Women, we are second rate, second class, less than in the eyes of some in our Party.

[boston bean]

A party that has enjoyed immense support from women for decades.

What are we going to do about them being so willing to give up our rights over our own body, instead of doing the hard work and standing for the right thing?

Nope, they become republicanish on this issue.

What are we going to do?

For those wondering or not having a clue as to what is meant by this OP, see this:

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

What's next for our party, cater to racists, cater to bigots, be against civil right, or LGBT rights? For some reason, I don't think they would ever do that, but they feel all damned fine and comfortable to give up on womens rights.

DAMN!

[Weekend Warrior]

1. "What are we going to do"

Exactly what they are doing. Taking over the party. They have my support. The base of the Democratic Party is women and minorities.

[radical noodle]

31. This...

[MuseRider]

2. Well I guess we will see how they like it

when we do not vote for anti choice candidates. They can wail and moan and point fingers all they want. Yes we will be miserable if it derails the party but the only way for us to change this in our OWN PARTY is to let them know, in no uncertain terms, that we will not bite the bullet or take it for the team again.

What I am going to do is commit to never voting for anyone who thinks they can win or lose by giving my rights away or use them as bargaining chips and sold to win elections that will adversely affect us. Never again. Never.

EDIT: I did not see the link, going to read it now but whatever it says it does not change my mind on how I will vote. Sorry for jumping in before reading. I saw red once again reading and thinking about those who would do that to us as women and just totally missed it.

[MuseRider]

4. Amen. n/t

[brooklynite]

20. Name an anti-choice candidate the Democrats have supported...

[angrychair]

28. The point is

The DCCC and DNC has publicly stated that "there is no litmus test" and specifically referenced women's reproductive healthcare.

The Party has chosen sides and with "no litmus test" it is not that of women, LGBT, the handicap or immigrants.

Having a majority does not guarantee you can control the agenda or the bills that get passed (see current Congress)
No, I do not see Democratic Party voting to repeal Roe v Wade but I could see a scenario in which 5-10 Dems in House and 2-3 in Senate vote with republicans to enforce limits on immigration rights or limit the protections or rights for the LGBT. That is a viable possibility if we recruit and endorse candidates without regard (no litmus test) to their position on these issues.

So what is to prevent a republican running as a Democrat and caucusing with republicans? Nothing since we have no other standards than just saying your a Democrat as best as I can tell.

[MuseRider]

35. Thank you.

I just got back and you have answered this perfectly for me. I live in Kansas, we are headed right into anti choice in both parties. The Dems, or many of them who are oddly almost entirely men, are telling us that it is the only way to get a Dem in office. I say why would that matter to women? Dem or Repub we will lose more of our right to make our own health care decisions. Again, I would rather fight someone who is almost completely against me than have to stand up to this kind of pressure for daring to question a Democrat. Boy that is about the least popular thing in the world. If you cannot question them and help shape the party then why have them?

[angrychair]

56. Kansas is a hot mess

Here in Washington, our state Senate is controlled by republicans because 1 Dem is caucusing with Republicans. He even got reelected in 2014, almost completely based on the premise of "as long as they have a "D" after their name I will vote for them".

Our budget fight this year was dragged out for months because of 1 vote in the Senate.

Hope that Brownback leaving helps improve Kansas a little.

[MuseRider]

59. He leaves us with a more religious version

of himself. Thankfully we made progress getting more moderate R's elected. When you live in a state like this you have to be able to move around a lot and make those decisions and we had some real hard work done by Dems to get that to happen. Hopefully we are headed up or we will end up with Colyer, Brownback's replacement, or Kobach.

That is really horrible for you. It is hard to get them to move when they were elected then re-elected by behaving that way. I wish you luck, I wish us luck.

[Nay]

38. The Tea Party had no problems kicking ass and taking names, and those idiots

have taken over the whole Pub Party. So I think we all need to commit to NEVER voting for a candidate that is going to even consider giving any bedrock rights away. If I am a fucking "bargaining chip," then this 'chip' is gonna do everything possible to mess with the assholes who think they can do this to us.

[hamsterjill]

48. Well said!

n/t

[angrychair]

55. +1. Nt

[Orrex]

5. Why don't you just be quiet and vote for the anti-choice candidate?

Can't you see that party unity is at stake?


(I seldom use the tag, but I don't want there to be any confusion here.)

[Me.]

6. Less Important Than Empty Bus Seata?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029405864

[50 Shades Of Blue]

7. K & R

[BigmanPigman]

8. Last night I volunteered for a conference call and brought this up with the organizer.

Progressive Turnout Project contacted me since I get info from many Resistance and Dem organizations. Their goal is to flip the House and plan actions, do research, work on message ing, etc. This one was for my state CA and I brought up the Abortion issue and told her that dem web sites are very interested and concerned about abortions and the dem candidates. She was on top of this and will send me info on how we can gather support and plan for future strategies and activities to draw attention to the issue and who to target. She mentioned a group called Hand Maids Resistance and Ultra Violet (feminist org.) so I'm going to volunteer to phone bank sometime soon when I get the info.

