Using false information to defend promoting anti-choicers

[BainsBane]

isn't working. Tim Kaine is pro-choice. Joe Biden is pro-choice. http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/50772/tim-kaine/2#.WP1ZL2nyvIU

http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm#Abortion

Having personal, religious concerns about abortion does not make someone anti-choice. Sponsoring legislation and voting to restrict women's reproductive rights does. Pretending there is any equivalency between the two is a LIE.

I am personally opposed to abortion. I am also fiercely and unapologetically pro-choice. Pro-choice does not mean one has to think abortion is great. It means women have the right to choose, to make their own reproductive decisions. In some cases that involves having an abortion and some cases it involves not having one. That decision is that particular woman's to make, just as my choice is my own decision.

That we are seeing deception used to justify supporting the move of the party away from equal rights is especially pernicious. People may think they are being clever by deceiving themselves and others about the records of pro-choice Democrats, but it's not working. It only shows that some will go to any extremes to justify a right-wing, anti-choice, anti-equality agenda. It's not progressive, and it isn't in pursuit of economic justice because without access to reproductive services, women and children slide into deeper poverty.

Those making the false claims have been corrected repeatedly, shown evidence that disproves their claims. Yet they persist. What does that say? Why the urgency to defend efforts to move equal rights off the Democratic agenda? When people need to turn to deception to advance a position, something is very wrong. It demonstrates a worldview not based on economic justice or equality but on resorting to anything to promote the economic interests of a minority over the rights, lives, and survival of the many. It is morally repugnant and inexcusable.

[Cha]

1. Thank you, Bains.. for getting the facts out here in

an OP!

[BainsBane]

2. They are ignoring the evidence

which tells me it is not a case of simply being uninformed.

[Cha]

4. It never is.

[BainsBane]

6. One used the Washington Times to make his claims

rather than looking at Kaine's voting record. Is that supposed to be clever? Do they really imagine people are that stupid?

[Cha]

10. That's desperate

They don't

[hrmjustin]

3. As usual you make good points.

[LexVegas]

5. Rec. Rec. Rec. nt

[QC]

7. How do you feel about the Hyde Amendment?

Can one support it and still be genuinely pro-choice?

[BainsBane]

8. Not fully

I looked up the House vote yesterday. Dennis Kucinich and John Murtha voted for it.

[QC]

9. OK. n/t

[PoliticAverse]

14. And Tim Kaine supported the Hyde Amendment even after Clinton picked him as VP...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/31/politics/tim-kaine-hillary-clinton-hyde-amendment-abortion/index.html

"My voting position on abortion hasn't really changed," Kaine said in the interview aired Sunday. "I support the Hyde Amendment. I haven't changed that."

[BainsBane]

20. That's unfortunate

NARAL and PP give him 100% ratings. http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/50772/tim-kaine/2#.WP1nHGnyvIV

Are you anxious for Bernie's movement to take over the conservative wing of the Democratic Party? You're welcome to it.

[PoliticAverse]

27. And NARAL called Kaine's support for the Hyde Amendment "deeply disapointing"...

[melman]

30. Yeah, seems they thought it was a bit more than 'unfortunate'

Why do you suppose the OP would downplay such a thing? Confusing!

[BainsBane]

54. I didn't "downplay it"

Last edited Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:38 AM - Edit history (1)

I didn't see it when I went to vote smart to look up his record. NARAL continues to give him a 100 percent rating. You'll have to ask them to explain the contradiction.

I didn't talk about his allowing license plates or the horror of promoting adoption either, but thanks to you all I now know that is way worse than sponsoring and voting for legislation restricting reproductive rights. But then I was thinking the issue was women's rights. But now I realize the real cause is increasing men's wealth and privilege at any cost. Thanks for the lesson.

[Cha]

31. So what? BS claimed the "Aggressively Anit-Choice" Mello

is a "progressive"

Sanders voiced his support for Mello in a statement published Wednesday by the Wall Street Journal. “If this fellow wins in Nebraska, that would be a shot across the board, that in a state like Nebraska a progressive Democrat can win, that will give hope to folks in other conservative states that perhaps they can win as well,” he said.

