of interesting to note that this is largely a bunch of men debating whether women's health rights are or aren't an important policy principle.

...

I guess at least they've dragged in Pelosi.

920x920.jpg


Meanwhile, making the Omaha mayoralty (lol) into a big deal was frankly bizarre.
 
It's not when Ossoff is heading to a runoff and we literally cannot afford to turn off a single voter. An offhand statement like that giving tantamount permission to people to sit out the election is not cool whatsoever. Bernie has a history of this crap (see: not relenting in the primaries) and him getting pushback on it is a good thing.

tbh, I wonder how many Democrats are happy that they now have an excuse to blame Sanders if Ossoff loses
 
The best strategy going forward is to fight it in the courts. There already is Roe vs Wade on the books. Democrats only need to sneak in liberal judges to enforce the law everywhere. Fighting it out in the open in front of the media and public opinion is a mess. We need to make fundraise cases to overturn laws in every state.

And what happens when democrats cower on the issue? Does that mean the republicans will stop bringing the issue up during election cycles to burnish their numbers? What then do the democrats do? It's a similar pattern to the issue of gay rights? The Moral Majority were plenty more vocal on the issue of gay rights than the LGBT community were at that time. Would they have been better off being quiet, convenient whipping posts every election? As a straight white male, I can see how many in the LGBT movement would be insulted at the very suggestion that they be passive for the better good, and I see a similar thing with Sanders' assertion that progressives need to be open to prolife candidates.

This really isn't an issue that's negotiable for progressives, and we shouldn't be ashamed of it either. Why are progressives the ones who are expected to sacrifice on the issue of reproductive choice and not the retrograde pieces of shit who trivialize rape when pregnancies occur? I understand that we lost this past election, but election results are cyclical by nature. As progressives, we shouldn't be ashamed of our support for reproductive rights, which happens to include abortion. I think back to Lena Dunham and Sarah Silverman, when they sparked backlash over some crass monologues relating to abortion. There was a reason they did this. It was to de-stigmatize the issue. Nobody seemed to get that, and now look where we are today. We're still polarized over an issue that was settled in court over 40 years ago. And we're still fighting these same assholes from the 1970's who have used this issue incessantly to get their flocks to the polls. So even if democrats were to drop their support of this issue, there's no chance in hell that the republicans will abandon it. It's too lucrative a wedge issue to let go of.
 
I think Dick Durbin's stance in the OP is ideal: tolerate a personal disdain for abortion, but require that democratic party members are generally supportive of reproductive rights legislatively. Otherwise what are we doing here? I'm all for the democratic party shifting left, but not if that means making some conservative concessions on specific issues.
 
I think the grassroots needs to work on changing hearts and minds and less on pressuring politicians. NARAL doesn't really have great messaging to the people. It's mostly just "support this candidate and not this one".

The forced northern do well because they make a strong emotional argument, even if it's wrong. They have fleets of bible thumpers rolling around handing out little gold baby feet pins that are like a 1/4 inch long and saying "this is a precious baby's feet at 24 weeks and some people just want to kill them." And a lot of people fall for it, because it doesn't affect them and they don't think critically about it.

There is no one really doing the flipside of that messaging in an effective way. Heck, Planned Parenthood spends most of its time talking about all of the other great stuff it does. Which makes sense for them, but there needs to be a grass roots full-throated endorsement of abortion rights with an emotional appeal to get people to care.

And that would require that progressives dispense with the idea of framing the right to an abortion as a "necessary evil." You do that, you've already ceded your argument. Nobody views abortion as a delight, that should be a given. I wish people would stop falling for this shit.
 
I think Dick Durbin's stance in the OP is ideal: tolerate a personal disdain for abortion, but require that democratic party members are generally supportive of reproductive rights legislatively. Otherwise what are we doing here? I'm all for the democratic party shifting left, but not if that means making some conservative concessions on specific issues.

pretty much.
 
