Not seeing how funding anti-choice Dems and promoting Universal Health Coverage square up

[ehrnst]

Unless access to health care specific to women isn't considered "health care," or "universal."

[bettyellen]

1. Medicare for all may not cover essential women's services...

[ehrnst]

2. Yep. So it wouldn't actually be "universal health care coverage."

Not unless the Hyde Amendment is voted down.

Which is not going to happen with anti-choice rep.

[leftstreet]

3. It'd be Universal Non-Lady Parts Healthcare Coverage

something like that

[NCjack]

4. Important GOP male junk be covered.

[geek tragedy]

8. Hyde Amendment isn't going anywhere, any time in the next 20 years.

This is going to be a thorny thing for single payer advocates, because taxpayer-funded abortions is not politically plausible.

Single payer is a LOT more likely than tax monies being used to pay for abortions.

[ehrnst]

13. Single payer would be funded by tax monies..... that's that point. (nt)

[geek tragedy]

18. it's dangerous ground to tread, because single payer might wind up reducing abortion access

if it gets passed into law unless it's very carefully handled.

Best case scenario would be that pro-choice states would allow Medicaid funds to pay for abortion, with anti-choice states refusing to do so. If single payer displaces private insurers in those states ...

[LeftInTX]

40. It covers contraception

Pap smears etc

[bettyellen]

41. Abortion is an essential service.

[LeftInTX]

42. Ok

[MGKrebs]

5. Is there something specific this is in reference to?

Hard to respond without some context (not everything can be viewed in general terms).

[niyad]

9. the comment from ben the other day about anti-choice not being a "litmus test" for dems

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141834225

[ehrnst]

12. The DCCC deciding to give national money to anti-choice Dem candidates. (nt)

[MGKrebs]

20. OK, 3 questions.

1. Is there a pro-choice Dem candidate in that race?
2. Is the race winnable?
3. Is it better to have an anti-choice Dem than a Repub?

[ehrnst]

25. Here's a 4th question:

Are there enough races that hinge on Democrats being anti-choice (even enough to turn the house blue) to justify the damage this policy is doing, and the number of people who will refuse to donate to the DCCC because of it?

[MGKrebs]

28. I would think you have to take that on a case by case basis.

[ehrnst]

43. So you don't have any real numbers on these nearly blue (but for abortion) districts?

And somehow that's what's going to get us back the house - because they "might" exist - and we should alienate our base, just in case?

[MGKrebs]

44. Why are you asking me? I am the one who asked for specifics,

not generalities.

[loyalsister]

6. I would like to see what the details are on their positions

Is it possible that they have the same position as our last VP candidate? If so, I hate it but I still voted for him. As I think most DUers did. It's a slippery slope, but if they aren't put in positions of power via committees, etc. And if they do not pursue outlawing it agressively, maybe it wouldn't spell disaster.

There were once some anti-choice Democrats in MO who I SO wish were still there because I know they would not have voted for RTW, eliminating the option of local minimum wages. They also would have expanded Medicaid and the income limit to qualify would be higher than 18% of the FPL. They also were not agressively calling for extreme restrictions and fully supported government funded health services including birth control along with all of the exceptions for the health of the woman when it came to abortion.

In other words, they were uncomfortable with abortion, did not think it should be illegal, and did not have a callous attitude towards women.

"Legal, safe, and rare" was the official position in 92. It hated then and I hate it now. I would not support anyone who, for example, took Tim Kaine's position when I felt I had a "choice." But unfortunately we were in that position in 92, last year, and nothing has changed.

[ehrnst]

11. Our last VP candidate was Pro-choice, NOT anti-choice, like the DCCC proposes we fund.

This is about their voting record, and statements on legislation.

[loyalsister]

14. He was on record as being personally against abortion

That has been enough for me to look for an alternative in a local primary.

[CrispyQ]

16. Why go on the record saying that?

If one is personally against abortion, but agrees that it is a decision that is not ones to make, then one is pro-choice. A politician's personal feelings about the abortion are not pertinent. They support the dem platform on this issue or they don't. It's that simple. But no, they muddy the water by saying they are pro-choice but personally against abortion. It feels like they are trying to placate the anti-choice crowd.

[loyalsister]

23. "It feels like they are trying to placate the anti-choice crowd"

That is exactly what they are doing. That is what both Clintons did when they said "legal, safe, and rare." It's more neutral, but rare implies that it is valid to consider abortion to be morally unacceptable. I hate hearing it from anyone who I want to be pro-choice.

Yet, I am also aware of the fact that politicians have to play to the crowd and we need a bigger one voting for Democrats.

I noted in another thread that I am personally pro-abortion. I am in favor of the existance of that surgical procedure. I'd never say that to my grandma or a room full of my relatives, but that is my personal view. It's a reality of relationships and politics that language and positions are presented with vague language. While "rare" can be interpreted as middle ground or even validation of anti-choicers, one coulr also interpret "safe and legal" as in my most optimistic view pro-abortion.

The language used in politics is like the language of advertising. The goal is to tap into existing biases of as many people as possble. Vague language, equivocations, and deflections turn my stomach sometimes, but using them effectively can be the difference between winning and losing.

[ehrnst]

31. A voting record is what we are talking about in terms of the DCCC.

Not a politicians' personal feelings.

"Democrats will not withhold financial support for candidates who ****oppose abortion rights,***** the chairman of the party’s campaign arm in the House said in an interview with The Hill.

The defintion of pro-choice has nothing to do with your feelings on abortion - but the legality of it.

Is that clearer?