Why Is the DNC Embracing an Aggressively Anti-Choice Democrat

snip//

He was endorsed in 2010 by anti-choice group Nebraska Right to Life.

Heath Mello has sponsored a range of anti-choice measures, including a 20-week abortion ban.

Heath Mello is a sponsor of the final version of a 20-week abortion ban approved by the governor in 2010, and cast anti-choice votes in favor of requiring physicians to be physically present for an abortion in order to impede access to telemedicine abortion care, and a law banning insurance plans in the state from covering abortions.

snip// Dkos pulls their endorsement of Heath Mello

The Daily Kos, which describes itself as “a news organization, community, and activist hub,” pulled its endorsement of Mello after revelations about the Democrat’s stance on abortion. The site said it had been unaware of Mello’s anti-choice stance, but that “as soon as we learned this information, we withdrew our endorsement, because this legislation clearly runs contrary to Daily Kos’ deepest values, including our support for women’s reproductive rights and our staunch opposition to laws that in any way impede women’s access to reproductive health care.”

musette https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8955986

https://rewire.news/article/2017/04/20/why-is-dnc-embracing-aggressively-anti-choice-democrat/

And, wouldn't lift a hand on Election Day in Georgia for Jon Ossoff who is Actually PRO Choice

[BainsBane]

56. I guess Joe Manchin now qualifies as progressive too. Nt.

[Cha]

57. And, Jon Ossoff, in Georgia.. wonder what they

deem him, since BS still won't call him the "P" word.

Sanders endorses Ossoff, but won't call him a progressive

"When asked Wednesday whether Ossoff is a progressive, Sanders said to the Wall Street Journal: "I don't know."

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/329927-sanders-endorses-ossoff-but-wont-call-him-a-progressive

Jon Ossoff took the high road..

Ossoff on whether he's a progressive: 'Not interested' in purity tests

snip//

Ossoff, who is running for the Georgia House seat vacated by Tom Price when he became Health and Human Services secretary, came close to an outright win in Georgia's special election on Tuesday but ultimately failed to reach the 50 percent threshold needed to avoid a runoff.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/329770-ossoff-on-whether-hes-a-progressive-not-interested-in-purity

So Close!

I think the "P" word is now moot.

[rpannier]

19. Manchin and Heitkamp support the Hyde Amendment as well

They were quite vocal about it last summer complaining about the Party platform

[BainsBane]

23. Manchin is a fucking right-winger

Fascinating to see Bernie folks cite right wingers as justification for Bernie's supporting Mello and his other statements about being open to anti-women's rights politicians. So you're quite right. Right wingers are pro-life, so if you want to put Mello and by extension his patron Bernie in that category, have at it.

Manchin is also pro-gun. He has that in common with Bernie too.

[rpannier]

29. Yes, he is conservative

But you either are missing the point of have chosen in your zeal to assail all things Sanders to ignore it.
Manchin and Heitkamp, who you seem to have ignored, are sitting US senators in the Democratic Party. As I noted and asked in another post in this thread (probably yours) should the Party provide material support to their campaigns (money, prominent Democrats to campaign on their behalf, etc)
You can try and avoid addressing it by mentioning Manchin and then attacking Sanders and his supporters all you want
The center point is, "There are prominent Democrats sitting in the House and Senate who support the Hyde Amendment and who don't support abortion. Should the Party actively support those people?"

[Vesper]

55. I've asked this of others who keep making this comparison, but none have answered.

What anti-choice bills have Manchin and Heitcamp or Kaine sponsored? Which 20 week bans, which bills against telemedicine, which about required ultrasounds?

I think the zeal to defend Sanders against legitimate and valid criticism is leading to a LOT of false equivalency.

So, can we figure out what these people are actually guilty of and if it compares to Mello's record and then address your question?

The "center point" here seems to be more about obfuscating the situation in a jingoistic preemptive defense that is rather divisive.

[Cha]

49. Omaha Mayoral Candidate Under Fire For Anti-Choice Past Vows To Protect Reproductive Rights

snip//

Mello co-sponsored a bill in 2009 requiring women to be informed that they could see an ultrasound before having an abortion, a move that national groups appeared to be unaware of until just now. Rewire reports further:

Mello is a sponsor of the final version of a 20-week abortion ban approved by the governor in 2010, and cast anti-choice votes in favor of requiring physicians to be physically present for an abortion in order to impede access to telemedicine abortion care, and a law banning insurance plans in the state from covering abortions. He was endorsed in 2010 by anti-choice group Nebraska

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/omaha-mayoral-candidate-under-fire-says-he-would-never-do-anything-to-restrict-access-to-reproductive-health-care_us_58f8e868e4b018a9ce590a84?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

All this Backlash, against Mello, from us Women is Working.

[Gothmog]

11. Most Democrats are pro-choice

[emulatorloo]

45. Yes. Most Americans are pro choice as well.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. What is your stance regarding Senator Bob Casey then?

Here is the summary that OnTheIssues.org provides on his position regarding Abortion:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Bob_Casey_Abortion.htm

I note that most of them are ten years or older, but many appeared more anti-choice than pro-life.

Here are two from 2012 though:

Supports parental notification for abortions.
Casey supports the CC Voters Guide question on minor's abortions

Christian Coalition publishes a number of special voter educational materials including the Christian Coalition Voter Guides, which provide voters with critical information about where candidates stand on important faith and family issues. The Christian Coalition Voters Guide summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Parental notification for abortions by minors"
Source: Christian Coalition Voter Guide 12-CC-q1b on Oct 31, 2012

Opposes churches providing birth control.
Casey opposes the CC Voters Guide question on churches and contraception

Christian Coalition publishes a number of special voter educational materials including the Christian Coalition Voter Guides, which provide voters with critical information about where candidates stand on important faith and family issues. The Christian Coalition Voters Guide summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Requiring religious groups to cover birth control & abortion in insurance"
Source: Christian Coalition Voter Guide 12-CC-q1d on Oct 31, 2012

Click here for definitions & background information on Abortion.

[BainsBane]

18. His views and record are unacceptable.

as is your attempt to normalize moving the party away from equal rights.

[rpannier]

21. So, should the other Senators suppoort his re-election campaign in 2018?

That's a question to be answered
When (because he will be) he is the Party nominee in 2018, should the Party give him money, send workers to support his campaign, have members of the Senate and other prominent Democrats (Biden for example) go into Pennsylvania and campaign for him

[BainsBane]

33. It's a complicated question

A Democrat, any Democrat, in the House or Senate is better than a Republican because they contribute to a potential majority. That includes the ones whose positions I find abhorrent, like the ones who vote against waiting periods to buy guns or vote against a woman's right to choose. That, however, doesn't mean they should be favored by the party, singled out for special treatment, like promoting them on a so-called unity tour. It doesn't mean they should be anointed as "progressives," in contrast to other Democrats that are denounced as less than that.

It is impossible to be progressive while seeking to turn the clock back 50 years. One cannot honestly claim to stand for economic justice while undermining reproductive rights and thereby relegating women and their children to even greater poverty. Justice and equality cannot be achieved by focusing on the interests of a demographic minority to the exclusion of the rest. That only promotes greater inequality.

Bernie established a purity test for his bestowing the title of progressive onto Democrats. Most do not qualify. Yet for some reason he has decided that civil rights and economic justice for women aren't import in that determination, despite his own consistent pro-choice voting record. Enter Heath Mello and before him Marcy Capture.

Why would Bernie, Ellison or the DNC feel compelled to endorse a mayoral candidate, to campaign for him, when that mayor's race has absolutely no impact on the Democratic Party outside of Omaha? Did Mello endorse Bernie in the primary? Or does Bernie want to make clear that anti-choice, anti-equality positions are acceptable in his vision of the future of the party?

The dangerous thing about Sanders is that he has a frightening level of influence on people. Now that he has taken this position, we see some of his supporters adopting it as well. We see some doing just about anything to justify Mello. Manchin and others don't have that kind of influence on people. They don't have millions of people who follow their every word and change their own positions to accommodate him.

Women, however, constitute the great majority of Democratic voters. Certainly some women are willing to undermine their own rights, but most will not. Those willing to abandon women's rights will not succeed in taking over the party. They don't have the votes. Certainly they can continue to promote their reactionary agenda, but they will face fierce resistance. Perez discovered that this week, which is why he backed off of supporting Mello and issued the statement on reproductive rights being central to being a Democrat. The Democratic Party will not again become a party where the interests of white men are championed at the expense of the majority. Too many Democrats value core principles of equality to allow that to happen.

I don't know how Perez is going to deal with Democrats like Casey now that he has decided that abortion rights are non-negotiable. Thankfully, I don't have to face a decision to vote for someone like Casey or Manchin. I do, however, need to give my congressman a piece of my mind for campaigning for Mello. Ellison will hear from me tomorrow.

[rpannier]

35. Good response

It's thoughtful and addresses the many complications

I agree wholeheartedly with this, "...That, however, doesn't mean they should be favored by the party, singled out for special treatment,"
I think they often do, because they are the most imperiled. Senators from Hawaii, California, New York and such are seldom facing any real competition.

Agree here too, "... Justice and equality cannot be achieved by focusing on the interests of a demographic minority to the exclusion of the rest. That only promotes greater inequality."

Good question, "Why would Bernie, Ellison or the DNC feel compelled to endorse a mayoral candidate, to campaign for him, when that mayor's race has absolutely no impact on the Democratic Party outside of Omaha? Did Mello endorse Bernie in the primary? Or does Bernie want to make clear that anti-choice, anti-equality positions are acceptable in his vision of the future of the party? "

I agree with this and happy I am in the same boat as you, "Thankfully, I don't have to face a decision to vote for someone like Casey or Manchin."

I vote in Illinois. So, like I said, same boat, just different Captain and Junior Officer. Sadly, I got Rauner as Governor

Have a great evening. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree with what you said. I am in agreement with you.

(the dual is because I love the smile)

[BainsBane]

37. Awesome

You have a good evening too.

[rpannier]

59. I thought of something you mentioned in a previous post that is really important

Sanders is more influential than Manchin.
There may be 48 Senators that caucus together for the Democrats, but not all hold the same national stature. Schumer is high on the list because he leads the Party in the Senate. Before that, nationally, I would say he was mid level influential (with the general public). Manchin, outisde of West Virginia, the areas surrounding West Virginia and faux spews is really a non-entity as far as influencing national discussion on most key issues.
Rarely will we hear someone not from the region say, "Well... you know Sen Manchin says..." and have people impressed.
Sanders is on the same plane (in terms of national exposure and influence) as Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, probably Wyden (I see him a lot in the news), Schumer and one or two others. I don't even consider my senior Senator, Durbin, on that list because he's sort of a low key person who is recognized mostly by political junkies.

Being in that list you bear some responsibility to act responsibly for the good of the Party, and when you're not in the Party, the caucus. He is a member. It rankled the hell out of me when Joe Lieberman pulled that nonsense when he was caucusing with the Democrats as the lone Representative of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.
We laugh at Cruz and roll our eyes when he publicly undermines the Republicans.
You make a good point about criticizing the Party. There is a place for public criticism. But, sometimes it's best left in private

[BainsBane]

60. Yes

The only reason most of us have even heard about Mello is because Bernie went to campaign for him.

[tammywammy]

36. Good post. n/t

[emulatorloo]

48. Yr post really cuts to the heart of the matter. Thanks

[Tom Rinaldo]

62. Please doon't mind me butting in here since I have been called out personally on this thread

What I do not appreciate is inconsistencies in how leading members of our coalition are treated (and as per DU rules etc that includes Bernie Sanders.) I am not pointing out false equivalences. I am asking that this larger debate not be hijacked into an opportunity to come down hard on Bernie Sanders and Bernie Sanders only. As everyone knows he has one of the best records in Congress (and has had for over 25 years) on pro choice issues.

When I discuss Tim Kaine, for example, I give him full credit for his pro choice record as a Senator. Why is his prior record relevant at all? Because the Democratic Party has shown a willingness to accept the fact that he was capable of "evolving" regarding his public policy stances on Pro Choice issues from a point earlier in his career. When he held a regional position in a then reddish purple sate, Tim Kaine's record was checkered and would be called "inexcusable" by today's standards. We will find that we face that problem as a Party in other conservative regions today as we seek to identify electable candidates who had previously won elections from very conservative constituencies. I am clear that we need them to unequivocally "evolve" also should they seek support for higher office. Should they be completely blackballed though, as Tim Kaine wasn't, by our party over their prior views?

In regards to your comment:

"A Democrat, any Democrat, in the House or Senate is better than a Republican because they contribute to a potential majority. That includes the ones whose positions I find abhorrent, like the ones who vote against waiting periods to buy guns or vote against a woman's right to choose. That, however, doesn't mean they should be favored by the party, singled out for special treatment, like promoting them on a so-called unity tour."

You were writing, I know, in regards to questions about Bob Casey. I agree with you that it is complex. You added:

"I don't know how Perez is going to deal with Democrats like Casey now that he has decided that abortion rights are non-negotiable. Thankfully, I don't have to face a decision to vote for someone like Casey or Manchin." But Democrats in Nebraska do need to face that decision of course about Mello, who has clearly staked out for this race a position that is pro-choice relative to his Republican opponent.

You assert "That, however, doesn't mean they should be favored by the party, singled out for special treatment, like promoting them on a so-called unity tour." So I ask you, was Bob Casey favored by our party, and "singled out for special treatment" when the Democratic Party nominee for President chose him as one of her campaign surrogates in her election campaign?

You are right that these are complex issues. I don't have all the answers, but I believe these are questions we need to be asking across the board, and not allow them to be confined only for use in arguments against one pro choice member of the Senate Democratic Caucus.

[BainsBane]

65. I really do not know much about Casey

I was unaware that he was anti-choice until you pointed it out. I don't know how the party treated him. Frankly, I am not interested in excuses for abandoning women's rights. Any politician who takes an anti-choice position is unacceptable.

I know you think this is about Bernie. It has long since metastasized beyond Bernie and Mello to those anxious to defend undermining women's rights. I gather, but have not yet read, there is an article on HuffPo insisting women's concerns about abortion rights is "dividing the party." We are to abandon our rights for "unity." Fuck that. Fuck efforts to turn the clock back a half century. Fuck the hard turn to the right under the guise of progressive. My rights are non-negotiable. I am not worth less than you, and I will not be treated as less.

Bernie and Mello were but the spark by which some men coalesced around undermining women's rights. To put it off on those two politicians is disingenuous. People would not be arguing what they are in they did not want to see those rights undermined. Attachments to political elites don't justify reactionary attacks against women's rights. Citizens are responsible for their own arguments and actions. Now we know what they are.
Now we know they are not our allies.

[jberryhill]

78. "I was unaware that he was anti-choice" - then you know nothing about the issue

The most important Supreme Court case on the subject, after Roe v. Wade is Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

Absent a familiarity with Casey, I don't see how anyone could consider themselves knowledgeable about the issue to any significant extent.

I have utterly no idea how someone could present themselves as conversant on the issue and be unfamiliar with the name. Granted, it was his father who was governor in the decision, but given that it certainly would ring a bell on anyone familiar with the judicial arc of the abortion issue in the United States and at least check what his son has been up to.

[BainsBane]

79. Then I'm not knowledgeable

I didn't claim to be. Nor do I have to be to demand equal citizenship.

[BainsBane]

66. Additionally, you don't need to go to another campaign for parallels

Last edited Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:45 PM - Edit history (1)

You could ask the question about Ellison, my own congressman. I only discovered yesterday that he went with Sanders to campaign for Mello. I support and like Ellison. I do not support nor like Bernie, but that doesn't change my view that both behaved unacceptably in singling out Mello for support. I will make my disappointment clear to Ellison. Bernie supporters could take the same position toward him, only they won't. Based on what we have seen over the past few days, now i realize it is because of their own lack of concern for my equal rights. Bernie is but an excuse.

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. I know many here on DU see this as you do

That is; It is not just about Bernie. And I told you days ago that I know that this is an important larger debate for Democrats to be having - across the party and beyond. You may not agree with my observation, but I also think that for many here on DU it was mostly a way to get at Bernie. That doesn't mean that even in those cases that the concerns being raised about the issue are not real, just that in those cases the outrage manifest has been curiously selective.

I would just suggest that you not automatically assume that in every case in which a Democrat (on any level) lends any type of support to another Democrat (on any level) who has in their past taken a position on an issue that can reasonably be considered anti-choice, that it always constitutes a lack of concern for your equal rights. Details and context can mater. It could be they don't fully value your rights. It could also just be them being wrong, or it could be them, in some instances, being strategic in a manner that could overall move the ball forward toward attaining your equal rights.

I recognize that my own standing in that debate is compromised from the gitgo to an extent because, as much as I may strive to be an ally, I will never have had the experience of being female in this society. But there are also some good feminist women who in a given instance may draw a different conclusion to the one you may personally make. Some of them no doubt will be supporting Mello (for example) in Omaha for this one race - future races to be determined. Others will push back against him and those who do. I do recognize the legitimacy of the larger debate, let that continue, it is important.

I will mostly be pulled away from DU now for the rest of the day.

[BainsBane]

76. Your position isn't compromised because you are male

it's because you have been working to normalize a turn against women's rights by saying others are anti-choice. No one disputes the fact they are anti-choice Democrats. The question is why so many who claim to be on the left want to justify pulling the party away from equal rights for women and thus economic justice? It's a hard turn to the right, and it's not going to fly.

[JoeOtterbein]

24. Why is Tom "attempt to normalize moving the party away from equal rights"?

I really do not understand. ???

[BainsBane]

25. He has been running around the site posting false eqivalencies

In order to justify Bernie's actions and statements indicating he is receptive to politicians who oppose equal rights for women.

[JoeOtterbein]

28. Sorry, I like Bernie too. Can you be more specific about Tom and Bernie???

[BainsBane]

50. Do a search.

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. Better yet read post #62 above

I am not hiding from anyone regarding an open discussion. I can be talked to directly

[JoeOtterbein]

26. Is it because Tom R. has a Bernie pic?

[fleabiscuit]

41. That's not a Bernie pic. nt

[Demit]

53. Bob Casey is a very vocal supporter of Planned Parenthood.

He's a vocal supporter of contraception. He supports the Plan B morning-after pill as contraception, not an abortifacent. Here's from a recent (very disapproving) article in a pro-life publication:

“Pro-Life Democrat” Bob Casey Says He Will Oppose Efforts to De-Fund Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz

Bob Casey, a Catholic U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania who calls himself pro-life, recently indicated he’s opposed to defunding the nation’s biggest abortion business. “I stand with the 2.5 million people who visit @PPFA each year. PPFA stands for Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
He “diverged from the pro-life platform in his support of President Obama’s Health and Human Services Mandate in the ACA, which requires Catholic and other religious groups to cover contraception and drugs that have the potential to cause abortions, despite the Roman Catholic Church’s longstanding opposition to such practices.
“I’ll go with the scientists on what contraception is, rather than a religious viewpoint of what science is,” Casey said in the National Review.”
http://www.lifenews.com/2017/01/09/pro-life-democrat-bob-casey-says-he-will-oppose-efforts-to-de-fund-planned-parenthood-abortion-biz/


I know that he's not ideal on the issue of choice. But he's not a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-abortion fanatic either. Just wanted to put this out there for people who don't know much about him.

[uponit7771]

13. Thank you, the amount of gas lighting going on to enable the non purism on social issues is gob ...

... smacking.

[BainsBane]

17. They've exposed themselves

in no uncertain terms. Now we know all the talk about returning to the FDR party was not just insensitive but deliberate.

[Cha]

32. No Shite!

Spinning as fast as their little spinners will let them.

[betsuni]

15. K&R

[Grassy Knoll]

16. K & R

[NurseJackie]

22. So I've been reading posts that are LIES? People have been SMEARING DEMOCRATS with LIES?

What is WRONG with people who do shit like that?

That's fucked up.

[sheshe2]

34. K&R

[Steven Maurer]

38. If Mello is now no longer supporting anti-choice legislation...

...regardless of his personal belief or prior positions, I don't see what the problem is.

Isn't this "you were wrong before" purity argument same kind of attack that was used against both President Obama and Secretary Clinton on their evolving positions on gay marriage?


> A spokeswoman for Mello also told the Huffington Post that the candidate “has fought against the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and fought against defunding Planned Parenthood.”

His fighting against the defunding of Planned Parenthood leads me to believe that we can work with him.

[BainsBane]

39. It's a very sudden change

So sudden it seems like it's not a real change at all. Just because a politician says something during a campaign doesn't make it true. He has a long record of voting against women's reproductive rights.

[SunSeeker]

42. Sudden indeed, and prompted by the backlash.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/omaha-mayoral-candidate-under-fire-says-he-would-never-do-anything-to-restrict-access-to-reproductive-health-care_us_58f8e868e4b018a9ce590a84?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

[Cha]

47. Mahalo, SunSeeker.. so all this backlash from

us Women is Working!

Omaha Mayoral Candidate Under Fire For Anti-Choice Past Vows To Protect Reproductive Rights

snip//

Mello co-sponsored a bill in 2009 requiring women to be informed that they could see an ultrasound before having an abortion, a move that national groups appeared to be unaware of until just now. Rewire reports further:

Mello is a sponsor of the final version of a 20-week abortion ban approved by the governor in 2010, and cast anti-choice votes in favor of requiring physicians to be physically present for an abortion in order to impede access to telemedicine abortion care, and a law banning insurance plans in the state from covering abortions. He was endorsed in 2010 by anti-choice group Nebraska

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/omaha-mayoral-candidate-under-fire-says-he-would-never-do-anything-to-restrict-access-to-reproductive-health-care_us_58f8e868e4b018a9ce590a84?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

[Steven Maurer]

44. Speaking as a Hillary supporter absolutely annoyed with purity trolling in the primary...

...this smacks to me very close to the same type of arguments used against her, with little justification.

Remember how Hillary was supposedly "disingenuous" when, seeing the details of the final TPP (in which the devil is), she decided she couldn't support it because it didn't do enough to protect US jobs? Then got attacked over that? It's the same thing.

Moving from an anti-choice to a pro-choice position isn't easy, especially when religion is involved. My own (now ex-) wife was Catholic when I met her. Now she's vice-chair of the Democratic Party of Oregon and best friends with the state's NARAL director. But still, it took her 20 years.

I don't think we should be bashing people for being impure, calling them corrupt, blah, blah. That's the exact sort of thing that contributed to what happened in November.

[BainsBane]

46. That isn't at all what this is

Read this:

Mello co-sponsored a bill in 2009 requiring women to be informed that they could see an ultrasound before having an abortion, a move that national groups appeared to be unaware of until just now. Rewire reports further:

Mello is a sponsor of the final version of a 20-week abortion ban approved by the governor in 2010, and cast anti-choice votes in favor of requiring physicians to be physically present for an abortion in order to impede access to telemedicine abortion care, and a law banning insurance plans in the state from covering abortions. He was endorsed in 2010 by anti-choice group Nebraska Right to Life.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/omaha-mayoral-candidate-under-fire-says-he-would-never-do-anything-to-restrict-access-to-reproductive-health-care_us_58f8e868e4b018a9ce590a84?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

And the point is not that he shouldn't be allowed in the party but rather asking why he is signaled out for the benediction of progressive as opposed to other Democrats around the country, like Ossoff?

Sanders imposes purity tests, but for some reason the rights of half the population don't figure into the exam. WTF is that about?