Someone might wanna let Jane Sanders know that tweeting shit like this doesn't help either:

Jane O'Meara Sanders‏
@janeosanders 51m51 minutes ago

@thenation provides actual facts vs fake news, political correctness & hypocrisy. Choose news sources /groups wisely

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

https://twitter.com/janeosanders/status/856701396749570048

What the fuck does Political Correctness have to do with anything. I'm sorry but replace Nation with Fox News and I could easily pass that off as a tweet from Trump and I absolutely intend offense when saying that.


That link btw takes time to suggest there is a conspiracy against Mellow and Sanders

Hogue, on the other hand, seemed much more relaxed about Kaine. ”I don't think we're in the business of thought policing," Hogue told Katha Pollitt in July. ”I'm okay with people having their own ideas as long as they don't prevent other people from exercising their right." Hogue didn't answers my emails, so I was unable to ask whether her tolerant attitude to Kaine was influenced less by his record than by her own loyalty to Hillary Clinton. Or how much of her current outrage was really directed at Heath Mello—or Bernie Sanders.

Nir's motivations are less obscure: his group poured over a million into Jon Ossoff's centrist campaign to ”flip the 6th"—a largely white, affluent, suburban Georgia district. Even as he was withdrawing Mello's Daily Kos endorsement, Nir tweeted that Sanders ”should either endorse Ossoff and raise money for him, or keep his silence." That was followed by a petulant ”second thought: Sanders shouldn't endorse Ossoff. He should just remain silent and not hurt the efforts of those of us helping in #GA06." Sanders actually did endorse Ossoff. But Nir has yet to apologize to Mello's campaign—or to admit his actions were based on what it is hard to avoid calling ”false news."


Same author wrote this about Ossoff:

But even if Ossoff does pull one off in June, it will be hard to paint his victory as any kind of progressive triumph. The candidate himself seems earnest, and (to borrow a phrase) likable enough for someone who has clearly had his eye on a political career for quite a while. As a filmmaker, Ossoff's targets have included ”Nigeria's Fake Doctors," Big Tobacco (in Kenya), and corruption in Mozambique—all worthy, and all very far away. As a candidate, he's been forthright in defense of Planned Parenthood—which might actually help against Handel, who resigned from the Susan G. Komen foundation after the group reversed a decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood. And he's nobody's idea of a blue dog. But with campaign ads arguing ”both parties in Washington waste too much of your money," Ossoff is running as a pragmatic centrist, not a political revolutionary.

That doesn't bother MoveOn.org, whose 15,000 Georgia members voted overwhelmingly to endorse him. ”He's talking in a way that connects with voters in his district," Matt Blizek, the group's electoral field director, told me. ”This was a pretty pro-Clinton district," he said. Ossoff, for better and worse, is definitely a candidate a Clinton supporter could love.

Just as an Ossoff victory would represent a repudiation of Trump, but not our broken politics, his failure to pull off an upset yesterday has little to tell us about the prospects for bolder candidates with more audacious agendas. A winning smile and the ability to avoid controversy will never be enough to turn this country around. Cutting off the school-to-prison pipeline, breaking the corporate stranglehold on our politics and Big Oil's steady suffocation of our planet, ending the rationing of health care and educational opportunity by income and the police targeting of young men by race—all require a lot more than tinkering around the edges. There are Democrats, right now, who could lead those fights, like Rob Quist in Montana, Tom Perriello in Virginia, and Heath Mello in Omaha, struggling to raise a fraction of the funds behind Ossoff.

It may have been fun to watch, but despite all the money, and all the media attention, the battle for Georgia's Sixth District, however entertaining, was never more than an expensive sideshow.


https://www.thenation.com/article/ossoff-in-the-runoff/


It's one thing to say we need people like Mellow inspite of his views it's another to try and paint Mellow as unfairly criticized for his views and try to whitewash his past on abortion.
 
Someone might wanna let Jane Sanders know that tweeting shit like this doesn't help either:



https://twitter.com/janeosanders/status/856701396749570048


That link btw takes time to suggest there is a conspiracy against Mellow and Sanders




Same author wrote this about Ossoff:




https://www.thenation.com/article/ossoff-in-the-runoff/


It's one thing to say we need people like Mellow inspite of his views it's another to try and paint Mellow as unfairly criticized for his views and try to whitewash his past on abortion.