[all american girl]

40. That is awesome

[Greybnk48]

9. All true! I'm sick of decades of this shit too.

This attack is nothing new, it goes back decades. I like the expression that when it comes to women's rights they go all "republicanish." I have daughters and granddaughters and I'm done with that!

[BadgerMom]

10. So true.

I clearly remember hearing we shouldn't be upset about the ERA because we already had all those rights. Apparently, Mr. Lujan didn't get that message.

Of course, I won't vote for a Republican. My vote is set. But my voice will be heard. Enough with this! Of course, people can oppose abortion. But do not try to take away my rights, my daughters' rights or my granddaughter's rights. Choice is individual. Rights are for the group.

And, while I won't vote for a Republican, the DCCC will not get my financial support. I'll support candidates I choose, not the roster without examination.

[Greybnk48]

27. Me too! I send money to individual candidates

of my choosing.

[hamsterjill]

11. We will never go back.

Absolute bullshit that we're still even discussing the subject in 2017. Absolute bullshit. It should have been over in 1973.

The following is my opinion, and at least today, as a woman, I still have the right to have one. Who knows. Tomorrow I may not have that right. You may agree, or you may disagree, and THAT is YOUR right...at least for today.

Democrats lose because Democrats don't fight. Democrats try to appease. Democrats try to get along. Democrats try to make everyone happy. Democrats try not to be too controversial. Democrats try to be too politically correct.

Democrats need to just get on with it. Democrats need to be clear on their message. Democrats need to stick to the platform of the party and be proud and vocal about those issues that are supported by that party platform. They need to learn to shout their ideals from the rooftops, and to counter the Republicans who lie about those ideals fiercely and defiantly.

Democrats did not lose because of Hillary, or because of abortion, or because of Bernie Sanders. Democrats lost because they are perceived as not as tough or as strong as Republicans.

We need to change that.

So, if my right to have this view is ever taken from me, you need to understand that I'm going to be fighting like hell to keep it. Just like I'm going to be fighting like hell for women to have control over their own bodies. Because if we give up ANY deserved right, then ALL of our rights come into question.

When you start telling me that it's going to take caving in on women's rights to win an election, what you are really telling me is that YOU are not willing to fight as hard as I am to save those rights.

[angrychair]

30. +1000.

Well I'm a man but I stand with you and every women to the bitter end in defense of your basic human rights (which includes reproductive healthcare)

[hamsterjill]

49. Thank you.

We definitely need more men (like you) who will speak up in support.

Appreciate it!

[kerry-is-my-prez]

57. A lot of married women (Republicans) are our worst enemies.

[hamsterjill]

58. You got that right.

I've never understood how any woman cannot be pro choice, except that when "they" need an abortion, it's always "different for them".

[suffragette]

32. +1,000

[leftstreet]

33. +1

If you haven't seen this article, it's worth a read. For people like me, old enough to remember Roe v Wade, it's downright startling to see how it's become a political football at the expense of women. The original justices really had no interest in women at all during their deliberation (no surprise there). And the majority of the country agreed after the decision that a woman should have a right to choose. Until, of course, a few years later and the (OMG!) ERA, and the religious reich, and politicians, etc

Misconceptions
By Linda Greenhouse January 23, 2013

Francis Lorson, the longtime chief deputy clerk of the Supreme Court, once told me the following story. On a January day in the mid-1970s, he and Justice Potter Stewart were in an official car traveling from the court to the White House, where the justice was to preside at a swearing-in ceremony. As they rode along Pennsylvania Avenue, they saw a crowd heading in the opposite direction, up Capitol Hill toward the court.

Justice Stewart, clearly oblivious to the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, asked his companion what was going on. These were people marching in protest against legalized abortion, Mr. Lorson explained.

The justice shook his head in puzzlement. “I don’t understand,” he said. “We’ve decided that.”

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/misconceptions/

[hamsterjill]

39. Thanks. That article is great.

I lived in a small town in south Texas when the ERA was being decided. There was so much misinformation conveyed on it. All of the locals were against it because "we don't want men going into the same bathrooms as women".

That's all it took. And you wonder where the Republicans came up with the bathroom bills!!!!

The uber right extremes have done a miraculous job of using abortion as a hot button issue. They've been masterful at using it to incite passion in their base. The Dems have virtually done nothing to combat that.

It's time the Dems step up. With facts, figures and scientific information.

[MuseRider]

36. 100% with you.

