Should the rights of women be a bargaining tool?

[madfloridian]

Poll question: Should the rights of women be a bargaining tool?

It appears our Democrats may be willing to give in on this issue. Since women's rights includes the right to birth control, privacy in medical issues, the rights of a doctor and patient to choose care, and the right not to bear a child, this is serious business. I have a lot of children of my own. Nine months is a very long time, childbirth is painful.

The fact that our Democrats compromised on the issue of contraceptives, giving power to the extremist pharmacists which they never really had is scary. The fact that none of our Democrats have spoken out saying on the pharmacist issue is scary.

So what do you think?

[elehhhhna]

1. Great framing the question! Nom'd for greatest.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

2. Get out the popcorn and put on your asbestos suit

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[BlueIris]

27. Are you implying people might post childish, asshole responses?

Or get really misogynistic? Or start a flame war? Why would you ever suggest that such things could happen on such a progressive, woman-friendly site as this one? Silly Kathy in Cambridge. We're all adults here.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

34. I'm often disappointed to see so-called progressives express opinions

about women that I would see on Free Republic.

[Dave Sund]

3. I voted no...

But I think we need to re-frame the abortion debate in a way that doesn't make it seem like we're pro-abortion. And in a way that doesn't make pro-life and pro-choice conflicting values.

[PittLib]

11. IMHO ...

We need to talk about it. No more of this repetative "a woman has a right to her body" crap. Let's talk facts, like how economics factor into a woman's decision to abort and stop assuming that women having to decide are irresponsible sluts. Let's discuss what the repercussions would be if Roe v. Wade were overturned - about who would and would not be effected (again, economics) and how criminalizing one gender for something it took both genders to create, is discrimination. That being said ... let's talk about how we intend to keep abortion rates down (ie. education, outreach) and show women that we actually care about the people involved in this issue (not merely the issue itself) - unlike the Repubs who would prefer to stigmatize, judge then ignore such women. We not only need to reframe the debate ... but be pro-active in how we address abortion, because simply taking it off the table is not the answer.

[madfloridian]

14. A "woman's right to her body crap"? That is out of line.

.

[PittLib]

19. I simply mean that we can't keep responding with ...

a one phrase answer. It is ineffectual. Perhaps "crap" was a poor choice of words. I want my right to my body to be protected, but that argument is constantly being countered. While true, the phrase has become the left's version of "abortion is murder". This is not a simple issue, and therefore should not be reduced to overly simplified catch phrases.

[Warren DeMontague]

132. How about: Our bodies (womens AND mens) don't belong to

the government, the church, the president, or "god"

they aren't the property of the FBI, the CIA, the DEA, the DOJ, Tom DeLay or Rick God-Damn Santorum. They belong to US, and if we can't own our own physical selves, then notions of 'liberty' are a sham and a lie.

[Vincardog]

42. "a woman has a right to her body" please how about

get your 'religion' out of my medical care? Then take it out of my bedroom and shove it where the sun don't shine. Abortion - Drugs - Stem Cells are privacy issues all subject to the same answer. Be for Smaller Government get the government out of my moral decisions they don't have any problem ignoring De Lay's moral issues.

[OzarkDem]

56. Let's reframe the issue

Why don't we make it part of the overall issue of ensuring access to necessary prescriptions for all women?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. I think you need to re-read the proposed legislation.

Because you have it completely backwards. The bill simultaneously defends the rights of an employee and the rights of the consumer.

[madfloridian]

5. But it should not have happened.

The right wing pharmacists, so few in number, should not have been able to bring our party to the table to negotiate at all. Sorry, but that is the truth. Our party lowered itself to negotiating with a small group of extremists, thus giving them power they did not have.

Now they have bragging rights...look, look, look what we did.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. It's NOT a negotiation

Have you read the bill? Do you understand what it does at all? Are you aware NARAL gives it glowing support?

http://www.naral.org/about/newsroom/pressrelease/pr04142005_alpha.cfm

[madfloridian]

12. I did not say it was good bill. I said it should not have been needed.

The small group of pharmacists, not that large, got their voice out so loudly with the help of groups like Dobsons that we felt they were so powerful we had to negotiate.

Until Dobson et al got into this thing, most pharmacists never even knew or really cared about this clause in regards to birth control. Yes, it has been around a while, but we allowed them to take it over as their issue....and we gave in.

Just like we are giving in on womens' rights. Oh, and did you know that many Republican women are for womens' rights as well? It is not just a Democratic thing.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Is what you describe really "giving in" though?

It would be if we were in power and could use the Department of Justice to go after these ghouls. But we don't have any other power to force pharmacies to do what they need to be doing.

So please, tell me specifically what Democrats should've done while women's rights were being abused unilaterally? Because every day that passes without this legislation, another woman goes without the medication she needs. So we're just going to sit around and pout on the basis that this bill shouldn't have been necessary to begin with? That's not going to get anyone anywhere.

Seriously, that's like saying we shouldn't pass laws against murder because we shouldn't be negotiating with murderers. It makes no sense. When new forms of abuse occur within our society, it's the job of our lawmakers to act to stop it. Without them acting, the abuse continues. That's not negotiating - it's fixing the problem.