I'm all for criticism of Mello and I definitely wouldn't say that said article debunks said criticism, but I don't really see why the opinion of actual, local reproductive rights advocates working on the ground in Omaha should be dismissed out of hand just because you don't like the source.
 
I'm all for criticism of Mello and I definitely wouldn't say that said article debunks said criticism, but I don't really see why the opinion of actual, local reproductive rights advocates working on the ground in Omaha should be dismissed out of hand just because you don't like the source.

I mean I'm not, that's valuable information.... the conspiracy theories though about Nir and Hogue are not and neither is the dismissal of Ossoff...

Also not valuable is how Jane Sanders' frames all this in that tweet
 
Yes, because what the Dems need right now is to pander to misogynist trash, that'll surely make them look starkly different to the GOP! Fucking morons.
 

Xe4

Banned
Because I said that if this became a larger trend in the Democratic party, I might as well vote Republican. And several people wanted to discuss it in depth?
If this becomes a larger trend (which it won't) and every democrat was equivalent to Mello on abortion, they'd still be better on the right to choose than Republicans. That's how fucking insane the Republican party is right now.

I have no problem voting for, or at least considering voting for a hypothetical conservative party. But the GOP is so god damn off the rails I don't see how *anyone* who considers themselves liberal could justifiably vote Republican.
 

Keri

Member
If this becomes a larger trend (which it won't) and every democrat was equivalent to Mello on abortion, they'd still be better on the right to choose than Republicans. That's how fucking insane the Republican party is right now.

I have no problem voting for, or at least considering voting for a hypothetical conservative party. But the GOP is so god damn off the rails I don't see how *anyone* who considers themselves liberal could justifiably vote Republican.

In that scenario they won't be better. They will have chosen to abandon the issue, to gain voters in other areas. Maybe they have good intentions now, but it's impossible to be more inclusive with pro-lifers, while still maintaining the same staunch support for choice. The more they try to include pro-lifers, the more they signal that the right to choose is up for negotiation. The right to chose is already incredibly at risk and now Democrats are choosing to be more inclusive to pro-life politicians and voters? They might as well start digging a grave for Roe v. Wade, now. I don't know how I could support them, if this is the path they choose to take.
 

KingV

Member
Also, for the many posters who were asking "What's wrong with offering a choice to see an ultrasound??"...



https://www.reproductiverights.org/project/a-year-in-review-2009-legislative-wrap-up#nebraska

It's not as simple as a doctor asking the patient if she would like to see the ultrasound!



Okay, now please address the rest of my post. Your whataboutism doesn't work here.

Yes naral hand-waved it away as unimportant for Hillary. Mellow is running for the mayorship of a relatively small city, he hails from a largely Hispanic district within said city. A demographic that is the least supportive of abortion nationwide, in a state where pretty much every statewide candidate from either party has been pro-life for like two decades. It's a state where the official Democratic Party platform does not address abortion, at all. It stops at saying "everyone should have access to contraceptives. This is not a compromise to attract Republicans, it is a requirement for higher office in Nebraska. This is the reality in many Midwest cities and states. It is a state where the last Democratic Senator voted No for Justice Kagan for nomination. A Senator that I disagreed with immensely, but we would not have the ACA without him. But you don't know all of that, because you don't live here and think taking this stand and ceding all progress is more important than finding the weakest tea pro-life candidates possible, instead letting them take bad votes on bills that are going to pass or fail no matter what, and making as much progress as you can on areas where you can form consensus.

It's not as simple as taking a stand on this one particular issue as a litmus test, because the party will cede Nebraska, Iowa, probably Kansas and Missouri, and West Virginia, TX and most of the South to Republicans for the foreseeable future for insisting we only run pro-choice candidates. We'll never have a 60 vote majority again.
 