[Mountain Mule]

12. They can tell me to "bite the bullet" for the sake of the party

But this time around, I won't. At this rate my question will be "What party?" I think it's a fatal mistake for the Democrats to turn themselves into Trump Lite in the attempt to win back votes. We lost in 2016 because we strayed too far from our message as a party and ignored the growing progressive movement. What else are we going to get rid of in a futile quest for votes? Health care? Education? Climate change?

The Trump crowd is absolutely delighted that the Dems are actually considering this. I also frequent open forums and the Cult Members are posting their joy over this one.

How stupid is the party "leadership" if they sanction positions that will only further splinter the party. Giving up the good for the sake of the perfect? Women's rights are human rights. Hello?

[IronLionZion]

13. Recruit and support pro-choice candidates in the primaries

make them win so decisively in the general election that this doesn't become an issue. It only comes up as an issue when Democrats lose.

Winning back the majority in congress puts pro-choice women like Pelosi in leadership to choose what type of legislation to advance forward and provide strong opposition to the mad king who would love to repeal the 19th amendment and set women back a few hundred years to make America great again.

[niyad]

14. even here, we have people defending that bs

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029396435

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029396321

[lark]

17. There was another one yesterday saying we shouldn't be for abortion rights.

So the fact that these types of threads have really sprung up around here lately is such a bad sign for us. The men seem eager to throw us overboard but hell no we won't go. We are the backbone of the Democratic party and are not giving in or going away and we decide who we will and will not support. It's just like the people talking about how Dems have a bad message and we have to change. BS! We got 3,000,000 more votes, not less. What we have to stop is the vote hacking and stealing by R&R's (Repugs and Russians) and we win. Stop Citizens United and we win. Even with everything stacked against us, the American people as a whole still support this message because it's a message of hope for all.

[niyad]

19. Dear Goddess, I missed that one--probably just as well. I might have said something.

[geek tragedy]

15. no one is suggesting the party weaken its civil and human rights platform.

If an anti-choice Democrat votes for Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker, that's much much much better for the cause of reproductive choice--and every other issue women and men care about--than having an even more anti-choice Republican voting for Paul Ryan.

There are a lot of Congressional districts where pro-choice candidates are virtually unelectable.

[boston bean]

21. You are right. They are asking to weaken womens rights. Why??

[geek tragedy]

23. Nobody is asking to weaken women's rights.

I have great respect for you and your advocacy, but I fear this may be a case where disagreement over how to achieve goals gets interpreted by some as disagreement over which goals to pursue.

[aggiesal]

16. What don't these people understand? ...

It's all about the base, 'bout the base !!!

[wryter2000]

18. Precisely why I never give money to the DCCC

I support candidates who believe in women's rights (and other core principles of justice).

[BadgerMom]

25. Emily's List may receive all my money this time.

[niyad]

22. for those who did not read the whole article:

************ABORTION RIGHTS WERE NOTICEABLY ABSENT FROM THE PARTY'S NEW PUSH ***************announced last week, meant to unify the party around an agenda outside of opposition to Trump. That plan, called “A Better Deal,” focused on economic policy largely related to jobs, wages and reducing the burden on families.

[YOHABLO]

24. I want a woman President!! Now. Let's get Elizabeth Warren to go for it. She'd be fab.

Oh by the way I'm a gay white guy in very Red GA. There are plenty down here who are hoping for the same. The first woman President will be from the Dem Party whoever she might be.

[rainlillie]

26. There's nothing wrong with an elected Democrat being anti-choice..

As long as they abide by the law of the land, respect a women's right to choose and don't try to push an anti-choice agenda. Problems arise when folks try to force their religious views or moral code on others.

[HopeAgain]

34. I'm anti-choice, but will follow the law won't work!

Anti-choice means you would take an action to limit abortions if you had the opportunity. With this Court, or just one more appointment, the right of privacy could become "unrecognized" and we need to have politicians who would not limit choice even if given the opportunity.

[rainlillie]

37. Yes, it does work. Our former governor in NYS Mario Cuomo was and he followed

the the law.

[boston bean]

44. He was pro choice then.

[rainlillie]

65. He often talked about his faith and said he would follow

the law and not let his religious beliefs dictate how he would govern.

[HopeAgain]

62. And if Roe v. Wade gets overturned?

Following the law could mean limiting choice, no?

[rainlillie]

66. If it's overturned every elected official would have to follow the law.

[hamsterjill]

43. I don't know...

MY (personal) biggest problem with Hillary - and I might add that I was and still am a big supporter of hers - was her selection of Tim Kaine.

I don't think I'm alone in that opinion either.

[boston bean]

45. I wasn't thrilled either.

[njhoneybadger]

29. If we don't win the house and senate back

In the next four years it's not going to fucking matter

[MuseRider]

41. You mean that we ALL,

men and women, will all go down as opposed to just women going down? I get it now. Really?

I am 63 years old. It is time I could stop worrying about whether women can control their own body functions without the mens getting a fucking say.

I had an illegal abortion. You have no idea unless you have been there as a young woman. It had to be very secret in a very awful place. Alone with a doctor you do not know who will not be there to help you if something goes wrong. Just wait for what is next. They are already trying to give rapists a say over women.

Nope. This time the rest of you have to move the party or lose many if not most of our votes.

[hamsterjill]

46. Very well put.

I'm so sorry that you had to endure a procedure that wasn't safe. But this IS what we will revert to if we give an inch.

Some people just don't seem to get this. Some of us do.

[MuseRider]

60. Thanks.

That was a loooong time ago. It was terrifying in many ways and I will never forget a minute of it.

I wish I could trust those who say they are anti choice but respect the law. It always seems to dilute the seriousness of the issue when they talk about being against it. I used to think that was helpful but I no longer feel that way.

[hamsterjill]

61. Like you, I'm not sure those that are anti choice but respect the law will stay that way

If those types make up a larger number. I think those types would gradually whittle away until their own views were represented.

But that's me. I personally have no objection to abortion whatsoever. It's a private matter between a woman and her healthcare provider and whoever else she chooses to involve in the situation. Beyond that, it's no one else's concern.

[Eko]

42. Nope, not to me.

First class all the way.

[oberliner]

47. About 40 percent of women in the US think abortion should be illegal

In all or most cases.

Among Hispanic women that number is even higher.

[jalan48]

50. Centrist/Conservative is not the way forward.

[Hekate]

51. You're really sure of all this? Is the 2016 Platform still in effect? Not abrogated?

It's just odd to me that the choice issue has just now arisen at DU -- just in the past few days -- in the most inflammatory terms imaginable, and that rather than considering the source of the rumors or doing due diligence in their research, people are jumping all over it like it's settled fact and threatening to leave the party that has so egregiously betrayed them.

Really?

The litmus test should not be: "Do you personally find abortion distasteful?" That's nobody's business.

The litmus test should be: "Will you defend Roe vs Wade and uphold the secular law of the land protecting the rights of women to the full range of health care, which includes both contraception and abortion?" Because, that, my friends, is everybody's business.

[ExciteBike66]

53. I think you hit the nail on the head...

Personal resistance to abortion (a la Joe Biden) is one thing, actively legislating against choice is another.

Part of the problem with our discussion over the past few days is that sometimes people say "Abortion" when they mean "Choice". I would support a Dem like Joe Biden over a Republican, but I would not support a Dem who wanted to enact anti-choice legislation.

[Ms. Toad]

52. You're seriously asking the "What's next . . . be against . . . LGBT rights"

With the response "I don't think they would ever do that."

A tad more than 4 years ago, our president was against LGBT rights, or at least against marriage. A tad more than 8 years ago, he invited one of the most homophobic preachers available to share the podium at his inauguration. I not only voted for Obama, against my personal interests, but was one of the people who spent all of election day from the wee hours of the morning, several hours before the polls open as an observer/troubleshooter/conduit with the Board of Elections - until after midnight - working to ensure his election, despite his affirmative stance against my right to marry.

There are daily homophobic comments and trans-bigoted comments on DU that not only are made, but survive alerts AND administrative overview. In addition, when I speak out about such comments I'm told politely, or not so politely, that they (primarily not LGBT individuals) know better what is homo/trans-phobic than I (an LGBT individual) do, and what they said ONLY insulted Trump/Scaramucci - not the LGBT individuals being used as a battering ram. NEWS FLASH: If you grab the feet of an LGBT individual and swing them like a bat into Trump,et al., not only does it hurt Trump, et al, but it hurts the person being used as a bat.

Do I wish that every Democrat favored abortion rights? Absolutely - as I wished every Democrat favored including transgender individuals in the ENDA (as far as I know, Democrats still don't have a united front in including trangender individuals in an ENDA bill), or - just a few short years ago - same gender marriage.

Did I use my own personal interest as a litmus test, when there was no more LGBT-friendly candidate - no. Will I use my own personal interest in abortion rights as a litmus test now if there is no more abortion rights friendly candidate - no.

We cannot afford to be a single-issue party, whether that is an issue central to my life (as it is many times) - or not.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

54. If you live in a ultra-red state, they can take away your rep rights. You are held hostage.

What's amazing is that there hasn't been massive demonstrations, boycotts, etc. in the states that pull that shit. There's been some action but apparently it is "open season" on women.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. Anyone who echoes the Republican Platform, like on "culture war" issues, isn't a Democrat.

And they don't belong on DU.



Choice is not negotiable.

[MuseRider]

64. Absolutely. Thanks. n/t