Obama Woos Abortion Foes With Platform Embracing Motherhood

[depakid]

Source: Bloomberg

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his supporters are working to win over voters who want to ban or reduce abortions with a call for measures to help women keep their babies.

The party's platform supports the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that made abortion legal and adds a twist, saying the party ``strongly'' backs a woman's decision to carry a pregnancy to term. The compromise language is the result of behind-the-scenes negotiations with abortion-rights groups and religious leaders on both sides of the issue.

The idea is to frame abortion as less of an either-or issue by discussing both the need to keep abortion legal and the desire to provide programs for expectant and new mothers. It may help Democrats woo evangelical Christians, a core Republican constituency that backed President George W. Bush by a margin of 77 percent in 2004.

``Voters that this will win over are those that are looking for an excuse to vote for Obama,'' said Joel Hunter, a Florida pastor who helped with the language and said he is a ``pro-life'' Republican. ``They just needed one signal that, if I vote for him, more babies can be saved than if we keep wrangling over whether Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned.'

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2nC1Wysvtg4&refer=home

[Ken Burch]

1. Uh...did we ever NOT back a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term?

n/t.

[Zynx]

2. It's a meaningless feel good issue. The Republicans love 'em.

[Ken Burch]

3. I thought they did "meaningless feel bad issues".

n/t.

[saracat]

5. It isn't meaningless. It is pandering to Pro-Life and BTW whats with the pastors?

Are we throwing seperation of church and state under the bus too? Dammit.

[nels25]

26. Ah yes !

It is attitudes like this that help us keep losing elections on the nation level.

For the party that is supposed to be for open mindedness and for the little guy, we sure come off as elitist a lot of the time.

And people notice it.

Some (I would venture to say most) take their relationship with God seriously (I know I do) and personally (and with out a political stance IE: parties).

If a pastor is helping out Obama what is the harm?

Would are attitude be the same if it was a well known African-American clergy man?

Tell me should any and all things religious be relegated to the intellectual and societal version of the Warsaw ghetto??

We as a party are supposed to be better than this, or at least I thought so.

[saracat]

42. "Choice is now elitist" As is seperation of church and state?

Pastors should not be writing political platform. They should not be "helping" any politician out. This is not defensible.Odd how the GOP NEVER compromised and still won. We are compromising ourselves into losing with not taking any clear positions.Leadership means taking a stand not being all things to all people.

[Eyes_wide_ open]

47. Uh no ... but the ATTITUDE sure is n/t

[Beer Snob-50]

49. "Odd how the gop never compromised.."

come on, half of these rw christian politicans swallowed whatever principals they have in order to cowtail to the very large christian right voting block. i have no problem with a politican using a religious leader to help write out a plank for their platform that will bridge a divide that has been bad for the country.

[LisaM]

56. I couldn't agree more.

It's also possible to take religion seriously (your own) and not want it written into a political platform.

Women are having rights taken away right before our eyes and nobody seems to give a damn.

[Alter Ego]

27. Of course--they have religious convictions so they're not "ONE OF US".

This is why we lose elections.

[JoFerret]

57. Pastor posturing

creepy imo.

[Honeycombe8]

22. As far as I know, most Americans honor and support motherhood. What's wrong w/that? nt

[slackmaster]

32. Not that I'm aware of

:shrug:

[JerseygirlCT]

36. No we did not. What we did, however, is allow the anti-choice right to

frame the issue so that it appears that we didn't back that choice.

The key is, of course, choice. I think it's terrific if we make it possible for women who want to carry to term to do so: healthcare, financial assistance... whatever. So long as there's no coercion involved, coercion induced by limiting her choices.

We allowed ourselves to get backed into a defensive posture, where we were forced to defend ourselves as not eager for abortions, but eager for choice. We shouldn't have had to fight that one: of course we're talking about choice.

But they won that PR war in a lot of people's minds, I'm afraid.

[qwlauren35]

53. It depends on the "we".

Some men still apply a LOT of pressure on their sex partners to not carry an unplanned (not wanted by the father) child to term.

I think it fits better with where most Americans are leaning today. Abortion is a "necessary evil", but it's "important" to carry the baby to term, and women should be give as much assistance as they can be if that's what they decide to do.

I don't like it, but I'm hearing more and more of it. Personally, I ***HATE*** seeing 12 year olds and 14 year olds having children. I know that's what "pro-choice" means, but that's why I have a hard time with the phrase. I'm still more "pro-abortion" than "pro-choice".

