NARAL’s Endorsement of Lincoln Chafee
| May 30th, 2005Bigwigs in the Rhode Island Democratic party backed Jim Langevin, an anti-abortion Democrat, in the primary race to run against pro-choice incumbent Republican Lincoln Chafee. NARAL made it clear that it would strongly support Langevin’s pro-choice opponents in the primary race, and Langevin dropped out. NARAL then endorsed the pro-choice Republican for the general election.
In response, Kos and Ezra, among others, threw a shit-fit. Both of them take the position that NARAL should have supported the pro-life Democrat. Kos:
Nevermind that Langevin would’ve crushed Chafee and gotten us one seat closer to a Democratic-led Senate. And a Democratic-led Senate wouldn’t ever let any abortion legislation see the light of day. But NARAL, myopic fools that they are, think Chafee is a better bet, despite his vote for Trent Lott, Bill Frist, and their allegiance to the James Dobson, American Taliban agenda.
NARAL, and many people here, whined and cried about Langevin, the way they whined and cried about Harry Reid, because of those Democrats’ personal opposition to abortion. Didn’t we know, they demanded, that choice was a core principle of the Democratic Party?
To which I have a simple answer: The hell it is.
So Choice isn’t a core principle for the Democrats, but NARAL - for whom choice is very nearly the only core principle - nonetheless should give the Dems 100% support, regardless of circumstance. Riiiight.
Ezra’s argument is similar to Kos’:
I see where NARAL’s coming from on this, but by cutting pro-life Democrats off at the knees they’re keeping some Republicans in power, by doing that, they’re helping to sustain the Republican majority, and by doing that, they’re striking a grievous blow against their cause.
True, it’s in NARAL’s interest to have Democratic majority in the Senate. It’s also in NARAL’s interest for Bill Frist to suddenly become a pregnant single mother. Unfortunately, neither of these things will happen soon. Until Democrats demonstrate an ability to win elections,, NARAL would be reckless to put all its eggs in the Dem-majority basket.
Against NARAL’s interest in helping to secure an unlikely Democratic majority in the short term, NARAL has to balance:
- NARAL’s interest in showing the Democratic party that NARAL’s support is conditional on the Democrats supporting choice, rather than automatic.
- NARAL’s interest in showing pro-choice Republican politicians - and pro-choice Republican donors - that NARAL is serious about supporting pro-choice candidates, and not just a front for the Democratic party. (Apparently in return for NARAL’s endorsement, Chafee is turning up the volume of his pro-choice advocacy; he’ll be a featured speaker at a NARAL convention later this year).
- NARAL’s interest in supporting pro-choice incumbents, who as a general rule are more useful allies than pro-choice newbies.
- NARAL’s interest in maintaining credibility among pro-choice activists. If NARAL starts endorsing pro-life candidates, it will lose support from its base - which is not people like Kos, but people like the folks who read “Alas.”
If only 1 or 2 votes separated the Democrats from a Senate majority, then on balance it might have made sense for NARAL to stab Chafee in the back, ignoring its other interests. But since it’s very unlikely the Dems can win a majority in the short term, it made sense for NARAL to decide as it did. Certainly, the arrogant and condescending comments from Ezra and Kos (”stupid, stupid, stupid”), implying that no one intelligent could have decided as NARAL did, are unwarranted.
Scott at Lawyers, Guns and Money has written a more reasonable critique of NARAL. Unlike Kos and Ezra, he doesn’t demand that NARAL lick the Democratic Party’s boots even when the Dems favor pro-life candidates. But Scott ignores NARAL’s interest in maintaining their credibility with pro-choice Republicans, and in having incumbent allies.
Scott also argues that the Democrats will decide from this that there’s no point in courting NARAL’s support, since Langevin dropping out didn’t cause NARAL to endorse the pro-choice Democrats who can now win the primary. This is a more credible argument than Kos’ or Ezra’s, but I’m not sure it’s correct. First of all, it’s not clear that either of the Democrats now running are really pro-choice (as Acbonin at Kos points out, one has an anti-choice record, the other has remained silent), and certainly neither one is a proven pro-choicer like Chafee is.
Secondly, Scott’s argument implicitly assumes that NARAL wants to create an incentive for Democrats to run any old candidate who claims to be pro-choice, regardless of record or credible chance of winning. However, what I think NARAL really wants to do is create an incentive for Democrats to run strong candidates with strong commitments to choice; if that’s NARAL’s goal, then they were correct to not endorse any of the Democrats running in this race, because none of them met this standard.
In other words, had the Democrats put forward a candidate with a credible chance of winning and a pro-choice record as impressive as Chafee’s, it’s quite possible that NARAL would have stayed out of this race rather than endorse Chafee.
(Will Baude makes an argument similar to what I’ve written here. Also, Matt Singer - here and here - and, in a particularly excellent post, David Sirota. Unfortunately, this debate so far seems to be dominated by male voices on both sides, at least as of yesterday when I searched Technocrati.)
May 30th, 2005 at 6:27 am
There were a couple of diaries on DailyKos done by women that took this on and the related issue that male progressives seem to feel that compromises on abortion are okay in the interests of winning elections.
Here’s one of the best ones: What you don’t understand about Pro-choice women
I think progressive women’s issue with this idea is nicely summed up by the author of the diary:
The flaw in the notion that we just need to get a Demcratic majority and then it won’t matter that we’ve elected a bunch of anti-abortion candidates is that they don’t seem to consider that the anti-abortion democrats might join with the anti-abortion republicans to get bills passed. I guess we’ve already forgotten the dixiecrats.
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 7:58 am
Is there anyone out there besides me who doubts that the nomination of a pro-life Democrat was an accident ? Is there anyone out there besides me who fails to feel sorry for the poor, shocked boy-liberals who got their feelings hurt when NARAL, showing some spine for once, actually told their supposed “allies” where to get off ? If so, please raise your hands.
So very much is wrong here that it’s hard to even know where to start. But we do live in a political shared monopoly, so what else can you expect ?
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr05/Frank0430.htm
…On Wednesday, Aprli 27th, The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (H.R. 748) passed with eager bipartisan support. Over fifty House Democrats voted in favor of the anti-choice measure. The bill, which was put forward by a right-wing Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, would make it a federal crime to transport a female minor to an clinic in a state where parental involvement laws are not as strong as those in the state where the girl resides.
“This legislation will close a loophole that allows adults not only to help minors break state laws by obtaining an abortion without parental consent, but also contributes to ending the life of an innocent child,”? boasts Rep. Ros-Lehtinen… –Joshua Frank
I guess that one slipped right on by Mr. Kos’ attention. Or else he’s fine with teenage girls being monitored by the state. Or else he really is so foolish as to believe that you can’t hold Democrats responsible for what they do as long as Bush is technically at the helm. I feel sorry for his squadrons of loyalists sometimes. What are they going to do if the day finally comes that Democrats manage to get a hold of all three branches of Government, and the Party’s in-house Right Wing is still conniving to get this kind of shit done. Who will they have left to blame ?
It’s great to have a scapegoat, though. Means you never have to confront your bosses with their fuck-ups, or trouble yourself to wonder if their priorities really do align with yours– or if they just like to say that they do in order to keep you pacified. If the far Right didn’t exist, Kos would have to invent it.
Was anyone really surprised that he wrote this garbage ? Isn’t he one of the gush-over-Hilary-squad, and isn’t she backpeddling on the abortion issue as fast as she can ?
If the Democrats want NARAL’s money and its foot soldiers badly enough, they’ll do a better job of courting it next time, one would hope. OTOH, NARAL and other women’s groups could buy a clue and realize that the duopoly isn’t any damn good for women anyway. They could realize that the Party’s contempt for feminist values, as embodied by people like Reid and the loyalists like Kos, is getting more and more blunt with each passing year in regards to their true hostility towards women’s issues. They could weary of Democrats having their cake and eating it, too: Using feminism to lend itself legitimacy, then standing by idly as feminists are repeatedly stabbed in the back while our “allies” conspire to help hold the knife or look the other way.
Oh, and they could tell the trained seals like Kos to stand up for women, instead of getting furious at any woman who won’t just sit down and shut up in the face of this kind of manipulation and abuse.
Feminists could break away. But that’s not a day I usually expect to live long enough to see. I’m amazed that NARAL showed even this much nerve, and I hope it’s not a one-time thing. Because it should be obvious to anyone with eyes that the Democrats will pull this shit again. They always do.
Honestly, though, with people like Kos, who even needs the Christian Right to hold any political office ? We had steady erosion of women’s right to choice all through the Clinton reign. Has everyone forgotten that Billy was the one who first trotted out all that “rare and legal” shit that his equally craven and opportunistic wife is now blabbing about ? And it’s the worldview of people like Kos that helped create that erosion, and that helps it continue today. The man clearly has some serious internalized sexism to deal with, just like his masters.
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 7:59 am
Solidarity is not a one-way street. NARAL is a special-interest nonprofit dedicated to preserving abortion rights. If the Democrats–or any particular Democrat–really want NARAL’s support, then they can do a better job of…preserving abortion rights. It’s that simple. And if they want to stop alienating women, they can stop acting as though they _deserve_ women’s votes by virtue of being the lesser evil when it comes to women’s rights. Women and feminists know from entitlement, and we don’t find it terribly attractive.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 8:02 am
Pardon me while I don’t talk electoral strategy
Pretty much everyone with some political sensibilities has one or two pet issues, topics they get really worked up over. The pet issue of a lot of the people at dKos is the Democratic Party itself. This certainly isn’t a bad thing, because it means p…
This comment was written by Staff of Ra.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 8:20 am
I think it is eminently sensible that some Democrats may want to make compromises on abortion in order to win elections.
This comment was written by Glaivester.It would not make sense, however, for NARAL to do so, as it is a (more-or-less) single-issue group, and by definition, it can only “win” an election when pro-choice people are elected.
I also think that there is something to be said for loyalty. After endorsing Lincoln Chafee, NARAL might lose some support among pro-choice Republicans if it were to turn on him.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 8:26 am
This isn’t a zero sum game. I do not think NARAL should ever endorse a Democrat who is pro-life, but NARAL could have waited to see who the RI Democratic candidate would be, since it didn’t endorse Chafee until AFTER Langevin dropped out. What is the short term here? Presumably the 2006 elections. The following Republicans could be in trouble — Burns, MT; Chafee, RI; Snowe, ME, Santorum, PA, Allen, VA, and probably a couple of others. Frist is leaving. In 2008, Coleman, MN, is probably vulnerable. To say there is “no chance” of resuming a majority in the next two election cycles is not correct. It’s an uphill battle, to be sure, but it’s possible.
I also do not see those who were upset over the endorsement as wanting a compromise on abortion rights. Harry Reid, a pro-life Democrat, has done more in the last six weeks to preserve choice than Lincoln Chafee, a pro-choice Republican ever has or will. Chafee is increasingly just a tool of the Republican establishment. Mouthing the right words shouldn’t be enough to get NARAL to fall all over him.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 8:52 am
…Harry Reid, a pro-life Democrat, has done more in the last six weeks to preserve choice…
Ummm…. Excuse me ??!!
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 10:57 am
Maybe that was too strong. However, the strategy to attack the legality of abortion now centers, if it doesn’t absolutely begin and end, with the judical selection and approval process. Having a Senat Dem leader who can deal with a clear Republican majority is not only a plus, it is basically indispensable to maintaining that right. Tom Daschle and Harry Reid are both pro-life (at least nominally) but they are light years apart in how they are dealing with an out of control majority party. Look, I don’t like the status quo any better than anybody who posts here, but I’m willing to give credit where it is due. I just think NARAL jumped the gun for its own tactical reasons and I think less of it as an organization. Securing the legality of a right to abortion isn’t synchronous with what is good for NARAL, even if NARAL sees it that way.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 11:27 am
I have to say, Barbara, that you manage to get a lot of meaning into very few words. Are you meaning to imply that a solidly pro-choice Democrat –which Reid most emphatically is nowhere near– could not or would not have “dealt with” Tom DeLay. WTF ?
And I stand by my belief that there’s something deeply weird about expecting a pro-life champion from any political party to save abortion rights, whether through the auspices of courts or anything else. We have the Clinton years, after all, as sound testimony to the fact that even good judges can only do so much when the rest of the legislative branches are hell-bent on sticking their overprivileged heads firmly in the sand.
Are you so sure that the sound-and-fury-signifying-nothing outcome of the whole “nuclear filibuster” game cannot be at least IN PART attributed to the fact that folks like Reid ARE pro-life ? Is it possible that they DON’T want women’s rights secured or saved– only to avoid being blamed for any failures related to those rights ?
You know, the only thing worse than an aggressive sexist asshole (DeLay) is a passive-agressive sexist asshole (Reid). In that sense, perhaps I ought to praise Kos for the proud “Hell, No !” which Amp quoted above, rather than burying Kos. I–and a few other malcontent/apostate feminists– have been trying for years now to explain to other feminists why expecting Democrats to save our rights is a dubious proposition. In fact, one that becomes more and more dubious with each passing election cycle. But it’s damn rare to see a liberal sexist himself rip the lid off to expose the sexism and paternalism in his own party as proudly and openly as Kos has done.
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 12:27 pm
You know, I’m sick to fucking death of hearing male progressives urging me to compromise when it comes to my civil rights.
Bullshit.
This willingness of the male progressive left to roll over and play dead–or rather, their willingness to command us silly bitches to do so–is what is killing the progressive movement.
Of course, I’m the one who has to worry about reproductive rights, since I’m the one who can get pregnant and/or be denied birth control by a zealot at the pharmacy. I’m a mere woman, and I suppose it’s high time that I, and other women, realized that we are only good for baking cookies and batting our eyelashes at overly-entitled pseudo-progressives.
They want to start winning? Then they can give me a reason to throw my support behind them. I’m sick to fucking death of liberals and progressives expecting my support for selling my rights out. Bullshit. You don’t support my rights, I don’t support you. It’s that simple, really.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 12:33 pm
Screw it, the Dems are spineless, protect-their-own-ass, women’s rights are negotiable, beholding-to-the-same-corperate intrests as the Repubs, and still say their the “people’s party”. Fuck it, I’m going to the Greens. I don’t really like their no-car policy, but I like them a lot better than what I like about the Dems.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 12:52 pm
You know, Alsis, and anyone else, I have two daughters who are potentially more affected by this than just about anyone I know. Abortion is a conundrum specifically because, although I sincerely believe that most people more or less feel as I do about it, perhaps a little less strongly, nonetheless most people don’t stake their votes or much else of their well-being on maintaining its legality. Not even a sizable majority. They don’t. If they did, we wouldn’t be where we are. It’s true that courts can’t protect what popular will abhors, that’s why de jure segregation outlived the Civil War by 100 years and de facto segregation is still with us. There are some localities where it is basically impossible to obtain an abortion as a result of this. Places like South Dakota.
But more than any other issue, the continuing legality of abortion in these same places depends on courts, because that’s the way abortion became legal in most places to begin with. I won’t even go into how this has distorted the political landscape, and no, I don’t particularly wish that Roe v. Wade had never been decided or anything radical like that. I just see this as a very difficult proposition — where a lot of people can write the legality of abortion out of their political calculus so long as nothing too weird happens at the level of the Supreme Court. So even though these people agree with you, they don’t align themselves with you when it comes time to vote.
So you can talk rights until you are dead from suffocation, but you can’t change the fact that is where we are at this juncture on abortion. NARAL has no long-term strategy for protecting the legality of abortion (unlike, say, Thurgood Marshall’s long-term strategy of ending segregation), except for keeping various judges off the court. Which is why, no doubt, it sent me, literally, two or three e-mails a day about the whole filibuster debacle as it was getting set to take place.
Lincoln Chafee won’t preserve your rights any better than Harry Reid. I am sure he won’t preserve your rights better than a more solidly Democratic Senate or House, or better than a Democratic RI counterpart who might be pro-choice (obviously, not Langevin, about whom I know nothing and would never expect NARAL to endorse).
But the core problem is that there is a huge disconnect between what voters expect in terms of their right of autonomy over a whole range of sexual, reproductive and related rights, and what it is that they perceive can happen to them in the near term. They are not sufficiently spooked.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 1:12 pm
The Rhode Island Senate race is not the only one where an anti-choice Democrat is going up against a vulnerable Republican.
How would you deal with the situation in Pennsylvania, where Rick Santorum is vulnerable, and the leading Dem candidate is Bob Casey Jr., who is anti-abortion but pro-birth-control? (There is an alternative, though - Chuck Pennachio.
NARAL did do a tactical blunder by endorsing Chafee long before the Democratic nomination was secured. However, I don’t think it’s a big a sin as the Dems think it is. Unless you’re a one-issue pro-choicer, it’s not going to swing the election, and I think most Dems and liberals are still going to vote for the Dem in the general election if he/she is competent. What’s important is making sure the Dems have someone who is strong enough (whatever their views) to capture the swing voters, and that strength includes the paradoxical ability to be able to compromise but also not to flip-flop on the issues he or she is strongest on.
Ultimately, though, a Democratic takeover of the Senate is in pro-choicers’ best interest, and certainly in liberals’ best interest. Anti-choice bills like the parental notification act Alsis cites are likely not to make it out of committee if the Dems chair the committees, no matter if they’re chaired by an anti-choice Dem like Reid or, say, Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer.
This comment was written by Aaron.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 1:45 pm
I’m not trying to dis you or your daughters, Barbara. I just don’t think that falling back on judges alone is going to help anyone in the long term except the usual opportunistic fundraisers and politicos. If the other branches are disengaged and written off, ACCESS will continue to suffer and suffer badly, just as it did under Clinton.
Also, can we please not forget that because the Democratic leadership cut and ran on the filibuster issue, those bad judges you fear are now comfortably ensconsed where they wanted to be all along ? What makes you think that there won’t be more ? Is there no one in your party with enough courage to stand up and say that even one is one too many ? Since that doesn’t appear to be the case, and since the big boys (and occasional woman) in charge seem to care much more about getting along with their golfing buddies across the aisle than they do about protecting your daughters, why should I take seriously your pleas about juddges ? Hell, even if I really believed that this one-note approach would reap anything but superficial benefits, I’d have to be nuts to believe that they are even managing to pursue this approach in any but the most superficial and self-serving manner.
I don’t just want preservation, Barbara. I want ADVANCEMENT. I want someone who will push back at the Right Wing, and come out for something, not merely against something. I am not a champion of NARAL, either. I cut them off my donations list for good a few months ago, because of my continual fury at their hostility or indifference towards 3rd Party candidates. One way, it seems to me, to advance the cause of women’s rights is to push for their inclusion in as many places as possible. So I can’t really fault them for endorsing Chaffee, even though I’m not ready to return to their fold.
Fuck “reframing.” Throw out the damn frame and give people something they haven’t already seen repackaged and force-fed to them five zillion times.
And let’s not forget the hypocrisy of assholes like Kos for daring to berate NARAL for its “bipartisanship,” even as they applaud all this “bipartisanship” when the oligarchs they cozy up to and tithe to on a regular basis do it. WTF ? When one of their own does it, it’s okay ? But those uppity feminists, who do they think they are ? Please.
Monopolies, as I’ve written in internet-land about 5 billion times since the 2000 campaign, are bad in politics, as they are in most places. Giving one party (or two parties where your so-called “servants” have much more in common with each other than they do with you) a monopoly on important issues has been a disaster for us all. Monopolies lead to the deification of money and clout at the expense of respect and human feeling. They lead to arrogance and entitlement of the sort so clearly demonstrated by a party machine that promotes pro-life candidates to high office while pretending it gives a fuck about the pro-choice women who have given it so much money and time. They lead to the sort of clueless cheerleading so popular among people like Kos. Democratic power-brokers are much more concerned with what their supposed “red-state” colleagues think of them than of what you think of them. And Kos cares much more about what his fellow males –who months after Des Femmes went up– are STILL running around demeaning other men by calling them “bitches”– think of him than he care about what you think of him.
How does that feel, Barbara ?
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 1:53 pm
“Anti-choice bills like the parental notification act Alsis cites are likely not to make it out of committee if the Dems chair the committees, no matter if they’re chaired by an anti-choice Dem like Reid or, say, Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer.”
That’s terrific, Aaron. Now tell me what they’ll do once that boot is off my neck to help me stand up and move around. You know, to improve access and affordable medical coverage for women and kids across all races, classes, and regions, without which choice will continue to be gutted by the far-Right even if Roe stays on the books.
Here’s a hint: Blathering about what a “sad and tragic choice” abortion is doesn’t do shit to enhance access. It doesn’t promote better healthcare or sex ed. Oh, and neither does promoting pro-lifers in your own party and then feigning bewilderment when even the most feeble attempts to defend choice continue to founder on the rocks.
Remember the old Indymedia adage: You can’t ever expect to win if you’re hell-bent on playing defense all the time.
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 2:04 pm
Seems like pro-abortion folks have gotten about as much from the government as they’re going to get. If they legalize pot I wouldn’t expect the state to open grow rooms for the public; that’s up to private citizens.
Maybe NARAL should start providing the capital to open clinics in these underserved areas, if access is the holy grail.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 2:10 pm
“Is there anyone out there besides me who doubts that the nomination of a pro-life Democrat was an accident ? Is there anyone out there besides me who fails to feel sorry for the poor, shocked boy-liberals who got their feelings hurt when NARAL, showing some spine for once, actually told their supposed “allies”? where to get off ? If so, please raise your hands.
So very much is wrong here that it’s hard to even know where to start. But we do live in a political shared monopoly, so what else can you expect ?”
You’re not the only one…This whole situation may sound surprising to some, but not to me. Choice is an issue that perhaps not as a platform but as a belief system crosses party lines. This situation which isn’t all that uncommon really, also shows the overlapping of both political parties into increasingly one interest group, which if allowed to go unchecked, or unchallenged(which many democrats seem loathe to do) will disenfranchise, more and more people from the political party.
Female democrats, surprised? You shouldn’t be. This party has made itself abundantly clear that women are expendible EXCEPT for a short period every four years during presidential elections.
————————————
Abortion isn’t the only “choice” issue by a long shot, but it’s an easy target both to attack and to sacrifice, so it’s a good first target in the latest round of men whittling down women’s rights. The other things that enhance and protect women and their families will follow, in the footsteps of abortion as something that was a necessary sacrifice to beat the Republicans…
Beat the republicans by becoming them…hmmm….
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 2:11 pm
“I just don’t think that falling back on judges alone is going to help anyone in the long term except the usual opportunistic fundraisers and politicos. If the other branches are disengaged and written off, ACCESS will continue to suffer and suffer badly, just as it did under Clinton.”
That’s my whole point, and that’s a basic problem I have with NARAL because as far as I can tell, that is its whole strategy, which makes endorsing Chafee all the more perplexing. I admit that NARAL is in a bind, but a judicial strategy is almost by definition disconnected from voters, who are nonetheless indirectly responsible for who is nominated as a judge.
I don’t remember defending Kos, and I believe that it’s neither necessary nor effective for Democrats to resort to “pro-life” candidates as a strategy. In fact, I think it’s fairly stupid (at least in most states). I just don’t think it’s necessary to be reflexively “anti” every pro-life candidate under all circumstances. It’s at least worth asking what they plan to do with their views.
And I don’t see NARAL endorsing the Greens anytime soon.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 2:26 pm
Interesting thing about the legalization of pot. In our very conservative criminal courts, members of our very conservative jury pool nullified when it acquitted on a case of a man charged with less than an oz of possession of pot found during a traffic stop. In my state, the intent of people, if not the government, has moved further away from criminalizing it.
The fight against abortion has gone beyond the judges. It’s in the hospitals being “merged” with Catholic owned institutions, mostly in poorer neighborhoods. It’s doctors opting and giving the optioin not to learn, teach or train, or use gynacological procedures that are used to treat other medical conditions and to perform abortions. It’s a climate of fear of being killed, or your family harassed which has led to the doctors who did abortions beginning yesteryear to not be replaced when they retire. It’s the reality that only 13 % of all counties allow women access to abortion, which places a harder burden on some women than others.
Personally, I’m apprehensive on abortions. Politically, and otherwise I realize it’s a part of the larger choice issue, both access to them and freedom from coersion to get them. Allowing women of all backgrounds access to information and assitance to learn of all their options so they can choose their option freely.
———————————————–
“Ultimately, though, a Democratic takeover of the Senate is in pro-choicers’ best interest, and certainly in liberals’ best interest. Anti-choice bills like the parental notification act Alsis cites are likely not to make it out of committee if the Dems chair the committees, no matter if they’re chaired by an anti-choice Dem like Reid or, say, Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer. ”
Pro-choicers best interests? By the time the Democrats retake the Senate, it will be a limited mandate. The only way the Democrats think they can win, is if they go further central, meaning right and increasingly, being pro-life in “vulnerable” districts. A pro-choice Republican who only favors abortion rights is NOT really prochoice, unless he backs other related issues of which there are many, some fought by the GOP, some increasingly fought by the Dems.(see welfare “deform” and “tough on crime” laws which imo, especially in the area of drugs, is a WAR AGAINST WOMEN)
Maybe the trouble is that people look at this and go “either/or” or omigod, what do I do? Choose this women’s right or that women’s right…Maybe the best option is to start looking elsewhere for politicians that truly support women’s rights, and fewer and fewer, are in either of the “two” parties.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 2:43 pm
“I just don’t think it’s necessary to be reflexively ‘anti’ every pro-life candidate under all circumstances.”
IOW, calling themselves Democrats provides them with protective cover. Got it.
“It’s at least worth asking what they plan to do with their views.”
Then ask when they’re running for school board or Mayor. Don’t wait until they’re ready to be crowned the damn Minority Whip or Senator or Congressperson, for pity’s sake. By the time they’ve reached the level Langevin did, it should be obvious from studying their records what they plan to do. And if you wouldn’t study a candidate’s record, how could you call yourself politically engaged– As opposed to just being an indiscriminate flag-waver for the Party itself ?
I mentioned when Reid was confirmed that it was interesting to note that mainstream feminists mostly fell over backwards to paint it as something other than a slap in the face for their years of loyal servitude to the Democrats. I actually got called by NARAL that week and was treated to some of the most egregious and pitiful backpeddling that I’d heard from any Democratic apologist that year. Considering the general tenor of the election, that’s really saying something.
Meanwhile, hardcore Christian pro-lifers were busy giving Arlen Specter a six-alarm headache and extracting from him a promise that he would never, never stand in the way of a pro-life court appointment. I asked what was wrong with that particular picture, but I think my post got eaten in a server mishap before anyone could answer.
I’d still like to know if any feminists who remain so steadfastly loyal to the Democratic Party see the lack of symmetry in these two events. I’d still like to know what’s wrong with being as aggressive as the pro-lifers were in this circumstance. Those people are proud of their beliefs to the point of arrogance. They are obnoxious, unlikeable, and shameless. Yet these same qualities made them demand 100% of what they wanted — that 100% would have culminated with Specter’s removal from his post– and get pretty much get all but of 1% of that. After all, they made him promise to enforce their own beliefs, not his own.
If choice is so important, it ought to be more important than having the opposition consider us pleasant, charming and cooperative. It ought to be more important than having an opposition barely disguised as a friend (ie– Kos) patronize us. Why isn’t it that important to us ? Why is the core of the Democratic Party made of stale, soggy whitebread, rather than a hard core that will risk humiliation, anger, and failure but not budge on an issue that it claims in election years is its main –perhaps 0nly remaining– linchpin. I honestly don’t understand.
“And I don’t see NARAL endorsing the Greens anytime soon.”
Which is an error on their part, and exceedingly short-sighted. It’s why I finally cut them off for good. Even ten dollars twice a year to a group that actively undermines my goals while pretending to defend them is twenty dollars too many.
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 3:32 pm
Alsis - we don’t have to always play defense, but we must play aggressive defense whenever possible. If someone wants to put a ridiculous “abstinence-only” sex education plan in the public schools, counter them with religion-neutral sex education providing good medical information, complete birth control information (and access to condoms, Pills, etc.), and techniques to turn down unwanted sexual encounters.
We can call it “science-based sex education”. Science is good - it tells the moderates that this isn’t the feel-good “our kids don’t have sex, because we tell them not to!” crap that passes for sex education in many districts.
Likewise for access to family planning information for adults. Call the act the “Abortion Control Act” - and have it fund low-cost clinics and Ad Council PSA with science-based family planning information on TV, radio, billboards, etc.
As much as you support them, third parties just are not viable in current national politics. Third parties would have to caucus with one of the two majors anyway - Bernie Sanders and Jim Jeffords currently caucus with the Dems. Likewise, so would Ralph Nader if he ran for Senator from Connecticut. (There, I said it. I think Nader should run for Senate to replace the excreable Joe Lieberman.)
(Any UK residents - how does Labour and the Lib Dems do their caucusing? )
This comment was written by Aaron.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Why is the core of the Democratic Party made of stale, soggy whitebread, rather than a hard core that will risk humiliation, anger, and failure but not budge on an issue that it claims in election years is its main ““perhaps 0nly remaining”“ linchpin. I honestly don’t understand.
For politicians, power is more attractive than ideological coherence. The power that can be derived from being hardline pro-choice is marginal at best, and most of it is held by activist groups. Come out as hardline pro-choice in all but a few Congressional districts, and you lose the election. Not many people like the hardline pro-choice position.
Reid would rather be a Congressman than have your approval.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 4:11 pm
“For politicians, power is more attractive than ideological coherence. The power that can be derived from being hardline pro-choice is marginal at best, and most of it is held by activist groups. Come out as hardline pro-choice in all but a few Congressional districts, and you lose the election. Not many people like the hardline pro-choice position.
Reid would rather be a Congressman than have your approval. ”
————————–
Really?
Thanks for informing us that politicians like power. I really thought that the councilman last week who wanted to rip 73 families out of their homes by Eminent Domain under some bogus RD scheme was really as concerned about their lungs as he claimed, rather than simply returning a favor to one of his best friends, who happens to be a developer salivating over that parcel of land. Now I know better….
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 4:45 pm
Kos contradicts himself. He claims both that being pro-choice isn’t a core principle of the Demaocratic Party, (and can be thrown out of the window at will to win elections), yet the single issue, pro-choice NARAL is “myopic” for not supporting democratic candidates anyway, because the Democratic Party will protect abortion rights. Huh?
Btw, I like the fact that all candidates from any party are not clones of each other. It isn’t as simple as the alternative, but it is much more honest and actually takes into account that some “liberals” are conservative on some issues, while some “conservatives” are liberal on some issues. To a two-party country like USA, any less would be insane.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 4:54 pm
Au contraire. NARAL has endorsed Greens when other candidates are anti-choice. This doesn’t happen too often in larger races, but it happens occasionally in rural state rep and state senate races - I have seen it. Generally, if there is a sizable pro-choice constituency in the district, the Dem candidate is pro-choice. But if a large majority of the district is anti-choice, the Dem candidate is also anti-choice.
Many single-issue organizations have a policy to endorse the incumbent, if the incumbent has a favorable record on the issue, no matter what the challenger looks like. After all, incumbents have a huge electoral advantage in 99% of cases. This occasionally leads to the conundrum here. One way out of this is to issue the formal endorsement for the incumbent, but to list the position of the challenger AND to state their policy of endorsing incumbents. Then voters will have all the info, and the incumbent will have the endorsement.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 5:07 pm
Barry,
I’m female and I commented on a related issue here, after you made this post:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/the_walloper/25340.html
This comment was written by Sen Marcellus.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 5:07 pm
The Democratic Party doesn’t support support civil liberties, doesn’t oppose war, doesn’t support labor, doesn’t support racial minorities, doesn’t support gay rights, and doesn’t support women’s rights.
Why should we support them?
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 5:34 pm
“Many single-issue organizations have a policy to endorse the incumbent, if the incumbent has a favorable record on the issue, no matter what the challenger looks like. After all, incumbents have a huge electoral advantage in 99% of cases. This occasionally leads to the conundrum here. One way out of this is to issue the formal endorsement for the incumbent, but to list the position of the challenger AND to state their policy of endorsing incumbents. Then voters will have all the info, and the incumbent will have the endorsement.”
If we’re stuck with a system that invariably favors incumbents, (I know you’re in the “we’re stuck” camp, Nancy, even if I’m not) but that system is actually not good for the preservation of that particular right, NARAL’s tack has some problems. What they ought to do in a situation where the incumbent and the 3rd-Party challenger are both pro-choice is to endorse neither incumbent nor challenger. If they want to escape the impression that their main purpose is to rubber-stamp Democrats, that seems like the best way to do it.
BTW, it may well be that I missed NARAL’s endorsement of Green candidates. Possibly this escaped my notice because I live in an area where the GP seems to keep a very low profile. Then again, you’d think NARAL would have wanted to play that up at some point in the oceans of literature and phone calls they’ve sent my way over the last five-odd years. Unless they’re too timid to risk alienating me. Guess that backfired, as their timidity has pretty much alienated me anyway.
“Why should we support them?”
Oh, c’mon, Brian !! Don’t be a wet blanket. Aren’t you looking forward to seeing their brilliant plan for selling 0ut– er, “compromising”, on Social Security. It’ll be funnnnnnnnnn !!! [munches popcorn]
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 6:36 pm
The issue is pretty damn pertinent to me, and to every woman I know. Every freaking Democrat uses the anti-choice boogeyman to insist that women vote for them, no matter what. (Even if the candidate approved the appointment of uber-misogynist anti-choice judges.) And then, after the election, they dither on about family values and building coalitions (with anyone but the women who supported them). They kill abortion rights through neglect, through indifference when access is curtailed (but the legality remains), when our rights are chipped away, when they “compromise” by approving more judges who would prefer to reenact The Handmaid’s Tale.
It’s oh-so-easy for smug, arrogant, entitled guys to shrug it off because it’s soooo divisive. Yeah, until you need one, or someone you know needs one. And maybe you have to go out of state and go through a waiting period. Or maybe you want to get the pill and can’t because, gosh, it’s an abortificant, or it encourages premarital sex, and it offends the delicate sensibilities of the self-righeous asshat pharmacist who tears up your scrip. And yes, you can make a stink about it, but some women don’t have the time. And some of us are sick to death of being urged to make a stink when sexual predators could get Viagra paid for by Medicaid, when any guy can get Viagra with nary a cocked eyebrow from a zealot behind the counter. These guys aren’t inconvenienced but we are, and that’s apparently okay. These guys aren’t publicly humilated by assholes who inform rape survivors that they won’t kill babies, so who cares? It’s a non issue. Just a bunch of bitches after all.
You know, I’m really tired of the false commiserating by these so-called progressive men–they are quite happy to take on the right wing on choice, but suddenly decide that choice isn’t all that important when someone from their own damn party is against it. If they want cred, they can actually do something besides tell us to kiss the asses of anti-choicers.
I vote for the people who will promote my interests. Likewise, NARAL will throw their support behind the people who support their interests. How Harry Reid will support NARAL’s goal to keep abortion safe and legal (and to increase access) is beyond me. NARAL isn’t part of the Democratic party, and it’s telling that so many people think that NARAL is beholden to them. Toeing the line has gotten us screwed six ways to Sunday–exactly what motivation do we have for doing this now? Compromising our rights (and compromising them some more, and yet some more) in the name of solidarity has done exactly nothing for reproductive rights.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 7:40 pm
The democrats figure they can screw over progressive women because we’ve got nowhere else to go so NARAL’s move is a good way to let them know that screwing over can work both ways. We ought to be doing a kit more to get the message across that if they want our vote they damn well better earn it. But the more important thing I think women need to do is to get more involved with the dems on the local and state level.
I keep thinking about what happened in my state back in the 70’s when I worked to get the ERA passed. When we started there was no way the legislature would pass it so rather than try to change unchangeable minds, we changed who was in the legislature. It took a couple of elections before we got enough people elected but we did succeed. (Actually, we achieved even more than we thought we would because not only did we get the amendment passed but the legislature changed or rescinded over 300 gender-biased laws. )
I’m really convinced that shoving from the bottom up is the only way to get their attention.
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 8:00 pm
Even leaving aside whether, through some indirect means involving congressional committees and stuff, NARAL would somehow do more to advance abortion rights by endorsing Langevin than Chafee (which isn’t at all clear), there’s the issue of NARAL’s credibility as a non-partisan advocate of abortion rights at stake. NARAL would hurt itself institutionally, and abortion rights in the longer term, if it eroded its credibility by making itself appear to be a subsidiary of the Democratic Party. In fact, they might even hurt the Democratic party, very indirectly, by ceasing to be an effective voice that usually (but not always) favors Democrats while maintaining its independence.
BTW, I’m curious about the 87% of counties don’t have abortion access statistic. Two questions spring to mind:
This comment was written by Julian Elson.1) What percentage of the U.S. population lives in that 87% of counties?
2) What percentage of hospitals perform abortions?
Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 8:35 pm
[…] #8217;d eventually put out the fire.” Sound familiar? It should. David Sirota and Ampersand react to some pseudo-progressives’ rants t […]
This comment was written by XX » Blog Archive » I am not going to carry your water..Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 8:47 pm
Outside of California and New York and probably a few others, very few hospitals perform what are considered to be totally elective abortions. First trimester abortions are typically performed in clinics. Many hospitals have been “disciplined” by pro-life groups. They are afraid of negative publicity. NOW tried to do something about this about 25 years ago via resort to various legal theories, but it didn’t work. There are many hospitals that perform abortions in which medical issues with either baby or mother arise (certainly the latter).
There’s no doubt that the 87% of counties that don’t have abortion providers is, to some extent, deception by statistics. For instance, I know that in Virginia, which has something like 95 counties, there are no more 10 (and that’s probably overcounting) where abortions are performed, but the population of most counties wouldn’t support an abortion provider. But there are whole states where there are no abortion providers. Of course, some of those states probably don’t have enough population to support a clinic (like North Dakota, which has a total population of about 600,000 — people travel to Minnesota). The bigger issue, at least in my mind, is the level of legal harassment and intimidation and outright threats that abortion providers are subjected to in places such as Kansas, for instance, where the population does support clinics.
Let me be clear in case I wasn’t before — I agree that NARAL should never endorse someone like Langevin, for all the reasons you stated. That would never be a credible move and would seriously undermine its integrity.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 8:24 am
Brian Vaughan (#27): Couldn’t have said it better myself!! Eight years of Clinton made me nearly ill with dramimine poisoning.
Sheelzebub (#29): Right on!! Vote your conscience, vote your interests!! Does this mean that others are entitled to do the same? Or, if Bill Frist goes against Hilary in ‘08 and Nader tries again, will you be like all the other Dem bootlickers and tsk-tsk anyone who’d vote for Nader?Just curious.
This comment was written by DP in SF.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 9:02 am
Frist vs. Clinton ?
Kill me now.
This comment was written by alsis38.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 9:53 am
[…] over whether NARAL should have endorsed Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island. Ampersand at Alas has now weighed in with a bit of a clean-up post that is defin […]
This comment was written by Left in the West » Blog Archive » Revisiting This Old Subject.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 11:04 am
“The Democratic Party doesn’t support support civil liberties, doesn’t oppose war, doesn’t support labor, doesn’t support racial minorities, doesn’t support gay rights, and doesn’t support women’s rights.
Why should we support them? ”
Oh, yeah, that’s why the party is going further right, and doing its damnest to alienate liberals, and progressives, while still demanding loyalty from them, by saying a vote that’s not cast for us, is cast for the other side.
In my county, democrats do not enjoy a majority of the women’s vote, a majority of the African-American vote either and they are losing ground in both group, with only themselves to blame.
I mean, the Democrats showed how much they valued African-American’s RIGHT to even cast a ballot when they refused to investigate massive violations of the Voting Rights Act and refused to support Black Congress representatives from Florida districts impacted by the massive theft of Black votes and voting rights, when they challenged the certification of the 2000 election. Because, you see, when push comes to shove, pale males will always support one another, no matter what their political stripe when it suits them. Often pale females will side themselves with the pale males against other women. I know many women of all races and men of color who hold their noses when they vote Democrat. The either/or situation. Yet their loyalty to the party goes pretty much unrewarded.
And besides, the Demobrats were too busy trying to shut up and punish the evil third parties for “costing” them an election, lost because of voters’ fraud and malaise against the Democratic party caused by its own decision making.
—————————————–
“BTW, I’m curious about the 87% of counties don’t have abortion access statistic. Two questions spring to mind:
1) What percentage of the U.S. population lives in that 87% of counties?
2) What percentage of hospitals perform abortions? ”
A lot of them are probably rural counties since the percentage of women without access is 1/3 of all women in the U.S. One woman who couldn’t freely exercise her choice is one too many for me, but I realize for those in the Democratic Party who don’t ever have to be put in this position, a higher number is probably in order. So, here’s hoping 1/3 meets that standard. The number of providers is declining, probably due to retirements exceeding newer doctors coming in.
Very few, less than 10 percent of abortions are performed in hospitals. Most are done in clinics. The clinics at least in these parts are vulnerable to buyouts, especially if they are affiliated with larger medical institutions. Vulnerable to not having leases renewed, or having higher rent imposed mostly due to the harassment and terrorist acts perpetuated on them by the “pro-life” movement, which thinks nothing about blowing up or shooting women to death to save the “unborn” and protect the sanctity of life and all that. I had a friend who ran the clinic here. Exhaustion and burnout drove her out, after a few years b/c of threats, acid attacks, vandelism and harassment.
BTW, How dare them, these women for not living in the right counties! These women probably would be very adversely impacted in relative to some but not all female populations in higher density or urban counties.
I’m not crazy about abortion, but I do know that the “pro-life” movement is about men controlling women. So I know that all the options women would have besides abortion would be subject to that same problem of men controlling women. At one time, I thought the Democrats cared about women, until Welfare Deform. Caving on nationalized healthcare. And increasingly, thinking it’s perfectly fine and dandy to endorse and run pro-life candidates.
Chafee is a mixed bag. I like some of his positions. Others, eww. But the Democrat is the usually young white male, clean-cut in a slick way candidate. Yawn.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 12:03 pm
The moment when I decided that the Democratic Party was the problem, not the solution, and beyond redemption, was when I was at a mass demonstration at UC Berkeley to support affirmative action, after affirmative action had been banned in the UC system but before Proposition 209 passed, banning it in all state programs. There were tens of thousands gathered in Sproul Plaza — it was, possibly, the largest demonstration there since the Vietnam War, and definitely the largest since the campaign for divestment from South Africa.
The focus of the rally was a speech by Jesse Jackson. And his speech was, simply, “Keep hope alive, and vote Democrat in November.” He mentioned affirmative action in passing, and complained that there was nothing the Democrats could do because of Republican opposition.
At the time, the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House. It dawned on me that if the Democrats wouldn’t even say they supported affirmative action, a highly popular program, when they controlled the federal government, then they’d never actually fight for anything.
In the years since, my encounters with the Democratic Party have, consistently, always been to find the Democrats being the ones deliberately shutting down grassroots movements and silencing the Left.
I think people fail to see that the Democratic Party doesn’t just accidentally shut down the Left all the time — it’s deliberate policy.
My big worry about the Greens is how they will deal with the problem of Green party members who are trying to sabotage the organization on behalf of the Democrats. The undemocratic nomination of David Cobb, whose campaign amounted to an endorsement of John Kerry, made the gravity of the problem clear.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 12:23 pm
“The moment when I decided that the Democratic Party was the problem, not the solution, and beyond redemption, was when I was at a mass demonstration at UC Berkeley to support affirmative action, after affirmative action had been banned in the UC system but before Proposition 209 passed, banning it in all state programs. There were tens of thousands gathered in Sproul Plaza … it was, possibly, the largest demonstration there since the Vietnam War, and definitely the largest since the campaign for divestment from South Africa.
The focus of the rally was a speech by Jesse Jackson. And his speech was, simply, “Keep hope alive, and vote Democrat in November.”? He mentioned affirmative action in passing, and complained that there was nothing the Democrats could do because of Republican opposition.
At the time, the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House. It dawned on me that if the Democrats wouldn’t even say they supported affirmative action, a highly popular program, when they controlled the federal government, then they’d never actually fight for anything.”
————————————————-
Oh yeah, I remember the UC regents trying to get AA out to help Pete Wilson push his 209 proposition which was supposed to do for a presidential bid, what 187 did for his second governmental bid. Mercifully for the rest of the country, Wilson did fall flat in his ambitions. You don’t know how lucky you all were. The xenophobes in our state adored him, of course.
They’re no more vocal on issues like AA which uh oh, are chased out of existance by claims of reverse racism and the disenfranchisement of the more deserving, merited White men and White women, the latter being the greatest(by far) beneficiary of AA programs.
Why should the Democrats defend AA? They don’t want to be viewed as a “Black” Party or a “Women’s” Party by the other side, thus leaving white men out in the cold….And if you don’t think this could happen, you weren’t in California when they were painting anyone who supported AA as being anti-White., anti-Male(although the anti-male received far, far less play than the anti-white argument did, for obvious reasons)
THEY JUST WANT OUR BLIND LOYALTY AND VOTES!
Women and men of color are more likely to be loyal to a political party when the other one is actively running an agenda against us and a lot of rights that we enjoy. Unfortunately, those same rights are ready to be jettisoned by the “friendly” party when the going gets tough, b/c EVERYONE is after the White, male vote so enjoy them while you have them!
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 1:13 pm
“My big worry about the Greens is how they will deal with the problem of Green party members who are trying to sabotage the organization on behalf of the Democrats. The undemocratic nomination of David Cobb, whose campaign amounted to an endorsement of John Kerry, made the gravity of the problem clear. ”
No kidding. Peter Camejo wrote about this extensively over at Counterpunch not long ago. I was majorly creeped out by the dynamic he described as taking place in the GP’s upper ranks. :(
Democratic loyalists like to paint Nader voters as being part of some kind of weird cult of personality, but if Cobb had run a real campaign –as opposed to one designed from the start to placate Kerry’s people– I would have had no trouble voting for him instead of Nader. I want to build a 3rd Party, too, but a subsidiary of the Democrats disguised as a 3rd Party is something else again. :(
This comment was written by alsis38.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 1:18 pm
AndiF (#30): I agree, the Democrats don’t really earn progressive votes. They don’t have to. Come election day, mainstream liberal saps get so worried about their pet issue, the Donkey gets its pass and we get screwed—again. This trend will only get worse. Any one read Bill Clinton’s book? His advice to the Demopathetic Party: don’t turn left.
This comment was written by DP in SF.Folks, it’s time to admit Nader was right all along and to do something with that in mind.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 3:38 pm
Because, you see, when push comes to shove, pale males will always support one another, no matter what their political stripe when it suits them.
Explain the Civil War, World War I, and World War II.
mostly due to the harassment and terrorist acts perpetuated on them by the “pro-life”? movement, which thinks nothing about blowing up or shooting women to death
Explain why the number of women who have been blown up or shot to death related to abortion is not in the hundreds, or tens, or single, thousands.
Or more generally, explain why anyone who is not a rabid partisan of your views already should take seriously the statements you make about anything, when your rhetoric is so out of touch with empirical reality?
When I was in my early twenties, I used similarly clueless rhetoric in talking about my pet issues. I wondered why nobody would listen to me, except people who were already equally nuts on the subject. I don’t wonder that anymore.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 3:55 pm
Oh good Robert, I’m glad you don’t wonder why no one listened to you. That makes one of us.
I was talking about in U.S. politics, how white men support each other when their priviliage is under attack even by members of groups, they purportedly support. I was not talking about violent conflicts, either on a national or international scale. But I think you know that.
Do you deny that women and sympathetic men haven’t been killed and maimed by the “pro-life” movement? Does the “pro-life” movement condemn these acts? Does the government currently in power still align itself with the agenda of those who commit violent acts and campaigns of harassment against clinics? Do you not believe it’s a contradiction that there are men out there who are engaged in the practice of killing women but saying that they revere life(well, unborn life anyway)?
If you don’t want to take me seriously, then stop reading my posts, and stop responding to them. Really. Believe it or not, it’s no skin off my teeth if a white man doesn’t want to participate in a discussion.
I’m responding to your patriarchal condescension with good manners, lest I hear anyone give me a lecture on the importance of male-defined “civility”. Been there, done that.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 4:22 pm
Tsk ! Oh, radfem ! Now we’ll NEVER get husbands !!
[passes popcorn]
This comment was written by alsis38.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 4:28 pm
And after I threw my life savings in subscriptions to all those Wedding magazines, COSMO-GLAM, and Red Ladies Home Journal(oooh, that came out wierd) and bought a nice Hope Chest to keep them in….
Lies, all lies!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for the popcorn. I think I’ve got some Swizzler-vines…
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 6:56 pm
You know, Amp, I have to say that this is a fantastic write-up. You were smack-dab on the money in laying out NARAL’s reasoning and ‘message’ to the Democratic party. Sell out the issues, and lose the support. It’s that simple.
I’ve been gnashing my teeth lately about the inclination for the current Democratic reps. to sell women, minorities and gays down the river in hopes of some weird show of a willingness to be ‘moderate’. If they want to be moderate, start a freaking moderate party, but for the love of all things just and fair, quit selling out the party base.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 7:50 pm
You know, Alsis, and anyone else, I have two daughters who are potentially more affected by this than just about anyone I know.
I don’t know about that, Barbara. The right of choice is what has made it possible for me to have two daughters that are here, hence HAVE been affected by this more than anyone I know.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 9:24 pm
Do you deny that women and sympathetic men haven’t been killed and maimed by the “pro-life”? movement?
Well, yes, I would deny that. The “pro life movement” hasn’t killed anyone. Would I deny that a handful of lunatics have blown up clinics or killed people? No, I wouldn’t deny that at all.
Does the “pro-life”? movement condemn these acts?
Yes, me among them. Whenever they occur. Which is how often exactly?
Do you not believe it’s a contradiction that there are men out there who are engaged in the practice of killing women but saying that they revere life(well, unborn life anyway)?
Sure, it’s a contradiction. Lunatics often don’t make a lot of sense. And?
Why don’t you list all of your favored causes, and we’ll see how many of them don’t have any lunatics who have done violent crimes out on the fringes. Let’s see, off the top of my head:
any group advocating left-of-center economic policies
any group taking pro-Palestinian stances in the middle east
any group advocating concern for the environment
any group that believes industrial society is destructive to the human spirit
any group that takes any position at all on any religious topic
any group that works for animal welfare
any group that works for women’s rights
Ironically enough, most of those groups have way more violence on their margins than the pro-life movement.
Believe it or not, it’s no skin off my teeth if a white man doesn’t want to participate in a discussion.
Nice racial and gender grouping. “I don’t care about your views because your skin is the wrong color and your genitals face the wrong direction.” Good to know that you consider that a valid reason to dismiss another human being; when you’re dismissed by some bigot because of your gender, the rest of should care…why, exactly?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 9:40 pm
More probably in line with you fit the stereotype of the white man.