[Misunderestimator]

10. I couldn't agree with you more.

[Malva Zebrina]

7. the woman's uterus is being kicked around like a soccer ball

by a team of fat, old bloviating Christian men. They have a few women on their team also, who think it is just fine to take possession of another's body and use it as a soccer ball because that is what the fat old bloviating men told them they needed to do.

[Selteri]

8. Nobody's rights are lesser or negotiable, ever!

Freedom is worse than religion, you can't be free and have full rights and they are not negotiable or ignorable.

Women and Men are part of the whole, we need each other and that demands true equality. Haven't we learned from the past 3000 years of male dominator culture?

[Misunderestimator]

9. No compromise!

and now.... :popcorn:

[Goldmund]

13. Barefoot and pregnant, I say!

[madfloridian]

28. LOL I noticed there are 3 pregnant and barefoot believers.

I am hoping most are tongue in cheek. But, any man who thinks birth control is a sin is saying just that.

:rofl:

[Goldmund]

32. Tongue in cheek??

Hellz no, woman. Why are you bloviating here on the internets when you should be in the kitchen cookin' me some grits?

*spits tobacco*

And wipe that, willya?

[madfloridian]

40. Chuckle.

I love grits. Wipe up your own tobacco. :rofl:

[havocmom]

15. No compromise.

But I would consider implanting fetuses on the spleens or livers of men use arguments about the 'sanctity of life' or any other cliche regarding morality to hide their desire to maintain control over women. Let them know the joy of all that responsibility.

[Warpy]

17. If you even HINT that our rights are negotiable

WE WILL LEAVE YOU!

Got that?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. It's a good thing no one has even hinted then.

[Pinboy]

20. Good posts, Vash! What some misunderstand...

is that the "conscience" provisions of the bill are not new -- they merely restate what is already on the books in conscience laws that have been adopted by ALMOST EVERY STATE already, as well as the federal conscience law Congress enacted in December (the Hyde-Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment).

While the federal law has not yet been tested, the state courts have been interpreting the state laws as giving pharmacists the right to refuse to dispense.

The status quo is that women are being denied medications prescribed by their doctors. What is being described as a "compromise" is not, really. It LIMITS the effect of conscience laws to assure that meds will be dispensed.

[Coexist]

21. I'm not only a woman

I am the mother of a daughter and the aunt of several neices.

Don't mess with our rights, please.

[Crunchy Frog]

22. No. Appeasement has never been an effective strategy.

It only results in our side looking weak and vaccilating, the other side making gains, and in this particular case, a wittling away of women's fundamental rights.

Nominated.

[Radical Activist]

23. Should the rights of labor be a bargaining tool?

Why should unions keep getting screwed by Democrats while pro-choice groups demand 100% compliance with their views? Is this a single issue party?

[Coexist]

24. I agree about the unions

if not for them, Gore never would have won Pennsylvania. I believe in paying people a decent wage for the ACTUAL (hear that Wal-Mart) hours they work.

I think that there will be a new labor movement in this country in the coming decade - the slow growth of corporate power will absolutely have a backlash. I'm in for that ride.

[Ken Burch]

72. The problem there was that unions asked so little from Gore

(and, for that matter, from Kerry). They endorsed early and they endorsed unconditionally.

By so doing, the unions made their endorsements meaningless.

[Adelante]

25. I agree with you MF

They should each and every one lose their licenses for refusing to dispense legally prescribed medicine. Where does it stop? Our consciences tell us a lot of things, but we still have to do our jobs. I don't accept the compromise legislation as at all adequate or acceptable. This is shameful cowardice on the part of NARAL and Democrats in Congress.

[Zhade]

26. Where's the "fuck no, I'm not an anti-freedom asshole" option?

NT!

[Swamp Rat]

30. Right on!

[The Gigmeister]

29. The question can't be answered honestly...

...because it wasn't asked honestly.

Start over, and we'll talk.

[MollyStark]

50. What was dishonest about he question?

How should it have been asked?

[OzarkDem]

52. The issue of access to birth control

and one's lack of support for legislation dealing with it shouldn't be characterized as opposition to women's rights.

There are many issues important to women. Making reproductive advocacy appear to be the only women's health issue is narrow minded and harmful to all women.

Surely you're not discriminating against those of us who are post-menopausal? ;-)

[MollyStark]

53. How does my insistance on woman's rights harm you?

I am in favor off all women's rights issues, not just this one. But access to birth control, including abortion is not negotiable.

[OzarkDem]

59. Because you appear to think

the only women's right that matters is access to birth control and abortions. Its not what you're advocating for, its how you do it.

[MollyStark]

69. I don't seem to think any such thing

that is an assumption and a bad one.

[Ken Burch]

83. If women LOSE the right to control their own bodies

What meaningful rights would they still retain?

If a woman isn't the master of her own womb, she isn't the master of anything.

[OzarkDem]

89. If she doesn't have access to health care

she ends up without her life, much less her rights.

What greater right to control your body is there than the right to keep it healthy, free from pollutants or drugs or products that could harm it? How about the right to a health care system that treats women like patients instead of consumers?

Women face health problems once they're past childbearing years.

[Ken Burch]

90. But as a general rule, in fact as almost a universal rule.

"Pro-life" politicians are NOT supportive of health care access for women.