And the issue is we see people running around this site working to justify undermining women's rights precisely because Bernie is championing anti-choice candidates,. How can there be economic justice when women fall into even greater poverty, which is what happens when they are denied access to reproductive care.

[Steven Maurer]

52. Well, I don't think Senator Sanders speaks for the Democratic party...

Like all Democratic electeds, he speaks for himself. So if he wants to favor one candidate over a different one, that's his right.

In fact, I'm fine with it because the next time that someone brings up Sanders in some attempt to bash Democrats because they actually care about winning, I'll mention this.

Fundamentally, I agree that we can't purity troll. But for all that I didn't like Bernie as much as I did Hillary in the primary, in the end - he did endorse her for the general. And though he did so less enthusiastically than I would have hoped, he wasn't nearly as petulant as Kennedy was vs President Carter, which helped hand the Presidency over to Reagan.

Mostly, my issue is with some of Sanders' more extreme followers, not him. So if Sanders makes any sort of movement towards pragmatism, I'm going to encourage him, not bash him for it.

[BainsBane]

40. Also what's with the false claim of 100% rating from PP?

That turned out to be fabricated. PP Nebraska said they had not given him a good rating and that they had organized against his legislative efforts. They said if he has changed, their door is open to talk to him.

[Cha]

43. "Tim Kaine is pro-choice, not pro-death"

snip//

My understanding is that what Kaine is supporting is the right of a woman to choose whether or not to carry that embryo to term. This should be a private decision between a woman and her doctor, and Kaine has rightly assessed that neither the state nor the church should be involved in it.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-tim-kaine-abortion-20161008-snap-story.html

Thank you

[Snackshack]

51. Thank you.

For the dose of reality.

However since reality is relative the logic of it will simply be ignored or pass some by altogether.

[JustAnotherGen]

58. My answer

Why the urgency to defend efforts to move equal rights off the Democratic agenda?

They want women out of the work force. Less competition for jobs. However - the "guy" is now going to have to work two jobs because he has shitty pay.

[Bettie]

61. In this mayor's race people are so angry about

is there a fully pro-choice Democrat running for the office?

If not, then what do we do? Do we cede the race to the Republican because the Democrat running isn't sufficiently pure?

Or do we get a Dem in and work to get a better one next time around?

I'm a woman. I am pro-choice. Fully.

But, there is also the point that in this case, there isn't a third option, there are two people running for the office, one with a D after his name, one with an R.

[BainsBane]

64. It's gone way beyond that

Last edited Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:25 PM - Edit history (1)

It started with Mello, but he subsequent defenses of anti-choice have made it about undermining women's rights. Some have worked hard to normalize efforts undermine or deprioritize equal rights.

[Bettie]

75. But can you answer my question?

Should Democrats vote for the Republican because the Democrat isn't pure enough?

Should they not vote?

Should the seat simply be ceded to the Republican because the "wrong person" endorsed him?

[Gothmog]

67. Yeah for this thread

[niyad]

68. K and R and thanks, BB, for getting the information out there. I cannot believe this is

actually an issue, but then, little surprises me these days.

[BainsBane]

69. Someone came to DU after being gone a few days

and said she felt like she was back in the 70s, when the very same arguments about women's rights were being made.

[niyad]

70. I had the same feeling. deja vu all over again!

[Kentonio]

71. You'd have a point if Kaine hadn't used his position to help anti-choice people in the past

He didn't care about keeping his personal convictions to himself back then, yet apparently we're supposed to just ignore all that because you decide he's pro-choice now.

[BainsBane]

73. You absolutely can criticize statements he's made

but using that to normalize undermining women's rights is something people do for a reason.

[Kentonio]

74. Who is normalizing undermining women's rights?!

All we're asking for is some consistency!

[BainsBane]

77. You're asking for a race to the bottom

It's okay for "progressives" to endorse right-wing positions because a conservative Democrat elsewhere is pro-choice. By all means, form a new Blue Dog coalition, but don't pretend it's to the left of the rest of us.

[Kentonio]

80. I'm not the one defending conservative Democrats for christs sake