I don’t care (and I’m guessing radfem doesn’t either) what color your skin is, or what gender you are, or what your orientation is. Heck, I like Amp and to my knowlege, he is white, male, and heterosexual.
We don’t like those in power crying about how we’re taking away their rightful power. We don’t care if you talk to us, because we know the drill. We especially don’t care if you talk to us in light of your lectures on “civility” and then turning around and using ploys against the rules of debate. Whatever.
personally, I hope you stay. When we all agree, the posts normally end at 5. When you post, they go into the major double and triple digits.
I’d just like it if there was no thread drift.
NARAL did the right thing.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 9:59 pm
We don’t like those in power crying about how we’re taking away their rightful power.
Understandable.
Radfem said that the pro-life movement was composed of people who think nothing of murdering women. I object to being considered a murderer for thinking that abortion is wrong.
Could you explain to me how objecting to being called a murderer is crying about having my power taken away?
Thanks.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 10:18 pm
The basic pro-life position is radical. Sure, there are conditional, moderate pro-lifers, who would only criminalize abortion when the pregnancy wasn’t caused by “a woman being a slut”, or when health isn’t endangered. I am talking about the position: abortion is murder. See, with logic like this, it makes perfect sense to harrass and terrorize women who abort, after all, if they can be bullied to not abort, a murder is prevented. It would also make perfect sense to kill an abortion provider, after all, if the the doc cannot perform the the abortions he/she would have otherwise made, then what is one life to many unborn lives?
You can cry “unfair, I condemn them!” all you want, but as long as the rhetoric remains “abortion is murder” - style, then these acts will happen. And if these acts are condemned, then the position is illogical and arbitrary, and “abortion is murder” is really only a rhetoric tool.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 10:23 pm
Robert:
This comment was written by Tuomas.But of course this is off topic… So let’s not get into a big fight over this (So maybe my post was kind of cheap shot here), even though we obviously see things different.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 10:47 pm
Yeah, Tumos kinda summed it up for me.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 10:50 pm
[shrug.] I don’t write my comments to entertain trolls, Antigone. If you choose to, that’s your affair. Note that his answer to me was no answer at all. It pretty much had fuck-all to do with what I wrote. Just typical baiting and slimy, patronizing smugness all the way. Business as usual, Robert-style. But oh, so “civilized.” [snicker]
radfem, you should collage those magazines. It’s very theraputic. ;) A few crafty maneuvers with that hope chest and you’d have a great feline clubhouse, too. Let me know if you need to borrow my sander.
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 10:57 pm
Oh, and lest I be acused of furthering drift, allow me to yank things back a bit. Like Brian and some others, I tend to see the Democratic leadership as having a kind of chloroforming effect on positive social change. There’s the remote possibility that NARAL is starting to get wise to this fact, or perhaps I’m not the only irate feminist that’s started to hit them in the wallet. You never know.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar05/Selfa0325.htm
“…Broadly speaking, there exists a clear common pattern underlying the dynamic by which the Left continuously loses ground to the Right. The Republican Party seizes the initiative by actively mobilizing its assets, ideas, and ideology to work toward its radical goals. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party does not pull in the opposite direction. It does not mobilize aggressively for its own goals. Nor does it defend vigorously against right-wing designs. This passiveness takes on major significance precisely because the party poses as a friend of ordinary people. In this context its inaction becomes action ““ a tacit acceptance and approval of right-wing maneuvers. The Democratic Party’s role as the legitimizing agent of right-wing stances allows and locks into place political boundaries in which only right-wing ideas can prevail. This initial acquiescence constitutes phase (a) of Democratic Party cultivation of conservatism…”
“…Its leadership has already declared more “nuanced”? positions on abortion and steered clear of defending gay marriage on principle. This retreat, undeniably manifest in recent months but already present in its embryonic stages years ago, quite literally activated the conservative agenda: the vast majority of those millions of Christian evangelists who turned out for Bush in the last election had never even been politically active in the past. They were mobilized by the expansion of the right-wing (and shrinking of the left-wing) presence on the political spectrum, a reality typified by phase (b) of the conservative-creating dynamic. That the Democrats are technically less “reactionary”? on abortion and gay marriage is therefore totally irrelevant; they are contributing de facto to the ideological atmosphere that will ultimately end up destroying support for these causes…” — M. Junaid Alam at Dissident Voice
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 3rd, 2005 at 12:05 am
So is Alam saying that recent Republican victories represent new people joining the political process?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 3rd, 2005 at 11:24 am
Robert, I see you’re bothered by hearing from someone who doesn’t hold her breath because a white man comes in the room and says something.
You dismiss women’s views here all the time, Robert. How do you think they feel? A bit like you do, now, maybe? Of course, it’s not the same thing b/c we’re not all equal partners in this society, and we never have been. Whether we ever will be, remains to be seen.
You listed causes and assumed that I took the positions obviously the most repugnant to you, without knowing my views. That’s okay, Robert, b/c this society gives men the power to define the identities of the women around them, without criticism or reproach. But if you’re a woman and try that….oooh yeah.
See, as women, we are taught that the only “truth” comes from the mouths of men, from the time we are babes, society teaches us that. We are taught that how men discourse, is the good, rational, only exceptable or valid method of processing information and transferring it between different people. Given your indignation, condescation and massive hyperbole of my comments, I can see that not being treated how women are taught to treat men, and men are taught, to expect to be treated stings in the way that it does, when priviliage given by society, is challenged. I know that sting, Robert. It fades, and you learn that there are others out there who don’t have society’s blessing to sit on the same alter as White men, but still are just as smart, and just as determined, passionate and oh dear, I’m getting more into those undesirable “feminine” qualities .
I did not say that all people who oppose abortion or are pro-life are advocating the murdering of women. But can you deny that there are those who do advocate and have done so to women? Do you really think that a domestic terrorist like Eric Rudolph hid from the FBI(which admittedly wasn’t really looking) all those years WITHOUT assistance? And would you disagree that when it happens, this “pro-life” movement is pretty silent or mumblish on the issue?
ALF, ELF(two environmental groups, which I DON’T support. I had a friend who lost 20 years of research b/c of a huge ALF robbery that took place at a local university a while back so you’re dead wrong in your assumption I support them) have damaged and destroyed lots of property. They haven’t blinded a female nurse, scarred most of her body with shrapenal put inside a pipe bomb with the intention of shredding bodies, not damage property. They haven’t killed an off-duty security guard who was actually an opponant of abortion but who was onduty when the bomb went off. They didn’t murder two workers at a clinic in Brookline, Massachusitts who were shot to death. They didn’t fire inside a doctor’s house where he was with his family including small children, killing him. They haven’t forced people to go to jobs in relatively low-risk professions(overall) wearing bullet-proof vests and carrying firearms.
Whoever carries out these attacks are terrorists, b/c they target the abortion providers to stop or slow their work. And they do what all terrorists do, is spread fear among the targetted group of people and those they serve. Are they the most violent terrorists? No. The Ku Klux Klan and some governmental separationist groups have committed greater violence, and taken more lives. But this movement doesn’t just focus on damaging property, they focus on killing people. And the larger “pro-life” movements hardly condemn their actions, and when they do, it’s always on the scale of saying “yeah, that is tragic, but it’s nothing compared to the zillion, billion babies aborted each year blah, blah, blah and that’