It's probably people like me who spur the other side to a frenzy.

[saracat]

4. I am so sick of pandering to the pro lifers. It is odd that they can say they

don't "need" the women's vote then kiss the butt of the pro-lifers. Then they give a huge speaking slot to Casey. I guess abortion rights activists are also being told to get to the back of the bus. Damn.And I thought it was bad when I had to fight to have reproductive rights kept in my state party platform 2 years ago because they didn't want to "offend" the GOP. Damn. And they are working with pro -life pastors? This is dreadful.
I do not believe in compromising on this issue.This is defacto opening the door to compromise and they will compromise our rights away.

[skyounkin]

6. Agreed.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

8. Who is "they"?

When did "they" say they don't need the women's vote? I don't believe the Democrats ever said that. I understand that it may feel that way, but I personally don't see it. McCain is so far and away anti-woman it takes my breath away.

[Honeycombe8]

21. You are falling into the mindset that the article intended some to fall into.

Look at the headline, which references Obama, when Obama in fact has nothing to do with it. The article is designed to get women (and hopefully still-upset Clinton supporter women) upset enough to vote for McCain. Look at the way the article is written.

Pro-lifers love to call the other side pro-abortion, when they are actually pro-CHOICE, not pro-abortion. It was ALWAYS understood that BOTH parties supported fully a woman's right to choose NOT to have an abortion. But NOW, the Dems have merely added that thought out loud in their party platform. That's all. No big deal. No ideology or platform position has been changed one iota. This does, however, makes it just a tad harder for the other side to cont. to legitimately do the "pro-abortion" name calling.

The Dem Party's platform, after all, has NEVER been that it wants all women to get abortions instead of carry to term. It was ALWAYS that it supported a woman's decision for EITHER...right of privacy to her body. This includes fully supporting her decision NOT to get an abortion. Her decision. Makes sense to me. (I say this as a middle aged feminist who fully supports pro-choice.)

[bunkerbuster1]

30. Actually, it ought to be about CRIMINALIZATION, not choice.

You make it about criminalization--putting women and their docs in jail for electing to terminate a pregnancy--and the "pro-life" argument shrivels up and goes away.

These nutters couldn't even get a referendum criminalizing abortion passed in South Fucking Dakota. They're full of shit, these "pro-lifers;" the nation is not on their side, when it comes right down to actually putting teeth into their efforts to (as they blandly put it) stop abortion.

[DeeDeeNY]

31. Exactly.

I'm with you.

[JerseygirlCT]

37. You're completely right, I think.

And I think this is a smart move for just those reasons. (From another middle-aged feminist supporting choice!)

[Alter Ego]

28. "We" have never said that we didn't need the women's vote.

All we're trying to do is reframe the abortion issue from the way the Republicans have framed it in the past eight years--that Democrats are heartless baby-killers.

There is no compromising--it's already written into the Democratic Party platform that we unequivocally back a woman's right to choose, without exception.

You're freaking out over absolutely nothing.

[saracat]

43. I am so sick of the 'reframing to appease the pro-lifers" and the wink wink we are giving to them.

Our nominee is considering VP candidates who have very lukewarm support of choice. Biden doesn't want federally funded abortions for victims of rape and incest! Both Baeh and Kaine are very conservative on choice and the Campaign allotted a speaking role to the anti choice Casey. It is now "acceptable" to be a "pro-life Democrat" where it never was before. And the nominee has YET to speak out about the current action of the Bush administration equating contraception and abortion(Or am I wrong on that, I haven't read or heard anything). If nothing else, our party is deempathizing choice in order to win. What is next, moderate pro life justice appointments in order to be reelected? Why is gender the issue that can always be compromised?

And if pro choice is such a bad thing to promote and has to be softened, why is Mccain floating a pro-choice Veep candidate? And why are we reaching out to fundies if more folks have our position?

[Alter Ego]

50. For the love of all that's holy, will you listen to yourself?

IT IS WRITTEN INTO THE PARTY PLATFORM THAT WE UNEQUIVOCALLY SUPPORT A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT SHE DOES WITH HER OWN DAMN BODY.

And McCain choosing a pro-choicer is bad--for him. It'll cost him a lot of fundamentalist votes.

No one in the Democratic Party wants to take away the right to choose--even if they have strong personal feelings about it. Look at Tim Kaine--Catholic pro-lifer who is fiercely protective of pro-choice laws in Virginia. How is that not evidence that Democrats are unique in their ability to separate their own faith from their politics?