Yes naral hand-waved it away as unimportant for Hillary. Mellow is running for the mayorship of a relatively small city, he hails from a largely Hispanic district within said city. A demographic that is the least supportive of abortion nationwide, in a state where pretty much every statewide candidate from either party has been pro-life for like two decades. It's a state where the official Democratic Party platform does not address abortion, at all. It stops at saying "everyone should have access to contraceptives. This is not a compromise to attract Republicans, it is a requirement for higher office in Nebraska. This is the reality in many Midwest cities and states. It is a state where the last Democratic Senator voted No for Justice Kagan for nomination. A Senator that I disagreed with immensely, but we would not have the ACA without him. But you don't know all of that, because you don't live here and think taking this stand and ceding all progress is more important than finding the weakest tea pro-life candidates possible, instead letting them take bad votes on bills that are going to pass or fail no matter what, and making as much progress as you can on areas where you can form consensus.

It's not as simple as taking a stand on this one particular issue as a litmus test, because the party will cede Nebraska, Iowa, probably Kansas and Missouri, and West Virginia, TX and most of the South to Republicans for the foreseeable future for insisting we only run pro-choice candidates. We'll never have a 60 vote majority again.

This is irrelevant to my point. When have I ever said we should not run candidates like Mello? You were making the argument that Hillary is just as bad as Mello on this issue, she absolutely was not. End of story.

All I've said is we should not call candidates like Mello a "true progressive" while calling candidates like Ossoff "not a progressive." I have no idea why this is so hard to get through to people! We don't call candidates like Joe Manchin "progressive" for obvious reasons. We never called Ben Nelson or Bob Kerrey "progressive" because they aren't! So maybe Bernie shouldn't be calling Mello a "true progressive" as if he's the arbiter of who is and who isn't progressive.
 

KingV

Member
This is irrelevant to my point. When have I ever said we should not run candidates like Mello? You were making the argument that Hillary is just as bad as Mello on this issue, she absolutely was not. End of story.

All I've said is we should not call candidates like Mello a "true progressive" while calling candidates like Ossoff "not a progressive." I have no idea why this is so hard to get through to people! We don't call candidates like Joe Manchin "progressive" for obvious reasons. We never called Ben Nelson or Bob Kerrey "progressive" because they aren't! So maybe Bernie shouldn't be calling Mello a "true progressive" as if he's the arbiter of who is and who isn't progressive.

Ok I guess I agree with that. I think it's an incredibly unimportant distinction, but I agree with it.

Bernie endorsed a candidate in Omaha, a city where Bernie is popular, probably because it would make a difference. And he reneged on calling a candidate progressive who runs in a pink district, who says he's not progressive.

Clinton is on the record in March 2016 saying she would compromise to consider supporting a federal 20 week abortion ban if it had exceptions for health of the mother. Is that worse than Mello? He has definitely voted for worse things, but at a state level, and the local abortions activists see him as an ally. NARAL supported Clinton in 2016, but they also chose to support the candidate with the more anti-choice voting record and public positions in the primary that year, probably because they saw her as the probable winner more than the fact that she had the strongest views.
 
Ok I guess I agree with that. I think it's an incredibly unimportant distinction, but I agree with it.

Bernie endorsed a candidate in Omaha, a city where Bernie is popular, probably because it would make a difference. And he reneged on calling a candidate progressive who runs in a pink district, who says he's not progressive.

Clinton is on the record in March 2016 saying she would compromise to consider supporting a federal 20 week abortion ban if it had exceptions for health of the mother. Is that worse than Mello? He has definitely voted for worse things, but at a state level, and the local abortions activists see him as an ally. NARAL supported Clinton in 2016, but they also chose to support the candidate with the more anti-choice voting record and public positions in the primary that year, probably because they saw her as the probable winner more than the fact that she had the strongest views.

Again, it's not the endorsement that people are mad about! It's calling Mello a "true progressive" while saying Ossoff is "not a progressive." The message that sends is that we can still be progressive even if we compromise heavily on women's rights, but economic rights are off the table (even though access to safe and legal abortions is an economic right!). That's​ not a good message to send and it's a recurring theme with Bernie et al - that the rights of minorities and women are negotiable.

Your Clinton comparison is still blatant whataboutism and you haven't addressed the other anti-choice laws Mello supported (not to mention Hillary's proposal for the 20 week ban included exceptions for health/life of the mother, whereas Mello's almost assuredly does not). Hillary and Mello absolutely do not have remotely similar views on women's reproductive rights. If you still want to claim this, address the rest of my points instead of just complaining about NARAL.
 