[loyalsister]

34. What about his record?

It hasn't always been so good. Parental notification, money for crisis pregnancy centers, bill banning late term abortions. His record improved in the senate. But a similar long term record would have been a deal breaker if I could make a choice between a that candidate and someone who has been 100% pro-choice all along. At the same time, I would vote for whichever Democrat wons that hypothetical primary.

[ehrnst]

33. Or they are being honest.... and they feel like most people do

having some personal doubts or issues with abortion, but support that it be legal.

[loyalsister]

35. I always try to hold out hope that that is not the case

when I hear rhetoric from candidates I want to vote for but have my own doubts when they demonize the procedure, and therefore the women who have it.

[CrispyQ]

39. This:

"... but have my own doubts when they demonize the procedure, and therefore the women who have it."

[ehrnst]

29. Not on his voting record - he wasn't against keeping abortion legal.

That was argued and decided here on DU.

It's a false claim, and was used as an attempt to create a false equivalency when Sanders endorsed an anti-choice mayoral candidate.

Is that clearer?

[loyalsister]

38. The point is not whether or not his particular record matters

I'm over Time Kaine. Just using his position and record as a reference for a hypothetical. Parental notification that would make it illegal for a woman to have an abortion without parental permission and money to crisis preganacy centers who lobby to make abortion illegal are decidedly anti-choice policies.

My point is whether or not someone with a similar record would be a questionable candidate. I would reject such a candidate in a primary but would vote for them in a general election.

[loyalsister]

27. Please share all of it

nt.
And, please include transcripts of their conversations with DCCC members. Since that's not possible, maybe it is reasonable to wait for more details.

[ehrnst]

32. What transcripts?

Here's the statement:

"Democrats will not withhold financial support for candidates who oppose abortion rights, the chairman of the party’s campaign arm in the House said in an interview with The Hill.

Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) said there will be no litmus tests for candidates as Democrats seek to find a winning roster to regain the House majority in 2018."


http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/344196-dem-campaign-chief-vows-no-litmus-test-on-abortion

Nothing there about personal feelings about abortion - but where they stand on abortion rights.

And Tim Kain was and is pro-choice. He supports abortion rights. If you don't get that, you are unclear on what pro-choice is. You don't get a 100% score from NARAL and Planned Parenthood if you aren't pro-choice.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/50772/tim-kaine#.WYDVDYgrIdU

You have been corrected on that before. Posts promoting the lie that Tim Kaine is anti-choice got deleted for spreading lies.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1536810

Is that clearer?

[loyalsister]

37. That's my point

Unless you know ALL of the details you are making assumptions that might not be fair to jump to conclusions and worst case scenarios. It's especially not fair to the men women and children who have healthcare to gain and a lot to lose.

[geek tragedy]

7. because anti-choice Dems would vote for a Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives.

the ACA passed with the votes of anti-choice Dems

[ehrnst]

10. So we lost them because of Pro-choice voters? Or not funding dem anti-choice voters?

Still not sure how giving anti-choice dems national money will win back the house.

Which districts specifically?

[geek tragedy]

19. Take, for example, NC-11

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina%27s_11th_congressional_district

1991-2007: Charles Taylor--arch wingnut and Handmaids Tale ideologue.
2007-2013: Heath Shuler--anti-choice Blue Dog Democrat
2013-present: Mark Meadows--leader of the House Freedom Caucus--arch wingnut and Handmaids Tale ideologue.

Not a coincidence that Shuler's term in office coincided with Democratic majorities.

If we're going to take back the house, we need to win districts like NC-11.

[dsc]

21. The NC 11 that Shuler represented doesn't exist anymore

that is why he didn't run in 2012 he knew he couldn't win.

[geek tragedy]

22. NC will have to redistrict again, no? nt

[dsc]

24. No

they did have to redistrict some of the state but not that part. That part of the state is very white so there was no racial aspect to the districts. Now if the cases about partisan gerrymandering go our way then that district would have to be redrawn.

[ehrnst]

26. How many more of them are there? Especially now that district is gone.

Enough to turn the house blue, and mitigate the damage this policy is going to do the the DCCC's fundraising efforts?

[geek tragedy]

36. if the DCCC won't field competitive candidates in at least 218 seats, doesn't

really matter how much money people throw at it.

If people want an ideologically pristine, permanent minority party, have at it. But for many of us, parties are merely instruments towards larger policy goals, and there has yet to be a case made why a wingnut Republican voting for Paul Ryan is considered no worse than an anti-choice Democrat voting for Nancy Pelosi.

It's gobsmacking that people think we have the luxury--yes, luxury--of intentionally starving possible pick up seats of resources.

We are a minority party, and minority parties do not survive if they insist on narrowing their appeal

[brooklynite]

15. The Democratic Party is NOT endorsing "anti choice" candidates...

they are endorsing "pro life" candidates. The two are NOT THE SAME.

[Corvo Bianco]

17. I prefer candidates who don't send my womb to the dark ages.

[Ms. Toad]

30. Ideally, all Democratic candidates with be lock-step with me on every issue.

The reality is that they won't be - and I have to make choices about who is closest, on which issues, how much I care about those issues, whether they are electable, and who their opponent is.

That is not to say access to abortion is not significant issue. It is, but it is not the only issue, nor is it the only health care matter specific to women.

I have major problems when either party dishonestly characterizes the issue.

I will no more withhold support from a candidate on the sole issue of abortion than I did from Barack Obama on the sole issue of LGBT rights - and, as I criticized President Obama through his first term on his refusal to support same gender marriage - I will criticize any Democratic candidate who opposes access to abortion.