There is no compromising on anything, no 'wink wink', no nothing. All we are doing is talking to these folks and concentrating on what we have in common rather than what drives us apart.

[JoFerret]

58. It's"hold your unholy nose time"

and get out and vote.

Tis ever thus.

[BlooInBloo]

72. Oh come on. What would DU be without the comedy relief provided by Clinton supporters?

:rofl:

[quakerboy]

62. One thought

Why frame yourself in the most negative light? Why sell yourself as the scary sounding acid Dyhydrogen Monoxide, when most people think relatively highly of Water?

Ok. More than one thought.


All this strikes me as needlessly combative. Whats the real issue here? Did you read the article? Or the actual platform?

The article itself states "To reassure abortion-rights groups, the first paragraph has stronger language than in past platforms, saying the Democrats ``strongly and unequivocally'' support Roe v. Wade and oppose efforts to ``weaken or undermine'' it."

What in that is an appeasement? The actual question here is do we support abortion, or do we support choice? On my end, I am 100% pro choice.

What this article addresses, despite its misleading title, is a separate issue. One that allows us to steal the winger's thunder, while not giving them anything that we wouldn't give them anyway. Namely social stability and general betterment, and yet another way to start toward universal health care.

Also from the article: "`The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support and caring adoption programs.'"

What in that do you disagree with? And what in harnessing the energy and votes of Christians to achieve OUR goals do you disagree with?

[Chloroplast]

77. What's wrong with you?

Does it occur to you there are Democrats that ARE Pro-life? Why does he have to ignore those that are religious, pro-life and willing to vote for a Democrat? So much for unity, eh?

[cynatnite]

7. Since when did Dems oppose carrying a pregnancy to term?

:wtf:

It's shit like this that has me thinking I'll be forcing myself to vote for Obama in November.

[Lilith Velkor]

59. Since they let the Repubs define them. n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

9. It also strengthens pro-choice stance though and it has received NARAL and NOW's blessing

"The section comprises three paragraphs of a 54-page document that will be approved at the party's nominating convention in Denver Aug. 25-28. To reassure abortion-rights groups, the first paragraph has stronger language than in past platforms, saying the Democrats ``strongly and unequivocally'' support Roe v. Wade and oppose efforts to ``weaken or undermine'' it.

The next paragraph, similar to past platforms, outlines the need for sex education and family-planning services that can reduce unintended pregnancies. "

"Nancy Keenan, a platform-committee member and president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said the issue would resonate with women when they learn about Republican candidate John McCain's record. The group is sending activists to the Arizona senator's events to ask about abortion because many women don't know McCain, 71, favors overturning Roe v. Wade, she said.

``Choice is an issue that will take votes away from John McCain,'' said Keenan, 56. "

[Hekate]

15. Thank you for injecting the actual facts into this thread. The RWnuts have framed this issue forever

... and it is long past time the rest of us took it back to the frame-shop.

The way the RW has framed what we call choice is to call themselves "pro-life" as though that makes us "pro-death", and from there it goes downhill.

If it makes "pro-life" women and men more comfortable to talk about reducing abortion and enhancing the outcome for pregnant women, that's absolutely fine with me -- as long as the Democratic Party makes it clear that abortions will be reduced by sex-education and access to contraceptives, and that enhancing the outcome of pregnancies will happen via making women's lives more stable and more financially viable, i.e. by programs like WIC and AFDC and universal health care.

That seems to be the case with the platform as you have described it. Sounds like a win-win situation all around.

Hekate

[Alter Ego]

52. Exactly. If we can reframe the issue we might help them to realize

that women don't use abortion as a form of birth control, despite what the RW screeching demons have told them--and maybe the saner ones will come around.

We've got to try.

[moggie]

10. Where does Obama stand on apple pie? n/t

[WCGreen]

11. Fuck that...

I want to know where he stands on Baseball...

[depakid]

12. He's a White Sox fan....

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/a-principled-sports-fan/

[WCGreen]

14. I'm voting for McCain...

I hate the Sox, being an Indians fan myself...

[jmowreader]

16. It could be worse. He could be a Cubs fan.

[slackmaster]

33. As a fan of the Padres, I endorse Obamas non-support of the Cubs

:hide:

[no_hypocrisy]

13. I think it's a worthwhile endeavor. Freedom of choice also includes the

freedom to be a parent without barriers. Let gays and lesbians adopt. Stop calling the children of unmarried mothers "bastards" as every child is legitimate once they're born. More aid from the federal government for day care centers to allow the mothers to have a safe, healthy place for their children while they work.

[Zhade]

17. Hear, hear.

NT!

[Spazito]

78. Bingo! Excellent post!

I wish I could recommend this but, seeing as I can't, I will at least post my appreciation for your expression of what is important here.


Again, well done and thanks.

[liberal N proud]

18. It's is perfect - It basically says the Democrats are NOT pro Abortion

which is what the Right wants to paint us all.

We support the right for women to choose. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion and this addresses that without supporting the pro-life agenda of banning abortion.

[TrogL]

34. It's a good left-of-centre position

Sort of like "Abortion should be available, difficult to obtain (ie. lots of paperwork) and a resort of last choice after family planning and adoption."

[Demeter]

19. This Is Far Too Subtle and Nuanced

Idiots don't do subtle, can't handle nuance. They like loud blaring violence, hence the attraction to Limbaugh and his ilk.

Now if Obama could synthesize subtle and nuance with loud blaring violence---well, nobody would buy it, I guess. It would be like classical music. Must engage brain before using.

[Honeycombe8]

20. This has nothing to do with Obama. So the headline says a lot about the source.

In the future, I will consider the source, when reading Bloomberg.

As an aside, I see nothing wrong with the new language in the platform. Of COURSE both parties support a woman's decision NOT to have an abortion. The Dems ARE pro-choice....NOT pro-abortion.

[happygoluckytoyou]

23. im a DEM with issues about choice..... it is not an easy subject

IF YOUR CORE BELIEFS ARE that it is a LIFE... how do you sit by and watch others "kill"

I know... but anyone who thinks the decisions and the laws are simple has it over me.

ON THE OTHER HAND....

i know dems who own guns

IT IS A LARGE TENT... christians should feel that the party is not a SINGLE MESSAGE party....

IF THAT WERE THE CASE.... how do they support the ILLEGAL WAR party.... the ANTI POOR party...

[cap]

24. support for expectant mothers makes abortion a real choice

and helps women who say that they can't afford to raise a child but they really would have wanted that child. If support for expectant mothers is coupled with pro-children policies, then women will have a real choice and not a decision that was constrained by financial matters beyond her control. Women will be more free to focus on the emotional/health aspects of the decision to carry a child to term.

[DevonRex]

45. You are exactly right. We are the party who cares about the baby

AFTER delivery. We are the party who wants to ensure that expectant mothers have good prenatal care. If a woman is in dire financial straits and sees no help coming, she will be more likely to terminate a pregnancy. With our platform, those issues won't enter into her decision.

We are also the party that acknowledges that there are many reasons a woman might choose to terminate a pregnancy and we honor the pregnant woman's right to decide for herself.

There is no conflict between the two.

[Donnachaidh]

25. a *pro-life REPUBLICAN* is writing for the Democratic Nominee?

Sure -- after all that group of folks have done so MUCH for women's rights over the last 30 years. :sarcasm:

One more thing in the negative column.... :grr:

[DevonRex]

46. You don't support programs to help expectant and new mothers?

You don't support a woman's choice to carry her pregnancy to term?

[Peace Patriot]

29. I have long, long, LONG wanted the Women's Choice lobby to embrace motherood

and insist on adequate medical care, child care, compensation and other rights for mothers and parents. To just be FOR abortion rights seems very narrow--and seems to pander mostly to professional women who have chosen not to have children, or to have few children. It leaves out a whole lot of women who support other women's choices, but who wouldn't choose abortion for themselves (for religious or ethical or other reasons), and it helps no one at all who chooses to bear or adopt and raise children. In this society, there. is. no. right. to. have. children. Our society provides almost NO SUPPORT for it. You are on your own. You sink or swim, as do your kids. This is a vicious anti-motherhood and anti-family society.

And this is the biggest hypocrisy of the Bushites and the fascists. They don't give a fuck about mothers, children, dads or families. We are all just slave labor and cannon fodder to them. And it's long past time that the Democratic Party strongly supported social justice on this issue, as in the most civilized countries which consider child-rearing to be a valuable contribution to society and support it accordingly. Children are our future. They are our COLLECTIVE responsibility. The Reaganites and Bushites and their rightwing 'christian' preachers have greatly harmed this concept, which needs to make a come-back. COLLECTIVE, COMMUNITY responsibility--for nutrition, for education, for child care LABOR, for ending poverty--which hits women and children the hardest--and for fostering REAL family values. It is a sick and dying society that does not care for the young. We are a sick and dying society, which is receiving death blow after death blow from vicious, greedy, murderous, global corporate predators, who PUNISH people for having children, who rob them with gas-gouging and credit card usury and skyrocketing medical costs and poor wages and mortgage fraud, who steal billions and billions of our tax dollars that should be used for social programs, who promote selfishness and acquisitiveness and every sort of social horror, and who hate the humane, compassionate, and MORAL values that are fostered by loving care of other people--whether of family, children, the elderly or friends.

These dirtbags have just slaughtered ONE MILLION innocent men, women and children in a corporate resource war. They rip our soldiers' families apart with stop-loss policies that amount to slave labor. They DON'T CARE about anybody or anything. And their sick obsession with forcing women to have more children, and denying us a choice, is for one purpose: To make more slaves. There is nothing moral about it. It is total hypocrisy.

We make a great mistake in allowing this debate to occur on their terms--the right to abortion and birth control, or not. That is only one half of the issue. The other half is making these fuckwad corporations and war profiteers and multi-billionaires pay their fair share for society's FUTURE: our children.

I don't care how this wording got into the platform--it is a good thing that it is there, and we should try to build upon it. It's not a trivial matter of "Mom and apple pie." It is SERIOUS matter regarding the health and future of our society. And I have ALWAYS said that we should LISTEN to the more sincere and true "conservatives" whose fears about our fractured, disconnected, frenetic, corporate-designed modern lifestyle might have something to teach us. Is "progress" always good? No! Not when it destroys the planet! Not when it leaves millions of mothers and children stranded in poverty! Not when it promotes "winning the lottery" over true love, decency and compassion! Not when it means stepping over the homeless to get your latte! Not looting Savings and Loan institutions and public treasuries! The more sincere and true "conservatives" may not know what the real problem is, but they may well feel...dislocated, alienated, bewildered. They may latch their uneasiness onto abortion or gay rights, but that is not what's really wrong. What's wrong is that the corporate rulers have smashed our society all to pieces, and it has little cohesion any more. No one feels comfortable here. Everyone feels worried and driven. There is huge anxiety in the U.S. Corporate propaganda--and corporate manifestations, such as crowded freeways, long commutes, strip malls, urban blight--are designed to make us feel anxious, inadequate, and rootless, so that we BUY more. We may see through the psychological defensiveness that some "conservatives" exhibit--their retreat into the past, into what they think were "simpler times"--and its political aspect, which so mistakenly aligns with the corporate rulers--but we need to respect their legitimate fear of alienated modern American life.

The problem is NOT that most women want a choice about bearing children. The problem is that we are all slaves, and none of us is receiving the love and care that we deserve as members of this society, and that we could provide for each other, if we could throw the corporate albatross and its war profiteers off our backs. Our political discourse--if one can call it that--has become disgracefully uncaring and callous. We need to create something better, and supporting motherhood--really supporting it, with active programs and funding--would be a good place to start.

[kiva]

40. Excuse me?

The problem is NOT that most women want a choice about bearing children.

This may not be your "problem" but I'll guarantee you that it is for many, many women. Access to birth control and abortion have allowed women to have more choices about their lives, which IMO is a positive. Trading these rights off to conservatives to that they don't feel "dislocated, alienated, bewildered" isn't an option I'm willing to support.

[Peace Patriot]

69. You misunderstood me. I was trying to place the abortion issue in a larger context

of oppression by fascist/corporate powers. My following sentence was very important to my meaning. You are quoting the first sentence out of context.

"The problem is NOT that most women want a choice about bearing children. The problem is that we are all slaves...."

Please do not try to construe me as anti-choice. I am pro-choice.

----

"Access to birth control and abortion have allowed women to have more choices about their lives, which IMO is a positive. Trading these rights off to conservatives to that they don't feel "dislocated, alienated, bewildered" isn't an option I'm willing to support."

Access to birth control is not incompatible with trying to understand people who live, psychologically, in the 19th century, and feel scared and bewildered in the modern world. This doesn't mean you have to support the unholy alliance between their preacher men and global corporate predators. Why can't we (Democratic Party) do more to bring oppressed women on board by advocating a more civilized policy on motherhood, parenthood and child-rearing? Some women's groups do this, true, but the Democratic Party leadership has been largely brought and paid for by war profiteers and global corporate predators who severely oppress women worldwide, as well as poor women here, with a fascist, dog-eat-dog agenda. Fact: It was the Democratic leadership (Clinton) who kicked mothers off of welfare and forced them to leave their children to the tender mercies of the streets and go slave for Taco Bell and still can't make a decent living. Mothers (and fathers, depending on choice) should be PAID TO STAY HOME.

That's choice. It is not enough of a choice just NOT to have children. People should ALSO have a choice to HAVE children, and our society should SUPPORT that choice.

You color this social policy as "trading these rights (abortion, birth control) off to conservatives." "Conservatives" (i.e., fascist radicals) don't give anybody choices, either way. All are oppressed and enslaved to the godawful greed of the CEO's and multibillionaires who are behind this radical fascist agenda.

[Runcible Spoon]

41. Oh please. The vast majority of the pro-choice movement values motherhood.

In fact, many Planned Parenthoods offer basic low priced or free prenatal care. Their website has extensive information for pregnant women.

Your heart is in the right place, but the truth of the matter is pro-choice supporters and organizations DO support women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term, and DO offer resources to them. Conservatives, in our party and in the Republican party, actively pigeonhole and mischaracterize the movement. That's why we call the movement pro-CHOICE. Please don't fall for it.

If you were to say that the pro-choice movement needs to direct more attention to the issue of pregnancy holistically, I could support that statement. But to call the pro-choice movement about abortion ONLY is very narrow. We care about opportunities for women to make the best choices for themselves and the organizations offer support and resources no matter what the outcome.

[Peace Patriot]

70. Yes, I know that pro-choice GROUPS support motherhood. The GOVERNMENT doesn't.

And the Democratic Party leadership doesn't. They have sold out to Exxon Mobil, Chase bank, Halliburton, Bechtel, Diebold and assorted global corporate predators who are not only killing millions of people to get their oil, and using our sons and daughters as cannon fodder, they are DESTROYING the solvency of the U.S. government and crippling our ability to create a decent country with TRUE family values--compassion, nurturing, care for the weak, thought for the future, basic human rights to food, shelter, medical care, meaningful work and happiness.

We are a country with millions of homeless families and homeless individuals, whom others step over and ignore in their climb up the ladder to riches and choices. We are an INDECENT society. And, for a long time--since the Reagan junta--our Democratic Party leadership has been pandering to those who oppress us all. The right to an abortion and birth control does not create a decent life. It is only one component of an enlightened social policy. Our leaders have permitted not only this right (the choice of having children, or not) but all other human rights to be eroded or entirely eliminated as multi-billionaires write our laws and steal us blind.

That is all that I am saying. I am VERY GLAD to see the RIGHT TO HAVE CHILDREN--that is, society's collective responsibility for our future--acknowledged in the Democratic Party platform, because it has been MISSING from it, in actuality, in the actions of our leaders.

A society that treats children, the elderly, the sick, the poor and the homeless with such cruelty as ours does--and that penalizes parenthood in every way imaginable--is a society that will, in short order, eliminate women's choices.

The two things go together: Women's rights and PARENTS' rights. I am fully aware that women's advocacy groups know this. But most of our party leaders do NOT. They do NOT support truly progressive and truly humane social policy. They actively or passively support the fascist/corporate dog-eat-dog agenda.

And it doesn't matter to me that this important point got into the platform via a dialogue with "conservatives." What I said was that "conservatives" (true conservatives), though they may not understand the source of their oppression (often they blame it on "liberals"), MIGHT have a viewpoint worth considering, even if we have to filter out their prejudices. The problem is NOT the viewpoint or the prejudices of "conservative" people. The problem is how twisted and distorted their viewpoint has become, in the hands of rightwing think tanks and corporate 'news' monopolies. Conservative people may have values that we share. This appears to be one of them--society's collective responsibility for motherhood, parenthood and children. Well, hoorah! We found some common ground, outside of corporate bullshit. I'm for that--discovering our common humanity and shared values. The Corporate Rulers want to "divide and conquer" us all. Maybe we shouldn't let them, eh? The Democratic Party is currently the ONLY vehicle for representation of our common interests. It needs to be--and once was--a BIG TENT. And if conservative PEOPLE want to come in from the cold of Bushite cruelty, and warm themselves at the fires of true Democratic Party compassion, I say let them--as long as they don't start with their witch-burning and book-burning.

[TrogL]

35. People need to be told real stories

(fixed link)

I'm a gay activist. I've done my fair share of lobbying, protesting and committee work.

However, what I've found to be the best use of my time is simply to set an example and show people what a gay/bi person is really like. I'm completely out at the office. I made it abundantly clear that I would expect the sexual harassment policy to be completely enforced. I brought my partner to staff functions and mentioned him in conversation in the same way anybody else would talk about a wife or girlfriend. People fairly quickly got used to it.

I was at a gay wedding over the weekend (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x81060). A few years ago this would have been front-page news. Now it's standard operating procedure. I got a look at the forms and they're the exact same ones used when Craftygal and I got married.

People here have gotten used to homosexuality and gay marriage as part of their daily lives because people like me have been open and honest about our stories.

I think the abortion movement needs to do the same thing.

At the moment, the anti-abortion crowd has the upper hand. The only vision of "abortion" the American public is being given is pictures of cut-up, bloody dead babies. Years ago when this was an issue in Canada, somebody used to park a van in front of the hospital covered in these pictures. He eventually gave up.

People need to tell their stories. I read one recently (I think it was on here, if so somebody post a link) about a mother whose foetus had an untreatable heart defect. If the baby was born, it might live a few months if millions were spent keeping it alive, and it would put the mother through the rigours of childbirth. Yes, people still do die in childbirth. This is a classic, heart-breaking cost-benefit analysis that is at the root of the abortion controversy.

Most people's stories are not "I got drunk and screwed the football team and I don't know who the father is". They are often heart-breaking decisions of what is truly best for the potential baby - to be raised in poverty or an abusive situation, to be born with some horrific birth defect, to place the mother at such risk that both die, or to perhaps pass over in quietness this life in favour of the next.

[enlightenment]

39. Appreciate what you're saying, but I don't think it would work

because you're making an assumption that the majority of women are facing horrors if they carry a pregnancy to term. I'm not saying those things don't exist - of course they do - but there are plenty of women who aren't facing a medical issue, poverty, abuse, etc. - they just do not want to continue the pregnancy. They aren't immoral or evil; they are making a choice to control both their body and their life.

When the issue is framed in the way you suggest, it divides women into two camps - those that are "right" to have an abortion because the alternatives are so horrific, and those who are "wrong" to have an abortion because they simply do not want to continue a pregnancy.

I agree that there really aren't too many "screwed the football team" women out there, but your scenario paints any woman who can't claim the moral high ground with the same brush - and there are a lot more of them than you think.

A poster up thread wrote that abortion should be a "last resort" and "difficult" to get - meaning that there should be lots of flaming hoops the woman has to jump through to get one. That's not a left of center position, it's a right of center position and unacceptable because it makes the same assumption that the anti-abortion crowd makes - that women are not capable of determining what is right for them.

Your comments are the corollary to that post; the idea that women can be divided into the deserving and undeserving when it comes to their right to control their bodies - and Americans will latch onto that dichotomy in a heartbeat. Women who have "stories" to tell will get sympathy and women who don't will get scorn . . . and nothing will change the perception of those who are convinced that abortion is fundamentally wrong.

[Ken Burch]

55. "I got drunk and screwed the football team and I don't know who the father is"?

Thanks for giving us the most viciously misogynstic sentence ever posted on DU.

I think we all understand why you post as "TrogL" now.

And actually, the story of most of the young women you so sensitively labelled with the above slur is usually more along the lines of "The quarterback slipped me roofies, then the whole team gang-raped me while I was unconscious and left me alone and broke on a dirt road at 3am and their rich white daddies made sure the case never went to trial so I'm stuck in this trailer park with no money and no future".

What...the...fuck...were...you...thinking?

No one is entitled to judge a woman who seeks an abortion. Especially no one who pees standing up.

Got that?

[Egnever]

71. what the fuck ever

Chip on shoulder much?

[Ken Burch]

75. Well, the phrase you used doesn't really reflect the reality of ANY woman seeking an abortion

I have a real problem with the "she shouldn't be allowed to get one if she's 'a slut'" argument. No woman really is, when you get down to it. If that's not the way you personally actually visualize any woman with an unplanned pregnancy, I apologize.

The phraseology was offensive and sexist, and it's the kind of a mindset Democrats should NEVER embrace.

[depakid]

65. Yes, they do-

These sorts of ads can be VERY effective in defining the opponet's policies (that may seem complicted to non-policy wonks).

Take Australian Labor's successful campaign again their right wing (which contains a lot of so called "family" values types. The issue here was called "work choices" -which like American style laws, was a deceptive title for TAKING AWAY Australian workers choices and protections:

HERE'S HOW IT'S DONE FOLKS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSQCm79fGUU

[depakid]

67. Here's an even better "story ad":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WvMTAci5nU

[dflprincess]

38. The Republicans might like this - until they figure out that

"strongly backing a woman's decision to carry a pregnancy to term" might cost money to "provide programs for expectant and new mothers". It's one thing to insist a woman carry her pregnancy to term, it's quite another to help her pay for it.

I'd like to know why a Reublican is helping to draft the Democratic Platform ("Joel Hunter, a Florida pastor who helped with the language and said he is a pro-life Republican").

[GoddessOfGuinness]

44. I doubt he'll win over the Anti-Choice Americans...

They don't want any choice in the matter. They want total control over women's bodies.

[Barack_America]

48. The single issue voters? No.

But voters who consider abortion along with issues such as the economy, war, etc.? Sure.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

64. Possibly some of them

I appreciate the effort he's making to reach as many voters as possible. I hope it works!

[Alter Ego]

51. If we do not try to win over at least the sane ones then what will be the point

of all the "bipartisanship" talk?

God, some folks around here cannot separate "talking to them" from "allowing them to set the agenda and walk all over us".

[GoddessOfGuinness]

63. I never suggested we shouldn't try...

But don't fantasize about converting them. Theirs is not an ideology of reason.

[and-justice-for-all]

54. NO ONE wants anyone to ever have to get an abortion...

Not one person.

But, some of us know, that some will come to some circumstances in their life that will bring rightful justification to terminate their pregnancy. Some of us, just want them to have a safe and clean place to do so.

Some people, do not have any right to make such decisions for people whom they have no idea the situation that the women is in.

The pro-lifers are also pro-war, whats up with that hypocrisy?

[anonymous171]

60. It becomes less about abortion and more abour helping mothers their children.

I like it. It's more inclusive and less wedge issue-y.

[swishyfeet]

61. I'd support a platform of him coming over and kicking my ass if it would help win

The time for liberal purity is over.

Apparently someone thinks it will help attact votes... let's do it!

[TheKentuckian]

68. I'm not a woman

so, maybe it's easier to miss why this unhinges so many.

That language is EXACTLY the way the issue should have been framed years ago and if we had then this entire issue would have in large measure ceased to be a wedge. We would have won the debate but on many issues we have such absolute purist that even a cost free compromise causes a melt-down.
No rights are being lost or even assaulted.

The best way to guarantee choice is to diffuse it as a hot button issue.

If we want to be a national governing party then purist will have to accept at least lip service compromises like this. We MUST lower the rancor on this issue so maybe one day we can start looking at some much needed population control. The issue can't even be discussed because some think you're talking a Holocaust for babies.

Single issue voters are toxic to democracy and protest voters perpetuate the situation they are protesting.

It's also important that on this issue you do not naturally have the votes, some are holding their nose to varying degrees. Personally, I think that there is some dividing line that science can find that says when the fetus is a human and it's my thought that this centers around brain development.
Cells aren't people and people have protection under the law so, I feel if a child can be viable outside the womb, then it's STRAIGHT UP MURDER to abort (how do you defend that? with what logic?). I will support a woman's right to choose but there comes a time when choosing time is over, otherwise you may as well extend choice past birth as well. What's the difference?

I think both sides of the debate are scared to end it. We lose a partial grip on women and Republicans grip on the religious slips as well.

Further, and regardless of all I've written, if we can pick up some votes (even if it's just a few) while giving up NOTHING...NOTHING....NOTHING then that is the BEST way to maintain a woman's choice.

Liberal or Conservative, America has a real deficit of strategic and/or long term/BIG picture perspective. It's all instant gratification.

Some will fuck around and lose the war over a MEANINGLESS battle.

[Mz Pip]

66. Motherhood is cool

I liked it. Still do.

Sounds good to me.

Mamas for Obama. Yay.

[coyotespaw]

73. So, just to boil this down to as few words as possible...

It seems he's saying abortion should be safe, legal, and rare...

is that a bad thing?

[BlooInBloo]

74. Anything Obama does is bad, to Clinton supporters. If Obama was pro-puppies...

Clinton supporters would attack him for supporting the puppy takeover of the world.

[depakid]

76. No- that's not what they're doing at all. They're reframing the issue

in a manner which- if they choose not to be meek and cowardly, they can go after the far right on their so called "family" values positions.

Positions that, in no uncertain terms- hurt families, and in particular, mothers and small children.