The thing is that "Pro-Choice" can take a lot of different avenues. My wife and I are Catholic and as such would never get an abortion. However, if a woman wants to get an abortion, that is her choice. IIRC that was Kaine's position on the matter.
 
Sanders is the most wishy washy, spineless Democrat to ever get a movement of people following him. Never stands up for what's difficult, always finds ways to sell out the weak.

If you believe he's a democrat, then he already won.

He ran for his Senate seat as an Independent and should be seen as such. He just caucuses with the democrats because his views align more with them than the republicans.

But overall, it's a way to not alienate southern (mostly) democrats on a religious issue. Probably works best for the DNC most of all when they help out for congressional seats during the midterm.
 

guek

Banned
Also, for the many posters who were asking "What's wrong with offering a choice to see an ultrasound??"...



https://www.reproductiverights.org/project/a-year-in-review-2009-legislative-wrap-up#nebraska

It's not as simple as a doctor asking the patient if she would like to see the ultrasound!

There is nothing wrong with this law at face value. I've read multiple synopses and I've yet to see a good explanation of how this law restricts or discourages abortions.

It mandates physicians inform patients that ultrasounds are available. There is nothing wrong with this measure. Patients should absolutely have the option of obtaining an ultrasound of they want and should be informed of the availability in order to make an informed decision. It does not mandate an ultrasound be performed prior to every abortion like was mistakenly reported by several outlets (and never subsequently corrected it seems). It's one thing if patients are tricked into going to a crisis pregnancy center because they feel they have to but that's not what's going on. They're offered the service and they have the autonomy to decline if they wish. Being forced to tell a patient they are not required to have an abortion is not a bad thing because it's the truth! Patients can make that choice themselves, and such disclaimers are made before many other medical procedures. It's the equivalent of informed consent.

It should also be noted that ultrasounds are not required to perform abortions. The law states if an ultrasound is used in the process of performing an abortion, they must show the screen to the patient. Ultrasounds are used prior to abortion to confirm pregnancy in some cases but the vast majority of people prefer a simple urine or blood test for hCG. The only absolute indication for an ultrasound is to confirm an ectopic pregnancy (implantation in the Fallopian tube) but that's a screening tool performed when you're concerned of a possible ectopic, not "in the process of providing abortion services." I honestly cannot think up a scenario where a patient would ask for both an abortion and an ultrasound at the same time.

The only scenario I can think of that subjects patients to undue stress are when patients actually want to carry a child to term and an ultrasound is done to confirm a suspected ectopic prior to an abortion. In such a case, the physician is forced to display the image to a patient who may not want to see it, but even then, the ultrasound is far more likely to be done as a screening tool in the first trimester anyway and would therefore not be required to be displayed.

I'll stress again that there may be something I'm missing here but the law is not as malicious in actual medical practice as you'd think on first glance.

What's really strange to me is that this law isn't even the most egregious law that Mello voted for, it just happens to be one he sponsored. In multiple cases, the law is misinterpreted when reported, and practically no one recognizes that it was also a compromise of a more restrictive bill. The bills that Mello voted for that should really be pissing people off are the other four laws that were passed before 2012 - LB 594, LB 1103, LB 22, and LB 521. LB 524 had such bullshit screening requirements prior to an abortion that PP challenged it in court and won a permanent injunction. LB 1103 prohibits abortions after 20 weeks (about 1.3% of all abortions) except in cases that threaten the life the mother. LB 22 prohibited any state sponsored insurance, including those offered on the Exchange, from paying for abortions. LB 521 requires a physician to be present during an abortion which unduly restricts access to patients who receive medical abortions rather than surgical abortions (about 4% of all abortions).

It boggles my mind why people are clinging so strongly to the misreported ultrasound bill when Mello could be taken to task much easier with the other bills he voted for. It's also worth noting that since 2012, Mello has voted on two abortion measures in lockstep with Planned Parenthood recommendations, which gives credence to his claim that he's not planning on restricting access to abortions going forward.
 