There are almost no examples of anti-abortion politicians who support women's rights in ANY other areas.

I wish this weren't the case(and if "pro-life" politicians as a rule were "seamless garment" believers it wouldn't be)but unfortunately, it is.

And let me hasten to add, in my experience, rank-and-file "pro-life" people in many cases to have progressive views on other issues, as opposed to "pro-life" politicians.

[OzarkDem]

91. No argument here

My point is that reproductive issues should be discussed in the context of all women's health issues.

Exclusive focus on reproductive issues only by Dems has been very, very harmful to other women's health issues, simply by neglecting them altogether.

Broadening the scope of the issue will accomplish more for women and appeal to more women voters. Dems have lost a lot of women voters not because they're anti-choice, but because Dems don't talk about any other women's issues.

[MollyStark]

101. There is no conflict

There is no conflict between choice and all other health issues. There is no reason to chose between choice and any other health issue.

[OzarkDem]

119. No conflict

One issue is completely ignored altogether.

These issues do compete with each other for the attention of our party's leaders and policy makers and in our message to the public.

They shouldn't but they do.

The abortion debate has monopolized the discussion of women's issues to the great detriment of many. Its time to diversify our women's agenda. If that causes a conflict with reproductive rights folks, so be it.

[Ken Burch]

125. I agree with women having a continuing needs for health care

and other rights issues.

But if you look at countries where abortion is banned, those rights are NOT protected, and women are not respected.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

110. Women don't *have* the right to control their bodies

Nor should they.

They don't have the right to stick their fists into people's faces, they don't have the right to drink and drive, they don't have the right to take drugs,, and so on, and at least the first two, while definately part of "controlling their own bodies", are things I, and I assume you, would oppose.

It so happens that the abortion and birth control are things women should have access too, but an awful lot of abortion advocates weaken their arguments by framing them too generally, I think.

[Karenina]

112. "The issue of access to birth control"

Women's rights BEGIN with BIRTH CONTROL. I do realize it's da CONTROL part of it y'all got such a big prooooollem wit...

"There are many issues important to women."

Like mebbe first their OWN HEALTH (like on a plane, when they tell you pre-fight to ALWAYS fix your OWN air supply before assisting others) without which they are rendered unable to DEAL with their children's health, their parents' health, their husbands' health (it be like taking da pet to da vet :evilgrin:) the kid-next-door's health (cuz he mama mus' be deaf sounds like he got the whoopin cough or sumpin' spewin germs all over wtf is he over here for, GO HOME and tell yo mama I said so), errraaaa... WHAT is not to get here?

"Making reproductive advocacy appear to be the only women's health issue is narrow minded and harmful to all women."

It's not the "only" issue, it's just NUMERO UNO, DIE ERSTE, JOB ONE. Capiche? Habla Espanol? "Do I make myself clear, this mawnin' y'all?"
Daddup- dup-dupdeeyadup

Women's disenfranchisement from SOVEREIGN control of reproduction is
harmful to children and other living things. It's a STUPID conflict. Truth be, we have and always will control it till the boys get their toys up and running to mechanize us. ;-)

Stripping it down to nakedness, the issue is CONTROL.

WHO DECIDES?

[Warren DeMontague]

131. You're right, birth control is not just a woman's rights issue.

It's a human rights issue. And until our party gets some people with the nerve, gumption, balls or ovaries to stand up and say, in a clear, unwavering voice- "What consenting adults choose to do with their own bodies is none of the government's fucking business; not now, not ever" We're going to be stuck being led around by the ring through our noses on these issues by the right-wing, theocrat, social control mafia.

[satireV]

31. When the Suffragettes advocated for the vote . . .

They bargained away the right for Native Americans (then called Indians) to vote.

Check it out. Native Americans did not get the vote till years after women did.

I am not saying that human rights, like child birth and medicien availability should be bargained away. Just that it politics is the art of compromise.

The mantra of "We will not negotiate" is from the conservatives. Do we want to be like them?

[Goldmund]

35. WHAT????

The sufragettes BARGAINED AWAY the Native Americans' right to vote WHICH DIDN'T EVEN EXIST at the time???

Wow.

And who's this "we" you speak of?

[dsc]

51. He does have a point

Just like blacks threw women over the side in the 1860's women did the same to Native Americans. In both cases the people with the stronger case felt those with the weaker one would sink them.

[MollyStark]

55. No way is my right to birth control negotiable

Find another issue to compromise on...one you care about maybe.....

[MrPrax]

33. They Only Compromise...

the rights of poor women anyway--nobody else has to worry.

[leyton]

36. Where's the option for "this is a push-poll"?

There are states that are not going to elect a pro-choice candidate. Insisting that the party continue to nominate pro-choice candidates who will go down in flames is asking the party to sell out every other issue so that it can retain a moral high ground.

[Goldmund]

37. You say that "moral high ground" so condescendingly.

It's not "moral high ground". It is one of the few issues that the Dems substantially hold their ground on. Otherwise, why don't we just nominate some fucking neocons and have them run in southern rural districts? Hey, that'll put some blue on that map!

[madfloridian]

38. You really do not understand, do you?

I don't think people understand that most women don't want to be dominated by the men of the parties. I mean Republican women as well. There are groups of them who very much resent that the men in their party are trying to get involved in their prescription options and choice to have or not have children.

Dr. Dean is right about not talking down to them, but he should not be talking down to us either.

Men have no right to decide our medical choices or our prescriptions. Most women agree to that when they are asked the right questions.

I can tell a man on these forums when this subject comes up. The only ones who put us down as one issue people and liberals who hurt the party.....are men. Sorry, that is reality.

This has become a society in which women were allowed to be the bargaining tool, and we are just beginning to realize it.

[leyton]

41. I am not arguing pro-choice vs pro-life.

I am saying that in many states a pro-choice candidate has next to zero chance of being elected. You're asking the party to abandon a host of other issues for a cause that in many places - not all - is futile. I'm not saying we should give up women's rights as a party, that we should start letting ultra-conservative judges through, or anything like that. I'm asking that you recognize that some of us really want to start undoing the Republican damage on a zillion different issues and that to do that we need more Democrats.

I am sorry if I came off as condescending; I am simply trying to say that we need to be pragmatists until we have a majority.

[safi0]

43. Do I think we should

become the anti-choice party? absolutely not. But I do think we need to stop being single issue voters on this issue. Some states a Pro-Choice candidate can't win irregardless of his views on other issues.

Let me throw out a couple scenarios: if there's 55 Democratic Senators and 15 of them are anti-Choice or if there's 45 Democratic Senators and 5 of them are anti-Choice, I think the likelihood of women's rights being reduced is much higher under the latter Senate structure.

Also if you were given the choice between a Pro-Choice candidate who was lockstep with the administration on Foreign Policy and the other domesic issues, or Harry Reid who would you choose

[Misunderestimator]

44. Which rights would YOU give up as a bargaining tool?

It's so easy to cavalierly toss others' rights around... "irregardless" of the other issues.

[safi0]

46. I know what its like

To see the Democratic party cavalierly toss my rights around like it means nothing. 49 Democratic Senators did it when they signed the Patriot Act into law, so don't talk to me like I don't know what its like to have my rights thrown around like they mean nothing.

[Misunderestimator]

47. Great... since you know what that feels like...

seems odd that you would support more rights being eroded.

[safi0]

48. I dont support that

But I realize that in some states a Pro-Choice candidate cannot be elected. Basically the jist of my arguement is this: Women's rights are much less likely to be reduced under an anti-choice Democrat than they are under an anti-choice Republican.

[Misunderestimator]

54. Women's rights are much more likely to reduced if we support

anti-choice candidates.

[safi0]

61. Well if your willing

to write off the states where a Pro-Choice candidate can't be elected then fine.

[Misunderestimator]

63. You mean, the same states that would right off my rights as a gay person?

No, I wouldn't write them off. I would want them to be represented by someone who would advance civil rights for everyone. Let's elect some smart politicians with ethics who can actually communicate with these people instead of buying into the idea that we should compromise civil rights for votes.

[safi0]

64. No matter how good there

Economic and other messages may be in some of those states if the candidate supports "baby-murder" they can't get elected. No matter how good the rest of there message is.

[Misunderestimator]

65. Going further backwards is not the way to progress forward.

It's really very simple.

[MollyStark]

75. What states are those?

Can you produce statistics that prove ANY democrat could be elected there?

[MollyStark]

58. Anti Choice democrats are exactly as likely to reduce our rights

as anti-choice republicans. Otherwise they would be PRO-CHOICE.

[dsc]

60. that is patently untrue

Lincoln Chaffee does more to hurt the pro choice cause by casting his leadership votes and his votes for committee chairs than Nelson of NE could do in a hundred Senate terms.

[MollyStark]

70. That is patently bullshit

He may do damage but not as much as a anti-choice democrat who would vote for anti-choice legislation.

[dsc]

86. Name one, just one

Piece of anti abortion legislation passed by a Democraticly controlled Congress. Even the 51/49 Senate didn't pass any anti abortion legislation. Once the Republicans got control they passed the partial birth abortion ban. Leadership is everything.

[MollyStark]

87. What democratically controlled congress are you talking about?

The one in your fantasies?

We can take back the leadership without anti-choice democrats. In fact that is the only way we are likely to take it back. Women are not going to vote against their own rights no matter how much some anti-choice men try to bully us into doing so.

[dsc]

88. Roe V Wade was handed down in 1973

Democrats controlled Congress in 1973.

Democrats controlled Congress in 1974.

Democrats controlled Congress in 1975.

Democrats controlled Congress in 1976.

Democrats controlled Congress in 1977.

Democrats controlled Congress in 1978.

Democrats controlled Congress in 1979.

Democrats controlled Congress in 1980.

Democrats controlled the House in 1981.

Democrats controlled the House in 1982.

Democrats controlled the House in 1983.

Democrats controlled the House in 1984.

Democrats controlled the House in 1985.

Democrats controlled the House in 1986.

Democrats controlled the Congress in 1987.

Democrats controlled the Congress in 1988.

Democrats controlled the Congress in 1989.

Democrats controlled the Congress in 1990.

Democrats controlled the Congress in 1991.

Democrats controlled the Congress in 1992.

Democrats controlled the Congress in 1993.

Democrats controlled the Congress in 1994.

Next time you accuse me of fantasing you might pick up a history book. Heck, even a newspaper might have helped here. So again, I would like you to point out some anti abortion legislation passed by Congress in one of those 21 years. Other than the Hyde amendment, which limited federal funds going to abortion, I can't think of a single piece.

[MollyStark]

100. That is the past you are talking about

I am asking what future democratic majority you are hoping for. It's not going to happen anytime soon. But if it does it won't be because we sucked up to anti-choice democrats. Do that and you lose pro-choice women, a much bigger constituency than anti-choice democrats and one which is the mainstay of the democratic party.

Your list is useless to this discussion.

[dsc]

109. Those majorities that I listed

had far more pro lifers in them than any future one is likely to have. Gephard, Gore, Kucinich, Bonior, and several others have either flipped on the issue or are no longer in Congress. But all of them were part of some of those majorities. Yet, aside from the Hyde amemndment, not one piece of anti abortion legislation was passed by any of those Congresses.

[Ken Burch]

92. Hello....The HYDE AMENDMENT was passed by a Democratic Congress!

Which effectively took the right to choose away from millions of poor women for good.

So don't be so F%#(*@g smug.

[dsc]

96. Yes one piece

which said that people who are uninsured and poor don't have to use their tax money to pay for other people's abortions. Why should I have to pay for that when had I had a broken arm I would have gotten no treatment at all or ruined my credit? I am insured now but for several years I wasn't.

[Ken Burch]

97. We can assume that anyone who voted for Hyde would also have been

a solid vote against gay rights.

And that arguement you just made could also have been made against federal funding of AIDS research and prevention(funding I, for one, support.)

Yes before Hyde, it was possible to use federal funds(and in theory, the tax money of the working poor) to fund abortions. But that is one of the things government is supposed to do: use resources to help those with none. Are you happier that a tiny, meaninglessly small amount of your taxes was saved and, as a result, probably tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of women, were forced to go back to back alley butchers as in the Fabulous Fifties?

It might not have been so bad if those funds had been reallocated to support greater AFDC payments or federal funding for day care centers.
But they probably ended up in the Pentagon budget.

See where you reasoning leads?

As a gay activist and a decent human being, you should NOT want to go there.

[dsc]

106. My point is that

no adults get any elective health care for free in this country and until we all do abortions should be no different. It is one thing to ask for disabled people to be treated the same as other disabled people, it is another to pay for disabled group A and not disabled group B. That is what would be going on for abortion.

[MollyStark]

103. Red Herring

Poor people pay taxes for all sorts of things that do not benefit them. I am poor and I am paying for a war in Iraq I don't approve of.

[dsc]

107. It isn't a red herring

Before Hyde's amendment, if you were a poor man with a heart condition, tough shit. If you were a poor woman wanting, not needing but wanting, an abortion the state paid. Even after Hyde, abortions that were medical necessities were paid for. That is completely unfair.

[MollyStark]

104. On what grounds to you object to abortion?

It can't be religious grounds because any church which says abortion is a sin and shouldn't be allowed also says homosexuality is a sin and shouldn't be allowed.
It can't be because you feel that some woman is going to abort your baby without consulting you. Or maybe it is that? I am just wondering why you are against women's rights.

[dsc]

108. I believe that fetuses are at least life light

I think in the grand liberal tradition of standing up for the little guy or gal we should stand up for the defenseless fetus. Secondarily, I also think when a gay gene is discovered most gay fetuses will be aborted. But that is a way secondary reason. BTW it is possible to believe that human life be protected without being religious. Nat Henhoff comes to mind.

[Ken Burch]

113. Clinton's "Safe, legal and rare" formulation on abortion could be used

but this time we would have to be much more creative and progressive about it.

We should be saying to pro-lifers:

"All right, if your values state that society should have as few abortions if possible(in fact none, in theory), this gives you a number of obligations to fulfill...

You should be willing to support either federal assistance for day care, or allow two parent families to get government help in at least some cases, and you should also drop your opposition to contraceptive use.

The issue is responsibility.

And those who wish to foster what they call "a culture of life" take on as much responsibility on this issue as the women they so sanctimoniously condemn."

That would be a positive way to do "safe, legal and rare."

(As opposed to Clinton's approach, which was once again based, as was every other social policy of Clintonism, on shaming his own supporters in the name of appeasing his enemies and which, like all other aspects of Clintonism, failed both as politics and policy.)

[dsc]

115. I have no problem with any of the above

I am fully in favor of paid maternity leave, full medical care, and full access to free contracpetives. I also think child care should be free. You have a valid point, that if one wishes to use government power to protect fetuses then one should also use it to make sure that one gender isn't the only group affected.

[madfloridian]

45. I am not a single issue person.

I was told that when I opposed the war in Iraq.

I was told that when I yelled about the huge tax cuts.

I was told that when I hollered about the Medicare Drug bill.

I am being told that now when I say our rights are not negotiable.

I don't like women being the issue at all. Where do men get off doing that?

[Ken Burch]

82. Problem is, the overwhelming majority of "pro-life" Democratic politicians

Also agree with the GOP of everything else that matters.

And if Hilary gives up being "pro-choice" she'll have abandoned HER last significant area of disagreement with Republicans.

It would be easier if there were any evidence that "pro-life" Dems were willing to go to the left of Clintonism on other issues.

At this time, there IS no such evidence.

[dsc]

116. that is utter nonsense

Many, and possibly close to half of pro life Dems, are similar to Bonior and Kucinich, neither of whom agree with Republicans on the issues that matter.

[Ken Burch]

124. I'll concede Kucinich and Bonior as individuals, but have little evidence

on politicians of that category(and again I make a distinction between politicians, especially Southern "pro-life" Dem politicians and rank-and-file "pro-life" Dem voters)as a group.

I was a strong Kucinich supporter, for the record, at a time when a lot of progressives were turning their noses up at Kucinich, even though he was the most progressive candidate in the race, and supporting Dean, solely on that issue.

And even though Dennis modified his stance on the issue, we still couldn't get the Deaniacs to come over after Dean surrendered in the primaries. They followed their leader to Kerry and got nothing for it. Sigh...

[dsc]

126. I was for Dean

and voted for him in Ohio. Had Kucinich remained pro life I might have had a real dilema on my hands (reward Dean for his ground breaking action for gay rights or Kucinich for being a pro lifer) Instead I got to stick with Dean. The vast majority of northern pro life Democrats in Congress are similar to those (economically liberal and socially moderate to conservative).

[Ken Burch]

127. I was actually talking about the period AFTER Dean dropped out

Kucinich was the ONLY active peace candidate and the only active PROGRESSIVE candidate in the race. Rather than back the only remaining progressive and grass roots candidate in the race, the overwheming majority of Deaniacs voted Kerry the rest of the way, asking nothing of Kerry in exchange for their support.
This made no sense to me. It would have been a much better convention and we might well have produced a winning platform and candidate had a large progressive bloc stayed together all the way to Boston.

(as a practical matter, ANY Democrat nominated would have been obligated to run as a "pro-choice" candidate on abortion.)

[NMDemDist2]

62. sorry Mad, I have had republican women tell me to my face that I

had "blood" on my hands for supporting John Kerry. The woman was screaming in my face while I leafleted a movie theater (at a screening of Outfoxed no less) for the Democratic Party

something tells me this woman has no problem with "activist pharmacists"

I don't dispute that SOME repub women may not want men involved in their reproductive choices, but I fear they may be the minority in their party

[madfloridian]

67. I doubt she is typical.

Most moderate Republican women are quite open about the issue.

[NMDemDist2]

68. I sincerely hope you are right n/t

[MollyStark]

71. I have worked on elections with many pro-choice republican women

the cross over and vote for democrats all the time when the other choice is an anti-choice republican.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. Women's Rights are Human Rights. Non Negotiable. Period.

The day a woman has to walk even a half step behind me is the day this country loses me.

Just let the fuckers try!

[OzarkDem]

49. Why just this issue?

I don't see any of them acting on other women's health issues, either. Why is this issue the only one deserving of their attention? Shouldn't we be asking them to speak out on a broader scope of women's health care issues?

Why is this issue any more important than other women's health issues?

[madfloridian]

57. Actually they should not be talking about our issues at all..

Our rights should be assumed to be there. No discussion, no doubts. Just like the rights of men to get viagra....which insurance now pays for in some places...or the right of a man to get a vasectomy.

Why are not their rights being talked about?

[Ken Burch]

93. Probably because it was the only issue Clinton wasn't a Republican on.

It was the rationale for staying loyal to Slick when all else failed.
When every other progressive principle was unequivocally abandoned between '93 and '01. It was the justification for not having a progressive challenger to Slick in 1996(and not having such a challenger plaid a big role in boosting THE DEMON RALPH as a presidential candidate.

The feeling is, if we give up that, and stay just as far right on everything else, why even bother?

But in the end, that is a case for reinstating OTHER strong principles and convictions, not watering down the only real one we had left.

[Malva Zebrina]

66. Yes

this issue of women's rights to their health and well being is the lowest on the totem pole right now.]

How did that come about? and why?

Now we hear that we must give up any struggle and appease Democrats who are "pro-life" in order to win.

Uh uh--I will not do it again. This issue has been dumped down to the most vulnerable of all issues. One in which Democrats are willing to dump in favor of getting elected no matter the consequences to women and their health or their deaths, and it is just pathetic that some women who claim to be Democrats, actually believe that pro-choice should NOT be on any Democratic platform and that is, to tell the truth, just disgusting.

What has happened here? How did women get to be the whipping boy? The scapegoat? The less than the more important issues on the platform?

Because of religion, imo. That is the ONLY factor that I can connect to this and when that happens we have religion taking over a government and that is wrong.

[Dave Sund]

73. We need to change the debate

Don't give up any women's rights, I totally agree.

But by making "pro-life" Democrats "anti-choice," you're making it easier for Republicans to paint us all with the same brush: "pro-abortion."

I don't believe "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are conflicting values. I personally believe that abortions should be as rare as possible, but safe and legal abortions are much better than the alternative. At the same time, I don't believe that the government has any right to interfere in what is an acceptable and legitimate medical practice.

[Malva Zebrina]

85. So you are pro-choice?

Sorry, but I refuse to give in to spurious language.

I am a liberal. I am NOT a progressive. I am a proud, stand up straight backed liberal.

There is no reward for pandering to the pro-life people, whatever religion they are following--all have been politically active, indeed, loudly so which was reflected in their vote for Bush, in attempting to force everyone else into compliance with their religious beliefs--and that is wrong and that is immoral.

It is also unethical and somewhat immoral, to couch those tyrannical ambitions under the moniker of "pro-life" or the most recent "culture of life"

That is specious marketing and it is wrong to try and hide behind such language as that.

My two cents

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

74. Paging Madfloridian....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1725863&mesg_id=1725944

[madfloridian]

79. We stood quietly while they gained the power to be theocrats.

If we had spoken out as a party sooner, it would not have gotten so far along.

I still say we should not have had to make a law to be sure women would get birth control pills. It should never have been an issue.

We let them take on power they did not have.

[More Than A Feeling]

76. You might want to back up on that whole "No Democrat has spoken up"

talk. My governor, Rod Blagojevich, signed an emergency bill ordering pharmacies in Illinois to dispense contraceptives.

[madfloridian]

77. I posted about that when it happened.

I am talking about on the national stage. I am saying what I think. I do not think our Democrats, even Howard Dean, should be discussing our rights as being negotiable..

If we had spoken out more forcifully on this, not been so afraid of them, your governor would not have had to do an emergency bill.

I am the one who posted enthusiastically about it when it happened. Do a search in the archives back to that day.

[Adelante]

78. Very good

I am very glad to hear this. Thanks.

[madfloridian]

80. Here is what I posted on April 1.

http://us.cnn.com/2005/US/04/01/birth.control.governor.ap/index.html

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Gov. Rod Blagojevich approved an emergency rule Friday requiring pharmacies to fill birth control prescriptions quickly after a Chicago pharmacist refused to fill an order because of moral opposition to the drug.

The emergency rule takes effect immediately for 150 days while the administration seeks a permanent rule.

"Our regulation says that if a woman goes to a pharmacy with a prescription for birth control, the pharmacy or the pharmacist is not allowed to discriminate or to choose who he sells it to," Blagojevich said. "No delays. No hassles. No lectures."

Under the new rule, if a pharmacist does not fill the prescription because of a moral objection, another pharmacist must be available to fill it without delay." END SNIP

Doing away with abortion rights birth control at the same time is going back to the dark ages. This is going to be a real battle, I fear. Good for this governor.

[mdmc]

81. we are killing people - everything is a bargaining tool

poor people are dying in war, in our ghettos... All rights are on the table... nothing is sacred.

[Ken Burch]

84. So we should fight for power in name only....

That's all we get if we go neutral on abortion rights.

[mdmc]

102. I'll fight for all our rights, especially privacy

but everything is on the table. Nothing is sacred. We can all face the ovens of the BFEE soon enough.

[Ken Burch]

114. But a centrist Democratic campaign NEVER leads

to a PROGRESSIVE Democratic administration.

Democrats never move left in office, only right.

[Hidden Stillness]

94. Get Used to Us; We Are the Majority

This is part of a larger problem. All of our concerns are ignored, after all the pretense of "pro-family legislation" crap that was supposed to eventually benefit us. Women know that, no matter how many years go by, there is still a certain percentage of people who never changed, and are still as bigoted against women as they ever were. The publicly-presented, corporate media pseudo-society, as a matter of fact, is far more violently hostile to us now than it has ever been. After the successes of the '70s and increasing acceptance and popularity of feminism, and the shock of the organized corporate backlash of the '80s and beyond, we are actually further away from many goals than we were then, because of the destruction of our previously available public forum to effect change from.

When it gets right down to it, sexists think of the "serious, grown-up" world of politics and work as a male thing, and we do not belong there and are intruding. Whatever they want is "general" and affects "everybody"; whatever we want is "women's." They are so bigoted that, if you use only male examples and ways of telling things, they don't notice it--it is "normal" to them. When we get any attention, though, it is all "unbalanced" now, even though women's concerns are actually everybody's: poverty because of underpayment and the minimum wage; price-gouging; violent, stupid, coercive media; crime, especially battering, stalking, harrassment, rape; lack of health care, affordable shelter, child care or, now, energy. If ALL you ever did was address the concerns of women, you would solve this nation's problems. Instead, the official Democrats act as if it is their Party, and we are the nuisance distracting them from it. It is like the situation where, as soon as the woman starts explaining what her complaint is, you see the prick male doing this beleagured, "I am so oppressed," eye-rolling thing, expecting support and agreement from "everybody" else.

The attitude of dismissive prejudice against us shows up everywhere. On this website, males who show courage or integrity "have balls," as if that were a male trait and not ours (in your dreams). Why don't you say they have "white skin" for these great acts. Is that "offensive"? Of course, my people are insulted all the time--"bitch," "bitch-slapped," etc., and attacks of this viciousness are allowed against no other group. They don't even refer to us when describing social conditions that are most of all ours, but CHANGE it from us, to a "real" or "important"--that is, male--example. Poverty is described, not as something concerning women, as it really is, but as some "take your racial pick" male, even though most people on welfare are white women, and the poverty of all women, who usually do not have pensions or assets, is worse. White women with college degrees are paid less than black males (U.S. Census)--oppression, never addressed; an obvious example that sexism is deeper than racism. The fact that the pattern of women's poverty is that of being underpaid and not promoted, and cuts right to the heart of the unregulated corporate exploiter, might have saved this whole economy--this whole country--if only it would be faced.
Another: no matter how many times the male media refers to the prison abuse scandals of the military in Iraq etc., they show trivial-by-comparison examples of males, and not the documented, witnessed cases of rape of women prisoners! Another: When they do refer to the poverty of single-parent families (that means us--Census), they always talk about how terrible it is for "children" to be living in poverty. Do they think they live alone? No tears, ever, for the hopelessly poor woman. Even huge accomplishments are ignored when they are ours. The largest gathering in the history of the country, last year's March for Women's Lives,with some million and a half people, and it was like it never happened, according to the male censor.

A study of Congressional voting patterns, (can't remember which group studied this, but it was one of the usual good feminist ones, Ms. Foundation, Fund for the Feminist Majority, NOW, somebody), showed that bills introduced in Congress to address the needs of women were more often proposed, signed on to, or voted for, by Republican women than by Democratic males. We get more help from Republican women than Democratic males. Fucking disgrace. They won't even pass the Violence Against Women Act.

There is a general attitude--not only with this latest DLC-style attempt to kill everything women are fighting for--that we really do not belong there, and are only distracting from the "real work" getting done. This also helped John Kerry "lose" the election, as Al From, Joe Biden, and others told Kerry to drop any reference to women's issues, and only present a single campaign impression, that of the male soldier surrounded by male soldiers. No Social Security, no nothing. If women had voted for Kerry at the same rate they voted for Al Gore, who promised never to touch the Soc Sec trust fund, Kerry would be President, because they couldn't have covered up the number difference. They dropped our issues, and so the percentage of women voting Democratic dropped--Bye bye, Kerry. They not only threaten to dump abortion rights any old time, but never address any of our other concerns, no matter how we plead for help. They don't even raise the paltry minimum wage, which affects women disproportionately; this is where we are trapped. Some of the male bigots who make up this party are going to have to realize that the world is not made up of only them, and their mirrors.

[NMDemDist2]

98. excellent!

well written and brings up pertinent points

a belated welcome to DU :hi:

[Crowdance]

99. Excellent post!

Thank you for taking the time to write it. I hope your hidden stillness houses infinite patience....

[madfloridian]

95. I saw something Dean said in a group meeting in Seattle...feel better.

I know he pays attention to the blogs and forums to get a feel. I was glad to see he has noticed this. This is a short explanation in front of a women's group in Seattle:

HD - "I suspect that there is some disappointment in this room on some recent things that have gone regarding the issue of Choice. Let me talk just briefly about the Choice issue. I would urge you to be careful to separate out the Democrat Party from the people who (unintelligible) the Democratic Party." (I gather he means speaking for?)

"For example, the recruitment of Casey and Langevin is not the same as the Democratic Party's position on Choice. It came at an unfortunate time when we were thinking about how to talk about Choice."

I much appreciate that he notices and responds. If he disagrees, he stands his ground. But he explains. I appreciate this little snip from a person in attendance. I don't think she will mind my sharing.

[voltairine]

105. I was denied birth control pills while working for a Catholic school

...at least, my health plan wouldn't cover the cost, so I would have to pay $30 a month, rather than the $5 co-pay.

We switched to condoms. Does that count as choice? I mean, we still had contraception. Can't these women go to a different pharmacy, or get their prescriptions filled elsewhere?

[Lars39]

111. Why should women have to go somewhere else?

[Bridget Burke]

122. You were not denied birth control pills.

You were too cheap to buy them. So you used a method with a higher percentage of error--guess you were lucky.

Some of the pharmacists who've refused to fill prescriptions have also refused to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy. Even if a transfer occurs, there can be a delay--not everybody lives in a big city with tons of 24-hour drugstores. And missing even one pill can increase the risk of pregnancy.

[ClassWarrior]

117. To what - exactly - are you referring? Can you cite an example of a Dem...

...who wants to bargain away women's rights?

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

123. Didn't think so.

NGU.

[AmyStrange]

118. Men have no idea what women have to decide about...

and to deny them the right to decide what a women can or cannot do is elitist at best and I STRONGLY disagree with ANY MAN who deems himself the self-righteous demi-god over her right to choose.

Rather then restrict the right to choose, they (republicans) should encourage the healthy development and education or adoption of the child AFTER (or before) it is born which would make most(if not all) abortions unnecessary,

d

[d_b]

120. My heart says vote for option 1

But I couldn't resist voting for the last.:evilgrin:

[Pushed To The Left]

121. If we got rid of the electoral college

we wouldn't have to worry about "winning the South"! The rights of ANY group are not negotiable!

[DaDeacon]

128. Where is...

No, but welcome to the real world (man)!

or, No, but hell they do it to backs (latians, asains, ect)

and who could forget, No, but what can I do I'm a man?

[Stand and Fight]

129. No, not in the least bit.

We should not give one inch on this issue. In fact, it is a non-issue because women have inalienable rights - period.

[Warren DeMontague]

130. Instead of tossing the pro-choice women, gays, or secular voters overboard

can't we ditch the DLC sellouts and the ever-present control freaks in our party, instead?