Xe4

Banned
In that scenario they won't be better. They will have chosen to abandon the issue, to gain voters in other areas. Maybe they have good intentions now, but it's impossible to be more inclusive with pro-lifers, while still maintaining the same staunch support for choice. The more they try to include pro-lifers, the more they signal that the right to choose is up for negotiation. The right to chose is already incredibly at risk and now Democrats are choosing to be more inclusive to pro-life politicians and voters? They might as well start digging a grave for Roe v. Wade, now. I don't know how I could support them, if this is the path they choose to take.

I mean, objectively they still would be. Again, the average republican is even worse than Mello is on this, believe it or not. That's the party you would vote for.
 
Always a good idea. Had you done that, you wouldn't have decided to post something that isn't actually evidence of what you're talking about. Nobody ever did the one thing on the list that would have been a smear (going after Bernie's religion), and the rest of the comments about him were generally accurate.
Swing and a miss. The article shows evidence of the DNC at least conspiring to smear him over religion, as you mentioned, as well as calling him a "damn liar," someone who "has no understanding of what [Democrats] do," plotting that the DNC's working against him should not make news if they push the narrative that the Sanders campaign "never got it together" to build any momentum, and dismissively labeling Sanders supporters as "Bernie Bros."

Of course, you aren't making any sort of intellectually honest argument here, which is plain, but if you were I'd ask you why the DNC's collusion to hamstring the Sanders campaign alone wasn't enough to go on, despite the "truthfulness" of such accusations as... uh, being a lying, non-understanding, non-momentum having, not-Jesusy Bernie-Bro producer? Which are entirely qualitative statements, "accurate" as you seem to find them.

But given the veracity and quality of what you wrote, you could just lose me and not reply to this, which I would prefer.
 
Is there any other demographic, that we expect to happily accept the loss of rights and to continue acting, solely for the benefit of others?

Other than all of them, no.

American politics is a feel-bad game, where in different campaigns, in different places and times, sometimes groups have to take an L to beat back the hounds of hell. For as long as we're a winner-takes-all, two-party-having Republic, that's the way it's going to be. It sucks, it's wrong, it's awful that the opposition is making careers out of hating people, but that's the country we live in.

You don't actually care about any of that, though, if you vote Republican as you say you "might as well" do to get a tax break. So, why am I even sympathizing with you?
 

necrosis

Member
pretty gross

this is my biggest issue with the 50 state strategy in its current form & big tent politics; the democratic party often fields candidates based almost entirely on electability, disregarding principles and political positions in the process
 
pretty gross

this is my biggest issue with the 50 state strategy in its current form & big tent politics; the democratic party often fields candidates based almost entirely on electability, disregarding principles and political positions in the process

Doesn't matter how you win. All that matters is that you win. We can see the results of this type of attitude plus talking a good game via Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Democrats and Republicans need to take a step back and ask themselves are they in it for the common good or to be a winner at any cost? I think if you weigh it net then they'd come to the conclusion it's not worth it to sell out, be racist, etc.
 

Bolivar687

Banned
Nancy Pelosi reiterates that pro-lifers are welcome after the Tom Perez 180

“In our caucus, one thing unifies us: our values about working families,” Pelosi said. “Some people are more or less enthusiastic about this issue or that issue or that issue. They’ll go along with the program, but their enthusiasm is about America’s working families.”

She also suggested that the party’s presumed rigidity on social issues is one reason that Democrats were unable to appeal to segments of the electorate that might otherwise have been in tune with their broader agenda.

“You know what? That’s why Donald Trump is president of the United States — the evangelicals and the Catholics, anti-marriage equality, anti-choice. That’s how he got to be president,” she said. “Everything was trumped, literally and figuratively by that.”

It seems like there's two demands for purity tests cutting in different directions. There's the Bernie camp who felt they had to compromise for Clinton on economic issues and foreign policy. Meanwhile, the establishment are demanding orthodoxy on social issues, notably under pressure from special interests whose financial backing didn't seem to do all that much in the election. I would've expected Pelosi to be in this second camp but it's encouraging to hear her taking a more reasonable position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom