Is the Democratic Party turning its back on reproductive rights?

[Nikki Stone 1]

With "pro-life" Senator Harry Reid chosen as minority leader and now Jesse Jackson being photographed with Randall Terry, I am beginning to wonder if the Dems are throwing women's reproductive rights overboard in an effort to gain votes.

If not, then what the hell is going on?

[wyldwolf]

1. I rather prefer both Howard Dean's and Hillary Clinton's recent takes...

...echoing Bill Clinton - let's keep abortion safe, rare, and legal.

Let's work to eliminate or limit the need for abortion through education.

It's actually a brilliant strategy - which Republicans will go on record refusing to help eliminate the need for abortion by educating young people?

I don't put much stock in what Jackson has done nor do I equate the Shaivo case with reproductive rights.

In addition, abortion hasn't always been the hot button issue with Democrats. There are still many older anti-choice Democrats who were around before it was an issue.

Has Reid stated he would not back legislation to ban or limit abortion?

[saracat]

5. But the Right to Lifers do. They say this is the first step to abolition

of Roe v. Wade. Didn't you see the protest signs calling for more "conservative judges'? This is all about the judiciary. Anti-abortion and anti-right to die are all part of the "culture of life".!

[wyldwolf]

6. though I have no evidence beyond my personal observations..

..I believe the Shaivo case is the the beginning of the end to their tyranny of intimidation.

RW talker Boortz, who is a faux libertarian with a big GOP following, is calling on the Republicans to purge them from their party or risk losing power.

He even recommended (shocker!) his listeners read the new Krugman editorial on the religious right.

In addition, at a Tom Price (R) town meeting several nights ago, Shaivo "supporters" were shouted down by the mostly Republican audience who see this as big government intrusion.

Just my observation - but when the right starts marginalizing these kooks, you get the impression their most influential days are behind them.

[Nikki Stone 1]

8. Wylewolf, I hope you are right; and there is some evidence for your view

Some Republicans who understand the dangers of a potential theocracy are coming out and saying something. My fear is that it may be too late.

[Nikki Stone 1]

7. The Schiavo case has everything to do with abortion, as odd as it seems

It has to do with the definitions of "life" and protections for it. This case has also created a precedent, where Congress will step in to "err on the side of life" as Bush put it. I can imagine a time in the near future when politicians will show up at Planned Parenthoods to protect fetuses who are "citizens" of their states. It's only a matter of time.

[The Flaming Red Head]

62. It gave the spouse too many rights

It might backfire. If you were viewed as mentally incapacitated, could you be forced to carry a pregnancy to full term against your wishes?

[rodeodance]

97. These 'rights' grew out our common law heritage. We CAN change the

laws in an orderly fashion (not like was done on Palm Sunday by our Congress and followed by Bush signing the bill in his pj's--which makes a mockery out of our legislative/executive branch0.

[serryjw]

124. You are absolutely correct......What about the recent

state legislation to allow Pharmacists from NOT filling b/c pills. Remember fundies think that b/c pills are the same as abortion. Why we sit here and try and protect ROE on the National level they chip away at it on the state level. NOW 83% of all US counties have no abortion rights/practitioner.

[OzarkDem]

21. Pay attention to other women's health issues

Our party's focus on reproductive issues to the exclusion of other women's health, work and social issues has been a disaster for the party and a disservice to women.

We need to stop linking women to reproduction and parenting and recognize their value as individuals, too.

[Nikki Stone 1]

28. What particular issues do you think are being ignored?

That's a genuine question from someone who has been around a long time. I'd be interested in reading your reply.

[OzarkDem]

65. All health care

for women who are past childbearing age, but under age 65. Good example is lack of access to treatment for uninsured women diagnosed with serious diseases like breast cancer (most common cancer in this age group). Most uninsured women in this age group can get a free mammogram, but can't get a biopsy or treatment.

Also lack of women's health programs or support services for women in this age group (40-64). Women who can't work during a serious illness end up getting evicted, declaring bankruptcy. Benefits only apply to women with minor children at home or senior citizens.

Its a huge, growing problem, one no one wants to pay attention to, least of all those in the reproductive rights groups. They have a very limited idea of women's health issues, but want to monopolize the issue.

[Nikki Stone 1]

72. For Breast Cancer see : www.feminist.org/other/bc/

Women's rights groups ARE concerned about all women's health care. The Fund for the Feminist Majority has a special section specifically on breast cancer:

http://www.feminist.org/other/bc/

And it is women's groups who are agitating for more research to be done in this area.



Lack of health insurance/access to care apply to men and women, and the Dems have been trying to address this, though the current Congress makes any real and lasting action unlikely.

[OzarkDem]

75. All talk, no action

What is their legislative agenda on this issue? Where are the specifics? What action are they taking? Posting stuff on a web site is meaningless without action to back it up.

Why do breast cancer groups often find themselves on the opposite side of reproductive health groups in lobbying efforts for health care for breast cancer patients?

If you are a reproductive rights activist, please provide some examples of legislation you've lobbied for that helped women with breast cancer.

[OzarkDem]

76. Try this web site instead

http://www.natlbcc.org/

Another example: Why did reproductive rights activists in the Dem party refuse to let breast cancer advocates speak at women's rallies during the Kerry-Edwards campaign? They fought consistently (and won) here in Ohio. Breast cancer was not mentioned at any of the Kerry Edwards rallies in Ohio.

On edit: Notice the Feminist Majority web site references the fact that National Breast Cancer Coalition was named one of the most influential health care lobbying groups on Capitol Hill, yet they don't provide a link to NBCC on their page.

Feminist Majority instead seems to support the American Cancer Society, long known to have done little since its founding in the early 1900's to promote breast cancer research, screening or treatment. Real progress didn't happen until NBCC (breast cancer survivors) took charge of the breast cancer agenda.

[Nikki Stone 1]

77. What was their reasoning for that? I find that a little incomprehensible

Especially since national health care was on Kerry's agenda. Perhaps they thought health care was better addressed as a non-gendered issue?

[OzarkDem]

79. They didn't think it was important

But they did think rights of women in Afghanistan were more important.

If breast cancer doesn't deserve attention as a women's health issue (it strikes nearly a quarter million US women a year and kills over 40,000) then why does the issue of reproductive rights?

[Nikki Stone 1]

85. Did they actually say that? Or did they think that if breast cancer was

mentioned separately--apart from general health issues--that activists for other diseases (like prostate cancer, which affects many men) would demand equal time? This would bog down any campaign.

[OzarkDem]

87. Again, my reply was deleted

So I'll re-post.

You're using a double standard. If its appropriate to ban discussion of women's cancer issues from a Dem women's rally because it doesn't include men's cancer, then why is it ok for reproductive rights to be the only women's health issue discussed? Shouldn't it also be banned because it doesn't give equal time to men's sexual health issues?

[Nikki Stone 1]

90. So the rally was only for women? (sorry if I missed that part of it)

Then, of course, the prostate cancer example would not be appropriate.

However, there are other diseases women get specifically, uterine and ovarian cancer among them. (Not to mention things like bulimia and anorexia which are almost (but not totally) female diseases.) Perhaps the organizers thought they'd have to give equal time to every disease affecting women, and they might not have had that kind of time.

Were other diseases represented at the rally?

[OzarkDem]

95. Double standard

The only women's health issue that was allowed to be discussed at the women's rallies was reproductive rights. Period.

Take a moment to check the DNC web site and the information it puts out on women's issues. Please list for me how many women's health issues are being discussed.

This isn't an issue related to some rallies, its a pervasive problem in the Dem party nationally and locally -the refusal to address the full range of women's health issues. As a result, women are suffering and dying needlessly, all because our leaders are bullied by reproductive rights advocates who insist on monopolizing the Dem women's agenda.

Can you also explain why reproductive rights and so-called feminist groups insist on supporting the American Cancer Society, a male dominated organization that blocks increased funding for women's cancer research and insists on telling women mammography will save their lives and eating fruits and vegetables will prevent their getting cancer - all discredited by current peer reviewed, scientific research? Why would feminist organizations support a cancer organization that uses breast cancer to raise funds, yet does little or nothing for women's cancer?

Did you know the most common cause of death in women age 40 - 49 is breast cancer?

[Nikki Stone 1]

107. Are you saying mammograms and a healthier diet DON'T save lives?

Do you have references for this? I'd really be interested in reading the peer reviewed journals. My aunt got breast cancer several years ago and it was caught EXTREMELY early by a mammogram. She only had to have minor surgery and the last time I saw her, she looked great. Seems to me that early screening for ALL cancers saves lives.

What are your alternatives for saving breast cancer patients?

(Edited for preposition only)

[OzarkDem]

109. That's right

Mammography is not linked to any decrease in breast cancer mortality. Early detection is only helpful if its coupled with access to quality treatment.

Read this link, it has all the information you need, including references to peer reviewed research.

http://www.natlbcc.org/bin/index.asp?strid=560&depid=9&btnid=1

Even the NCI today says early detection only provides more treatment options which, at this time doesn't translate into lower mortality.

As for survival rates - how do you define survival? As a survivor, I'd like a little more than 5 years, thank you.

Approximately 12% of women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer die from the disease within five years; at ten years, 23% will have died. Studies of women diagnosed with breast cancer in the past have shown that almost half (47%) of all women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer die from the disease within 20 years.

More about real breast cancer facts at this link

http://www.natlbcc.org/bin/index.asp?strid=427&depid=9&btnid=2

Breast cancer is a woman's issue, because the media and our so-called health policy institutions aren't honest with women about it.

[Nikki Stone 1]

117. Where is the information on the number of "false negatives"?

I consider "false positives", stressful as they are, less of a problem than false negatives. Many types of tests have false positives for various reasons and a retest can--and should-- be done at a different facility. But, the "false NEGATIVES" are a major issue--they could kill someone ultimately. There are no stats on those false negatives on the breast cancer advocacy website.

In terms of the studies mentioned on the site, I think it is very difficult to link mammography ALONE to survival rates. Clearly, the treatment given to a patient after detection is a crucial factor to survival. Diagnosis alone doesn't cure anyone.

This doesn't mean, however, that we should throw diagnosis out the window. Then we can't even identify women who need treatment. To say to women "The decision to undergo screening must be made on an individual level based on a woman's personal preferences, family history and risk factors" seems very irresponsible. If a woman waits until she has symptoms to get tested, she has probably lost valuable time that could have been spent getting treatment.

I agree with you that the cost of treatment limits the treatment options available and this is criminal. I can understand why an advocacy site would spend its limited time and resources on improving treatment, since this is the most direct link to survival rates. I also agree with you that breast cancer treatment is a women's issue--it is also a social justice issue, since quality of care is linked to socio-economic class.

I also agree that the best of the current treatment options are brutal and often don't work the way they are supposed to. This is actually a general problem with cancer treatment. My grandmother had Hodgkins lymphoma and was treated aggressively with chemo. A month after her treatment had ended, she was back in the hospital--the cancer had spread throughout her body and the chemo had made her so weak she couldn't fight it. She died within weeks. My dad still was paying her bills from the first bout after her death.

And, surprisingly, I agree with you about the American Cancer Society. I have read in several places that they have become a big, lumbering organization with the kinds of politics and "old boy network" operating procedures that are endemic in large, overly funded institutions. Wherever there is a lot of money, there are people who want it and those in charge of the purse play favorites.


A final comment on the studies: I would like to read more about them before I comment. I tend to distrust advocacy sites when they quote research because these sites have a point they are trying to make. That is why I asked you about the false negatives. The breast cancer site mentions them--creating the idea that there is a danger--and then drops the subject entirely. That's a red flag for me. Advocacy writing is intended to persuade, not necessarily to be completely informative.

And as I stated above, I disagree with your take on mammograms. They are only intended to diagnose and, for the most part, they do so. I think they are incredibly useful, especially in comparison to doing nothing at all. To reject them because they don't insure your survival is ludicrous. It is like rejecting a blood test because it doesn't cure anemia. It's not supposed to! The fact is, any diagnostic tool is helpful. Early detection is helpful.

The problem is that detection and diagnosis are just the beginning. And here's where you and I agree: there needs to be far better funding for patient care. There also needs to be more research into other, better cures. Your group seems to be advocating for both of these, and that's great. But if your group rejects mammograms because they don't cure anything, it is hurting its own credibility. Maybe this is part of the problem that you have getting support.

And going back full circle, the feminist organizations that you have problems with are part of the political circle, especially within the Beltway. They are trying to defend against the onslaught of the religious right, and are having to refight battles that they thought were over in the 1970s. They are focused on reproductive choice, because they see it as the core issue: if a woman can't control her own reproductive functions then she is not a free woman. These feminists see reproductive choice as the lynchpin, the cornerstone of women's rights. I have a feeling that if the political climate were different, and the religious right were not such a threat, these groups would be shifting their limited funds and focus elsewhere, and would be more interested in women's health issues. I actually get the impression that they would really much rather be doing other things, but the RR has made that impossible. These organizations (like NOW, the Fem Majority) feel totally under siege right now.


My own thought is that any kind of cancer advocacy group will have to fight the American Cancer Society. That's a big fight against an entrenched institution with lots of funding and clout. Maybe it is best fought in conjunction with many different cancer advocacy groups. Even though breast cancer is primarily a woman's disease (although some men do get it), it has more in common with other cancers in terms of the inequality in medical care based on socio-economic status and the lack of groundbreaking research into less brutal ways to cure it.

[OzarkDem]

119. Cites for False Negatives & More Info

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=3334960&dopt=medline

This study demonstrates that 22% of the women who have a palpable cancer of the breast will have a false-negative mammogram; 44% will be women of 50 and younger, and 13% will be women more than 50 years of age.

NCI info (a better resource for cancer information than ACS)

http://www.nci.nih.gov/cancertopics/pdq/screening/breast/healthprofessional

Ask any doctor or radiologist, they will be the first to tell you the same thing.


False negative results tend to occur in younger, pre-menopausal women whose breast tissue is more dense, the result of high levels of estrogen. You also have to understand that there are many different kinds of breast cancer. One of the most aggressive and fatal, inflammatory breast cancer, almost never shows up in mammography and can't even be detected with palpation of the breast (it has no lump)

You need to re-read our web site - we don't oppose mammography - we want to raise awareness of its limitations and demand something better. If there were no birth control availabe other than the rhythm method, I'm sure you wouldn't oppose it, but would demand something better. Why are you threatened by women who take charge, become educated and advocate for something better, just because its breast cancer?


Bottom line - Research funds need to be directed towards low cost, less invasive and more accurate methods of breast cancer screening. This probably means a shift from image based screening (mammography, MRI, etc) to more accurate and detailed detection from blood, urine or saliva testing. This is where breast cancer becomes a woman's issue - who gets to control this research agenda - the corporations who make billions of dollars on mammography or the women whose tax dollars fund the research and who want more accurate screening tools?

The science of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment is becoming increasingly refined, with some of the most innovative research focusing on tumor genomics and targeted therapies for all the different types of breast cancer, plus increased development of drugs that prevent breast cancer from returning. Declines in breast cancer mortality are the result of treatment and follow up care, ie evidence based medicine. Certain methods of birth control are expensive, difficult and cumbersome also, but I'm sure you wouldn't advocate for a return to the "rhythm method". Why should breast cancer patients be any different?

You're not going to win an argument with me. My organization provides me and other survivors with extensive training in breast cancer research. Most of the classes are taught by researchers from the National Cancer Institute and the leading academic research facilities in the US. We even participated in the creation of our own research programs

http://cdmrp.army.mil/pubs/factsheets/bcrpfactsheet.htm

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/news/4brcent.htm

Your comment about skewing facts for a hidden agenda is incredibly ignorant. When your life is on the line, there's no room for skewing the facts to suit an agenda. Our agenda is to not die from breast cancer. We follow the scientific evidence, no matter where it goes, good news or bad. The conflict arises when that evidence is in conflict with popular opinion, outdated research agendas and corporate profit.

As for the American Cancer Society - we don't fight them, we don't need them, we ignore them. They can do what they wish, we know what we want and we've trained ourselves to be participants in making that happen. ACS is irrelevant, they have little control over the research agenda and almost no control over the breast cancer legislative agenda. But its the worst kind of sexism to assume women can't accomplish that and need to rely on outdated, male dominated organizations. The fact that feminist groups continue to ignore an evidence based research agenda for breast cancer in favor of groups who spend lots of money on marketing says a lot about their judgement and ability to represent women.

The accomplishments of breast cancer activists should be a role model for other Dem women health care activists to empower and educate women and provide them with a place at the table in making decisions that affect health care, research and all aspects of public policy.

Ask our good friend Bill Clinton

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy.htm?r=Top^Health+Care^Cancer

[Nikki Stone 1]

78. How are feminists groups interfering with breast cancer legislation &which

ones?

[OzarkDem]

80. Many don't support lobbying efforts

on women's cancer issues. Their focus on women's health care access is limited to health care for only the lowest income women, or those with children at home.

Some are too heavily linked to ACOG (the OB/GYN physicians lobby) and advocate only for issues that benefit physicians, not patients.

[Nikki Stone 1]

83. That's not the same thing as "interfering".

I see no problem with a separation of labor on different women's issues by different organizations. Funding is always tight, and if a particular group is able to target lobbying (and funding) to a specific issue, then it makes more sense for other groups use their own labor and financial resources on other issues.

I see no conflict here.

[OzarkDem]

86. Its a problem

When reproductive rights groups refuse to allow other women's health issues to have equal status on the Dems health agenda and as part of its message to women. Its particularly sad when the Dem party tries to broaden the scope of discussion on women's issues and the reproductive rights groups characterize the effort as being "anti-choice".

Its also a problem when reproductive rights groups lobby against bills that promote women's health care access.

Its also a problem when reproductive rights groups refuse to support women's cancer advocacy groups run by women themselves and instead align themselves with groups like American Cancer Society, who have the worst history on advocacy and research for women's cancers.

[Nikki Stone 1]

92. Some specifics please

Point 1: When reproductive rights groups refuse to allow other women's health issues to have equal status on the Dems health agenda and as part of its message to women.

These are two separate issues. The first assumes that reproductive rights groups have control over the Democratic party agenda. Don't think that's the case. But let's say that they do argue strenuously against including issues like breast cancer as "women's issues"--though I would need proof for this. Is it possible that they see breast cancer as a more general healthcare issue, best dealt with in the healthcare policy part of the platform? The second issue, "its message to women" is interesting. I think that the inclusion of a breast cancer page on the Feminist Majority website speaks volumes to its importance. Notice that uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, and eating disorders are not on the website.


2. "Its particularly sad when the Dem party tries to broaden the scope of discussion on women's issues and the reproductive rights groups characterize the effort as being "anti-choice". "

DO you have an example of what you mean here? I am not sure what you are referring to here, that's why I am asking.


3. Its also a problem when reproductive rights groups lobby against bills that promote women's health care access.


Here again, an example. What kind of healthcare? You have already told me (above) that these groups don't interfere--they just don't divert scarce time and resources to a lobbying effort that has other groups and resources behind it. It is general statements like this, without any evidence, repeated over and over again, that I find misleading. If you give me evidence, I will totally eat my words.

[Nikki Stone 1]

93. So women's groups DO support cancer research, just not groups you'd prefer

1. Its also a problem when reproductive rights groups refuse to support women's cancer advocacy groups run by women themselves and instead align themselves with groups like American Cancer Society, who have the worst history on advocacy and research for women's cancers.

Perhaps, women's groups, like most people, align themselves with the biggest, best known, and best funded cancer research organization (ACS) because they feel it offers the most hope for a cure. Feminists are certainly not alone in their support of ACS. Many people and organizations make sizable donations to the group. In terms of ACS's record on women's cancers, maybe the feminist organizations feel that it is better to try and influence large organizations with huge resources to do cancer research on women's cancers than to align themselves with small advocacy groups who have little possibility of getting the kind of funding necessary to do the research at all.

Now, in an ideal world, the best organizations would have the most money and be the best on women's issues. This is not an ideal world, though, and you often have to go to the people with the money and power to get your agenda through. I'm not saying it's fair or nice. I am saying it's the way politics is done.

[OzarkDem]

100. Perhaps they are ignorant

What a shame they decide to check the facts and choose to go with the groups who spend money on advertising and little else. ACS funds less than 1% of all cancer research.

Did you realize that, up until the late 1980's the National Cancer Institute was preparing to get rid of its breast cancer research program? What did ACS do? Nothing. Do you realize the NCI doesn't report to the public how much money it spends on breast cancer research nor does it report on what research is funded? Who do you think has been blocking funding into research of breast cancer & environmental pollutants?

Breast cancer survivors themselves took charge in the early 1990's and breast cancer research funding increased by over 700%. Their advocacy also resulted in similar increases for all cancer research.

Breast cancer survivors are a vital part of the research process in providing consumer review and helping provide direction for research. ACS supports none of this.

Reproductive rights and so-called feminist groups have failed miserably in this area, refusing to do their homework and refusing to support empowerment of women in dealing with cancer issues.

Your response is a sad example of the ignorance of rr rights groups on women's health issues and an appalling insult to their fellow feminists in the breast cancer arena. You're insulting hundreds of thousands of women who are actively dying from this disease but have chosen to become educated and empowered to fight for improvements so other women and future generations don't have to die from this disease. I've seen these women in wheelchairs, on oxygen, serving on research review committees, lobbying Congress for research funding and access to health care for all. They have more courage, integrity and intelligence than you could ever hope to have.

Just more proof that your position as leaders of the women's health agenda for Dems is in need of change.

[OzarkDem]

98. More dogma

point 1 - why should breast cancer be an issue relegated to regular health care? Why should reproductive rights have exclusive domain over the Dems women's health agenda? There are more women dying of breast cancer every year than there are women dying from pregnancy or abortions. Women's cancers face the same types of gender discrimination in research, access to care, etc.

point 2 - This thread and all the recent attacks on the Dem party by reproductive rights advocates about the pro-choice agenda aren't the result of the Dem party turning anti-choice. They're a reaction to Dems trying to de-emphasize the issue and give equal time to other women's issues. Instead of showing some concern and respect for all women and sharing the Dem women's platform with other issues, RR advocates instead go on the attack.

Point 3 - RR groups have allied with other groups who advocate for health care only for the poorest women, and only if they have children living at home. In our state they have lobbied behind the scenes to discourage legislators from supporting the Breast & Cervical Cancer Treatment Program. With their allies, they support podiatry, dental and chiropractic care over cancer treatment. Many of these groups have also tried to tap into public dollars for cancer screening and prevention, taking them away from breast cancer patients. I know, because I lobby in the same corridors and offices. They refuse to respond to our requests to support cancer treatment.

I grow weary of women like you who, when diagnosed with breast cancer, suddenly see things in a different light.

[Nikki Stone 1]

108. Don't go personal; I haven't.

I have only been trying to point out that there might be other explanations for what you have observed. I could be wrong, you know. It is quite possible that you are absolutely correct, but there are other explanations that seem more plausible, especially in light of the political contingencies that I am familiar with.

Instead of slamming me, take the opportunity to shore up your arguments.

I have asked you several times for proof: for citations, names of journals. Anything that would really help me understand your perspective and, if necessary, see the error of my ways. Seriously, I am open to changing my mind with the appropriate evidence. And I am actually ASKING you for that evidence. You have an opportunity here to change an opinion. Do it. Bring on the evidence. I will read it.

[OzarkDem]

110. Getting personal

I've provided you with links to tons of information. Take a moment to read it. You may doubt our veracity, but Dr. Howard Dean, Sen. Clinton, Sen. Kerry, Sen. Kennedy, and many other Dems don't.

http://www.natlbcc.org/bin/index.asp?strid=370&depid=9&btnid=1

http://www.natlbcc.org/bin/index.asp?strid=371&depid=9&btnid=2

http://www.natlbcc.org/bin/index.asp?strid=20&depid=3&btnid=3

http://www.natlbcc.org/bin/index.asp?Strid=614&depid=5

http://www.natlbcc.org/bin/index.asp?strid=369&depid=9&btnid=3



The fact that you refuse to accept the idea that women can develop their own organizations, do their own homework and provide high quality critique of breast cancer research and public policy is very telling. I suppose you also think women shouldn't become doctors or researchers, too?

As my own doctor likes to point out (he's a researcher, too) the only reason fewer women are dying of breast cancer these days is because people finally stopped hiding it and started talking about so women could come in for treatment.

[Nikki Stone 1]

118. You are angry at things I never said or even implied--which may be why

you don't get the support you want from people. I have taken a lot of hits in this conversation with you, and still have spent a lot of time drawing you out, asking you questions, replying to your posts, even when you have gotten personal. Would I put myself through this if I really didn't care about what you had to say? I would have just written you off; I don't like arguing and tend to avoid confrontations on message boards. They're just not worth the effort.

I have persisted in my discussion with you because, God help me, I really am interested. It would be far better if I weren't.

All along, I have been asking you for proof. I am looking for names of journal articles, anything in the media that supports your viewpoint and even stories of survivors you know. Up to this post, you had given me a single link to one advocacy site. Your most recent post gives other links all from this same site. I tend to distrust advocacy sites--including feminist ones--because advocacy sites have an agenda and typically quote only the information that supports that agenda. They are politically charged and, to my mind, not objective enough. If I want news on Afghani women, for example, I try to go to press sources, especially European ones; I would certainly read the Feminist Majority's website as well, but because it is an advocacy website, I would always get independent confirmation.

This being said, let me address your comments:

"I've provided you with links to tons of information. "

From a single advocacy website. (See above)

" You may doubt our veracity, but Dr. Howard Dean, Sen. Clinton, Sen. Kerry, Sen. Kennedy, and many other Dems don't."


My asking for independent articles and confirmation is not a slam against the veracity of the site. It's the way I do things when dealing with politically charged information, especially when that information flies in the face of common sense, as the site's advice on mammography does. I have already written you back a post on this above, so I am not going to repeat it here.

In terms of your support, I would feel better if you had a list of scientists and not a list of politicians. Political support is usually the result of excellent lobbying, not scientific knowledge. Whether these politicians understand the science behind it (other than Dr. Dean) is another matter. Usually, this kind of thing gets handed off to staffers--who are often overworked--and they research what they can and make a recommendation.

The support of politicans is not proof that something is scientifically valid.


"The fact that you refuse to accept the idea that women can develop their own organizations, do their own homework and provide high quality critique of breast cancer research and public policy is very telling. I suppose you also think women shouldn't become doctors or researchers, too?"

This comment makes me wonder what you are really reacting to. It certainly isn't to me because I have never said or implied any of these things. I think you have gotten a lot of resistance to your ideas in the past and are simply fighting a battle that you have fought before. The problem is, you're fighting the wrong person. I have a feeling that you do this a lot: the person you are talking to becomes a target for all kinds of anger that you have from other situations. The comment above makes it easier for me to understand why you don't get the support you think you should. You are way too ready to project your rage onto other people, and that's a turn off no matter what you are trying to achieve.


"As my own doctor likes to point out (he's a researcher, too) the only reason fewer women are dying of breast cancer these days is because people finally stopped hiding it and started talking about so women could come in for treatment."

Your doctor is correct. The more we shine a light on things, the better chance we have to make things better.

And that has been what this conversation is about for me. Instead of ignoring your posts and focusing on pro-choice issues only, I drew you out, asked you questions. I am interested in knowing.

I feel like my efforts have been returned with hostility and personal insults. At this point I am very tired. I am sure that you have a lot of feelings as a breast cancer survivor and I am sure that I would be desperately angry in your place. But I wouldn't bite the heads off of people who were trying to maintain a conversation.

If you want support for your cause, you need to engage people, not attack them.

[OzarkDem]

120. You're starting to sound

like a freeper.

I've posted plenty of links, I can't take responsibility for your inability to understand them. Here are some of the scientists who have trained me:

Susan Love, MD - the co-founder of our organizaiton

http://www.susanlovemd.com/

Our training courses

http://www.natlbcc.org/bin/index.asp?Strid=483&btnid=4&depid=7

Faculty is from the National Cancer Institute (Patricia Steeg, PhD http://ccr.cancer.gov/staff/staff.asp?profileid=5851 ) , the DoD Breast Cancer Research Program, National Institutes of Health, National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, and major cancer centers like Dana Farber, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, MD Anderson, Cochrane Collaboration, Memorial Sloan Kettering.

Breast cancer acitivists have plenty of support and respect, nationally and worldwide. The only ones who seem to be out of the loop are the feminist community and the DNC women's issues groups. I'm not angry, just advocating really, really hard to raise awareness of Dem women in bringing the party's women's health agenda out of the 1960's and into the 21st century. Believe me, if you get breast cancer, you'll find out who we are.

These facts are harsh and hard to face. Dem women should be strong enough to face the truth and deal with reality when it comes to these very serious women's health issues. As Dem women leaders, we need to broaden our scope beyond reproductive health and violence issues and get up to date with all that's going on in the world of women's health care and women's health advocacy. Dem women leaders are behind, but they can catch up. Breast and other women's cancers is an issue very important to women voters.

Suggested reading for you

Breast Cancer - Society Shapes an Epidemic

http://www.annieappleseedproject.org/morabbreas.html

[rodeodance]

99. I agree, but 'reproduction' has a LONG history of being politicalized and

probably always will be. When women start to die of 'back alley abortions" again, maybe some will be raise their heads and see what the hell is going on. Maybe--a big maybe

[rodeodance]

25. yes, i agree--they are trying to make abortion more palpitable

[Cha]

115. That's the way it should be.

The fascists don't want to educate them even after they are brought into this world.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. If I Get My Photograph Taken With Junichiro Koizumi Does That

Mean I Am Japanese?

[Nikki Stone 1]

10. Only if you are French kissing him.

:)

[saracat]

3. This has worried me too Nikki. I had to fight to get

reproductive rights mentioned in my states Democratic platform! I went to a progressive meeting the other day where they had "forgotten " to add it to a list of items we were supporting as "progressives". They told me that it might be disturbing to a Pro-life Dem! I really think they are deemphasizing abortion rights. They think they can get the pro life vote. I don't like this one bit and I am insulted that they would consider bargaining our rights away. Flame away. I don't give a damn about the pro life vote. Sorry. I should have more rights than a fetus!

[Nikki Stone 1]

9. Your recent experiences with the party are frightening

They are throwing reproductive rights off the platform like so much baggage because of two questionable election results. Your post convinces me that we must definitely have this discussion before the party bosses make all the decisions for us.

[Clarkie1]

11. What state?

[Nikki Stone 1]

14. That's a good question.

nt

[OzarkDem]

22. They're not giving up

the pro-choice vote, they're just asking those in the pro-choice movement to also consider other women's issues and stop monopolizing the debate. If pro-choice women can't also advocate for other women's issues, they need to re-think their commitment to women in general.

[Nikki Stone 1]

27. Pro-choice women usually do advocate for other women's issues.

Not sure what you were getting at here, hon, but would be interested in hearing from you. :)

[OzarkDem]

66. They don't

not in our state, nor in Washington DC. They only advocate for reproductive issues.

They talk occasionally about other women's health issues, but don't do anything. As someone who is actively involved in other women's health issues, I see it first hand. They're also incredibly uninformed about other women's health issues and don't try to learn more.

My experiences in my state and in DC.

[Nikki Stone 1]

74. Your experience is interesting and I'd like to hear more.

I did put up a separate thread for this because the issue on this thread is so narrow and specifically political. I am really interested in hearing what isn't being covered because it should be. If you are interested, there is a thread that I started because I'd like to know and I think it is important for DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1696304

[MollyStark]

29. There is no conflict

There is no reason why it should be one or the other. Pro-choice women have always advocated for ALL woman's issues.

Are you anti-choice?

[Nikki Stone 1]

30. THANKS, Molly. I have actually started another thread for people who feel

the way this poster feels. I am interested in having the dialogue. Hope she responds.

Meantime, I'm with you. I've never known a woman who was only concerned with reproductive rights to the exclusion of other women's rights.

[OzarkDem]

67. Sorry wrong

I'm on the front lines, they don't. The may say "all women's health issues" in a speech or something, but on a day to day basis, they're not involved, period.

When was the last time you made a call, wrote a letter or attended a rally about any other women's health issue than reproductive rights.

BTW - I'm pro-choice, but sick of watching women suffer because no one is paying attention to other issues.

[rodeodance]

26. call it 'women's health issues" vs reproductive rights

[me b zola]

37. No flames here

It seems as though the Democratic party is doing to women what it has done to African Americans...take our vote for grantite. A woman may not believe that she would ever have an abortion, but that does not mean she is anti-choice. But If a person insists on wording their stance as "pro-life", meaning they do not support another woman's right to chose, then they do not belong in the party.


A couple of days ago I heard Ron Reagan say that it is because he is liberal that he cannot be a Democrat. If the Democratic party insist on ignoring our values for the possibility of some swing voters, then I may have to go the way of Ron Reagan.

[cestpaspossible]

4. No.

[mattclearing]

12. They may be trying to...

...but I don't believe it will happen.

It's like if Bush tried to jettison gun rights...the rank and file would go nuts.

We are going nuts, and they will back down.

Talk to me when it comes time for the Senate to confirm Rehnquist's replacement.

[Nikki Stone 1]

13. The proof will be in the fight over judgeships, but considering how

strong the Religious Right is, I just don't know if I trust the Dems to have any spine at all.

[Malva Zebrina]

15. Yes

I am convinced that NO Democrat will utter the words "pro-choice" from now on. It is a slap in the face to women and their health but, their health concerns, their family concersn, the issue of the right to their self determination has gone over to pandering to the religious right.

This makes me sad and angry.

They will say "rare" and I wonder if it is not rare then what?

Pretty sad.

[Nikki Stone 1]

16. I guess the Dems think pro-choice women will have nowhere else to go

Maybe it's time for a new party, or the takeover of an old one.

[OzarkDem]

23. A sad commentary on pro choice women

that they can't allow room for other women's issues to be discussed and promoted. If you're that narrow minded, perhaps you should join another party.

[Malva Zebrina]

51. this is not a matter of being open minded

there is a concerted attempt to remove women's abortion rights by religious people and they will NOT stop until they demolish Roe vs Wade. WE are not responsible for opening up dialogue because WE say that women have a choice. THAT dialogue is as open as it could ever get. Don't approve of abortion? That's fine with pro-choice. Just do not have one. But, do not try to close off the dialogue by working toward dissolution of the law .

It is people like you who are narrow minded, not the pro-choice people.

[OzarkDem]

68. I'm pro choice

but even more, I'm pro all women's health issues.

[ElectroPrincess]

84. Yes, because the underlying agenda to all this anti-abortion craze

is a round about way to severely limit women's rights and lower our socio-economic status. Why? So we can STFU, serve men and, in the process, free up a shit-load of jobs and college university slots.

Right Wingers hate assertive women. With a vengeance! I should know - I'm, according to your average freeper, a femi-nazi. :P

[Kipepeo]

55. What other women's issues are we ignoring?

You've been asked to expound on that several times in this thread already.

In my experence a pro-choice people are more likely than anti-choicers to champion women's rights in all areas. If you think the party is pro-choice to the exclusion of other women's issues please explain, as most here seem to disagree with that perception.

[OzarkDem]

81. Tried to reply

but my reply was deleted.

Suffice it to say - if reproductive rights groups wouldn't be willing to settle for the same standards of health policy that women's cancer patients face.

Imagine pregnancy was a fatal condition

Imagine the only way you could diagnose pregnancy were through an ex ray (mammogram), by feeling your stomach grow (breast self exam) then by going through surgery (biopsy)

Imagine you didn't know what caused pregnancy or how to prevent it

Imagine a world where pregnant women had no access to health care

Imagine a world where research into causes of pregnancy wasn't funded and was discouraged to protect the profits of businesses.

[Kipepeo]

116. But my question is what makes you think

pro-choice women aren't out there fighting for women's health care in terms of cancer?!?

Relay for Life is happening two weeks from now for me AGAIN. Last I checked we were raising money for cancer on these nightly runs....

I'm not saying that we shouldn't (as a country) give more $ for cancer research), I think we SHOULD...but I don't see how being pro-choice interferes with that. It doesn't in my life.

Edit: On edit, after reading your other responses in the thread, I don't think this is a bogus response to the OP, like I originally said...I just think we have different perceptions of the issue so your response didn't make sense to me. I DON'T think your average pro-choice woman (or man) is indifferent to other women's health issues or cares about them less than reproductive issues. People respond to that which they see as most under attack ...so maybe it's that women's groups focus most of their spotlight on an administration's attempts to deny reproductive health...because that is what they are going after.

In addition - the OP was asking about prominent Dem. leaders' seeming to distance themselves from reproductive health issues...that does, not, as your post might suggest, mean they are focusing on other women's health issues instead, but in my mind it just means they are backing away from reproductive issues b/c they (wrongly) see them as a political liability. It's a lose, lose.

[OzarkDem]

121. The point is Dem focus on women voters and health issues

Breast cancer activists have been incredibly successful in making a difference in the world of research and health care. According to The Hill magazine, we're now one of the most influential grassroots health care advocacy groups in the US. They've managed to change the social message about this disease and eliminated many of the gender barriers that have influenced research and delivery of health care. Those facts aren't the issue.

Those of us who are breast cancer activists AND active Dems (I'm an officer in my local party and have run many campaigns) would like to see our own party broaden the women's health agenda and raise the profile of this women's health issue in its outreach efforts to attract more women voters and to draw more support for our candidates. We also feel we've developed a good model for other progressive women to use in making more advances in women's health advocacy and in developing a groundbreaking comprehensive agenda for women's health issues.

The Democratic Party has lost many women voters over the last few years. Health care is an important issue to women and we need to respond to their concerns. The Dem party needs to broaden and update its agenda and message for women beyond reproductive health issues. I sense the party leadership is trying to move in that direction, but, unfortunately, the reproductive rights advocates appear to be trying to stop that change by mischaracterizing the effort as "Dems leaders becoming anti-choice". That's wrong, unfair and destructive to the Dem party and its ability to move forward, modernize and encourage more women to vote Democratic.

Re Relay for Life - perhaps you should have a conversation with ACS about what they're doing with your money. As I've pointed out, the vast majority of cancer research funding comes from NCI, NIH and pharma companies. For breast cancer - DoD BCRP, NCI and NIH research funding is now over $1 billion per year. How much is ACS donating? I don't know, ask them, their data is hard to find.

[Kipepeo]

123. Just as a sidenote

again to point out the differences in perspectives - My family got involved with Relay for Life when my mom was diagnosed w/ Leukemia...from HER point of view most of the cancer fundraising she was seeing at her work and in her community was specfic to breast cancer and she felt like if you're a woman and you've got caner BUT it's not breast cancer then you're kind of ignored. She was more than a little angry and I can't judge her for that. Relay for Life was her choice because it's nonspecific.

But I will look into where the ACS sends the money from RFL. It's a good point.

[OzarkDem]

125. The reason you hear so much

about breast cancer is because its the most prevalent cancer for women. There are about 250,000 women diagnosed with breast cancer every year, vs. about 13,000 diagnosed with leukemia (11,000 cervical, 19,000 ovarian, 25,000 lymphoma, 68,000 colon, etc). Not to say it isn't just as important, but its why you don't hear as much about it. She should feel reassured that all the lobbying breast cancer activists have done in the last 10-15 years has actually caused an increase in funding for all cancer research. She can come to our meetings if she wants, too.

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/index.asp?Year=2001

All women with cancer deserve special support, but tell her to be assured that her tax dollars are going to pay for the research through National Cancer Institute. Its not enough to raise the money for research, though, you also have to be paying attention to how its being spent. Researchers can be set in their ways and sometimes slow to respond to new discoveries.

Lance Armstrong's new cancer foundation seems to be emerging as a "new generation" cancer organization that is educating and advocating in a better way. Bottom line, cancer organizations run by survivors themselves and work to educate and empower other survivors tend to be much more responsive and progressive.

"Old school" groups like ACS - which is run by physicians and professional fundraisers, tend to protect the status quo and only use cancer survivors and their families as props for fundraising.

Check Lance Armstrong out:

http://www.laf.org/

[applegrove]

17. They are pushing the hypocrisy of the abortion foes out into the open.

Surely you cannot be against birth control or 'reversible operations for boys' if you hate abortion so much. Also funding for unwed mothers, etc.

The numbers do not hold up for the right. They managed to bad a whole pile of people who were just against abortion being treated as trite. These people do not want to see dead poor women... they want abortion to be rare.

It is about taking back supporters of a woman's right to abortion by giving them what they need... better alternatives.

IMHO

[Nikki Stone 1]

18. So you think their current stand is a strategy to push the right out of

the argument? Or to preserve birth control?

Have you seen Paul Krugman's recent column?

[applegrove]

19. I am saying they have decided to appeal to the hearts of the people

who have voted with Bush but are not really Kool-Aid drinkers but don't like that abortion is treated as trite. I think it should be a last resort. I think so many other types of birth control should be looked into.

I think they are just keeping the talk about the issue in the 'shades of grey' department rather than the black & white department which benefits the far right.

Part of any discussion on alternatives to abortion must include the lack of funding that follows women's issues until they get power and become doctors. Look at breast cancer?

Don't you think the issue of reproductive rights should be shared by men? Why aren't they on pills long term?

Surely you can empathize with someone who thinks that multiple abortions are a really harsh and bad thing? I mean women who have children and then give them up for adoption continuously get counseling.

There is room. We gain nothing by not talking to the people who want to see abortion as a rarity.

We put good information into the debate. And it shows the hypocrisy of virginity pledges till marriage. Which are a bad thing in my book (fine to learn other stuff as a teen when you could be concentrating on other stuff, but when you look for a lifelong partner..you need to know something of how the world works..keeping people naive is an invitation to making horrid marriages and horrid childhoods for kids - we would be talking about all of that too if we open to door to empathetic discussions with some leaders).

[Nikki Stone 1]

20. Feelings are sweet and nice and all that, but legislation should not be

held hostage by them.

[applegrove]

31. We will defeat the fascists by being adults. Adult means you take

responsibility for things and empathize with people not exactly like you. No - I do not want to see abortion become illegal. Nor do the majority of them.

[Nikki Stone 1]

32. Not sure what you meant. Could you clarify your response?

Specifically, I'm not sure how you connect "taking responsibility" and "empathizing with people not exactly like you" to a Democratic strategy. What do the Dems need to take responsibility for? (Or are you referring to someone else, or just people in general?)

I honestly am trying to understand where you are coming from, so please don't be offended. If I'm really off track, let me know. :)

[applegrove]

33. Taking responsibility means that we do not ridicule them when they

see us treat abortion as something mindless & trite. It means we take ownership for Utopian ideas on the economy and thinking we don't have to follow certain truths (this does not mean supply side). It means that we do not try and turn back the clocks and but up barriers to our borders.. closed trade will result in dark ages. And closed trade on agriculture will keep everyone in Africa starving and poor. Open trade will allow some of the poorest a kick at the can.

But we have to be smart about trade and about what the 'base line' is that is set. We take ownership of the fact that corporations are efficient as are markets..but they need a soul (corporations) and markets need regulations(as per the 20th Century). And there are times when bugaboos mean that a socialist mix is better at delivery that pure capitalism (socialized medicine).

We acknowledge that if we are not eating, clothing and living only off the land we own... or foraging for food..that we are capitalists of some ilk. The right want to fool us into handing our markets over to them but the markets have been humans for 10,000 years. And the markets did work better the more we got them out of the hands of elites (royal families).

Responsibility means that we decide what is really important and walk with that. We do not fall on comfortable norms and claim them as important when in fact... they are privileges.

It means if we have been dismissive of our religious brothers & sisters we need to own that. Monotheism was better than what came before it (human sacrifice). People are born with a capacity to have 'faith'. We should not exclude or ridicule that.

That would be what responsibility means to me. I may be wrong but I am willing to go on a journey and be taught what is 'my shit' and get rid of it..so that it does not cloud the debate or encourage tribalism. Tribalism and petty disputes are how the elites plan on single party rule. I don't want to see that happen. You beat the adolescents (tribals) by being really adult and using empathy to not hurt others needlessly. That is what it means. You dig deep. Just like the West did when they went to war against Hitler. They gave up an awful lot to do the right thing. It had to be done.

We have to resist the teaching Rove & the WH & GOP machine are spewing out. We have to resist the knee-jerk and stand back and look at the big picture. Don't react to them all the time..that would just be exhausting. Pick our fights. Pick the ways in which we do connect. Take back the democracy by putting away childish things and fighting in the discerning way adults do.

[Nikki Stone 1]

38. Thanks for your reply. Let me take your points one by one.

1. "Taking responsibility means that we do not ridicule them when they" see us treat abortion as something mindless & trite."

** Of all your points, this is the one most clearly related to this thread, so I'll give this priority. I do not know who you hang out with, and it is possible that people you are in contact with might actually feel this way, so I am not discounting your point of view. :)

Coming from my perspective, however, (and I hope you will respect it as I have yours), I have never met any woman who has thought of abortion as mindless and trite. I know a number of women who have had abortions, and none of them took it lightly at all. In fact, it was a very intense and, in some cases, traumatic experience. But in all cases, it was something, in their opinion, that needed to be done.

No activist I know treats abortion as a trite issue, and I was an activist for quite some time. That is my experience. As far as I can tell, the Democrats do not treat abortion as mindless and trite, unless they are truly ignorant.

Point #2--The Economy

2. "The Economy: It means we take ownership for Utopian ideas on the economy and thinking we don't have to follow certain truths (this does not mean supply side)."

****I don't know what utopian ideas you have in mind specifically, although, reading on, I get the idea that you are talking about Marxism, socialism or communism. What truths do you think we have to follow that are being ignored by utopians?

3. It means that we do not try and turn back the clocks and but up barriers to our borders.. closed trade will result in dark ages. And closed trade on agriculture will keep everyone in Africa starving and poor. Open trade will allow some of the poorest a kick at the can.

****This is an argument for free trade and against tariffs. There are many ways to look at this issue, and there are good arguments on both sides. But, it is important to look at the effects of GATT, NAFTA and other similar treaties on people, including our own people. It is irresponsible to ignore the side effects of these treaties and how they affect the health and welfare of our nation.


4. "We acknowledge that if we are not eating, clothing and living only off the land we own... or foraging for food..that we are capitalists of some ilk. The right want to fool us into handing our markets over to them but the markets have been humans for 10,000 years. And the markets did work better the more we got them out of the hands of elites (royal families). "

If by capitalists, you mean that we all are a part of the market system (and I think that is what you mean) then you are correct. Not sure about your point on the markets. It would be good of you to elaborate.

OTHER POINTS

5. "Responsibility means that we decide what is really important and walk with that. We do not fall on comfortable norms and claim them as important when in fact... they are privileges."

Which comfortable norms are privileges in your estimation? (The first part of this statement is general and I don't think that anyone would argue with it.)

4."It means if we have been dismissive of our religious brothers & sisters we need to own that. Monotheism was better than what came before it (human sacrifice). People are born with a capacity to have 'faith'. We should not exclude or ridicule that."

This is a big one with lots of assumptions. Are you dismissive of your religious brothers and sisters? Or are you assuming that I am? Or are Dems in general? Not sure which it is, but I can only speak for myself here. My biggest concern about religion is not about the people who practice it, but a government that seems to want to use it as a guide for legislation and the right to interfere in people's personal lives. The Founding Fathers did not pull the separation of church and state out of nowhere. They were very knowledgeable about 300 years of religious wars--mostly between Catholic and Protestant--throughout Europe. They understood how Church power could threaten and usurp government. The history of Europe from the end of the Roman Empire on is the story of Catholic Church dominance (through bloodshed) and the breaking of that dominance (through bloodshed). The Founding Fathers were very well educated and decided that a state church would cause many of the same problems over here as it did in Europe. Therefore, they created a legal barrier--which over the years has been interpreted and reinterpreted--but the basic goal is the same: to keep church power from usurping civil power. What I see happening is the dissolving of this barrier, and that is a terrifying prospect. Once government gets in the business of backing or establishing religion, we have lost the core of civil government.

As I said, I cannot speak for anyone else on this matter, and I think that a lot of comments surrounding the Schiavo case have been cheap shots. But most thinking people know that it is a complicated case, even more complicated by our current political climate.

CLOSING POINTS

5."That would be what responsibility means to me. I may be wrong but I am willing to go on a journey and be taught what is 'my shit' and get rid of it..so that it does not cloud the debate or encourage tribalism. Tribalism and petty disputes are how the elites plan on single party rule. I don't want to see that happen. You beat the adolescents (tribals) by being really adult and using empathy to not hurt others needlessly. That is what it means. You dig deep. Just like the West did when they went to war against Hitler. They gave up an awful lot to do the right thing. It had to be done."

****One always has to dig deep to do something worth doing. And I agree that self examination and the journey to self discovery is vital in this life.

Your theory on tribalism is interesting, and I don't disagree with your basic "divide and conquer" premise. That is how power is gotten. Tribalism is an interesting term, often used in right wing circles to discount the Democrats (who are supposed to be tribal?). I will NOT assume that you are using it in that context. I'd like to know your thoughts on who you think is trying to divide and conquer us as a nation. As I said, you get no disagreement from me on the basic strategy of dividing and conquering people. I would like to know who you think benefits from it and who is behind it.

6. "We have to resist the teaching Rove & the WH & GOP machine are spewing out. We have to resist the knee-jerk and stand back and look at the big picture. Don't react to them all the time..that would just be exhausting. Pick our fights. Pick the ways in which we do connect. Take back the democracy by putting away childish things and fighting in the discerning way adults do."

I agree that knee-jerk responses are rarely helpful politically and that the big picture should be the concern. What, in your opinion, is the big picture that we should be looking at?

This is a long response and I hope you will read it. I look forward to your response.

[applegrove]

50. Perhaps before April 1 I will respond. Right now I rest. Have not had

the time to read what you wrote. Look forward to it though.

[Nikki Stone 1]

52. I look forward to your response and will do you the respect of not

forgetting how important you are.

[applegrove]

59. I am not important. This is a bulletin board. I just had not had the

chance to see your response until after you reminded me somewhere else. I post like a madman.. and I don't always respond though I do read all responses to me.

Last night I had a proposal to write for an award. I was not even on line most of the night.

Again, when I have the time, I will read you response and reply.

[applegrove]

64. My responce.

1. "Taking responsibility means that we do not ridicule them when they" see us treat abortion as something mindless & trite."

** Of all your points, this is the one most clearly related to this thread, so I'll give this priority. I do not know who you hang out with, and it is possible that people you are in contact with might actually feel this way, so I am not discounting your point of view.

Coming from my perspective, however, (and I hope you will respect it as I have yours), I have never met any woman who has thought of abortion as mindless and trite. I know a number of women who have had abortions, and none of them took it lightly at all. In fact, it was a very intense and, in some cases, traumatic experience. But in all cases, it was something, in their opinion, that needed to be done.

No activist I know treats abortion as a trite issue, and I was an activist for quite some time. That is my experience. As far as I can tell, the Democrats do not treat abortion as mindless and trite, unless they are truly ignorant.

I am in a discussion with a DUer right now who says that after 3 abortion.. there should not be a need for couselling. I say that if it happens for a woman who has 3 babies and gives them up for adoption - should it not happen again? She/he says I am saying that babies are better than abortions. Fact is there is some 'trite' going on. I remember my own education and it was quite trite. I am not speaking for all DUers and yes I have known of people who had abortions and yes it was devastating. What you do is great. Nothing personal about saying we can be trite. If only it is 5% of us.. it speaks volumes and it would be nice for us to take a look at that. Seeing as how when they poll so many anti-choice people do not really want to see abortion made totally unavailable.. and they do not want to see poor kids die... they just want it to be rare. And treated with a much greater degree of seriousness than some of us make it sound.

Point #2--The Economy

2. "The Economy: It means we take ownership for Utopian ideas on the economy and thinking we don't have to follow certain truths (this does not mean supply side)."

****I don't know what utopian ideas you have in mind specifically, although, reading on, I get the idea that you are talking about Marxism, socialism or communism. What truths do you think we have to follow that are being ignored by utopians?And opening the borders to agriculture will cost farmers their jobs and it will allow Africans to finally participate in the world economy. The poor will move from subsistance farms, to schooling, to cities & trades and a lower middle class existance. So to think we could close our borders or save the farmer..would be killing millions indeed. And they would remember that. Could be with population explosions that our farmers will be desperately needed. But we have to give the poorest a kick at the can. Otherwise we are evil. (Which is where the Utopia comes in).

3. It means that we do not try and turn back the clocks and but up barriers to our borders.. closed trade will result in dark ages. And closed trade on agriculture will keep everyone in Africa starving and poor. Open trade will allow some of the poorest a kick at the can.

****This is an argument for free trade and against tariffs. There are many ways to look at this issue, and there are good arguments on both sides. But, it is important to look at the effects of GATT, NAFTA and other similar treaties on people, including our own people. It is irresponsible to ignore the side effects of these treaties and how they affect the health and welfare of our nation. yes you have to make adjustments but you cannot stop it. Some DUers think you can. Some people think we can close our borders. We cannot (all the growth in the world will be taking place outside the West..we are mature economies in the west and we should not cut ourselves off from the emerging economies unless we want the dark ages and become like Argentina was). That being said there is room for adjustment, and monitoring and social norms and calling China on its devalued currency etc. But the past... the 'Utopia', if you will, that was North America not competeting with 1) less developed nations 2) any communist country 3) the Europeans and japan after WWII while they rebuilt is a normal way to be... that it was normal for us to be so rich... is not reality. North America competed with nobody but had access to all the world's resources. So that Utopia is gone. And things will be harder. But that is reality. And the only way out is to trade and go through changes.


4. "We acknowledge that if we are not eating, clothing and living only off the land we own... or foraging for food..that we are capitalists of some ilk. The right want to fool us into handing our markets over to them but the markets have been humans for 10,000 years. And the markets did work better the more we got them out of the hands of elites (royal families). "

If by capitalists, you mean that we all are a part of the market system (and I think that is what you mean) then you are correct. Not sure about your point on the markets. It would be good of you to elaborate. Corporations keep trying to tell us (as do neocons) that delivery of public goods is not appropriate in the market (i.e. health care). Bullshit! That is just some arbitrary norm that some Repuke came up with. But corporations will tell you they are not responsible for externalities and should not be regulated. My point is that the Market is over 10,000 years old. It belongs to the people. And elites are the ones (through slavery, royal families, feudalism, wars) that have regulated the markets over the past 10 millenia in their favour. The markets only started really working when we finally got rid of the elite monopoly on regulating the market and we people (in democracies) rolled back their priviledges (through regulations) and put regulations in for ourselves. Corporations were invented as a tool to take & make even more efficiencies in the market take place. All wealth (anythin above and beyond what you could grown yourself) is because of the market. Now corporations claim the markets as their own. They lie.

I want each and every Liberal to know that markets are ours and tha capitalism has worked best when it was regulated for people not the elites. Cause I am tired of the neocons claiming they invented or have saved capitalism. Neocons were invented 40 years ago.

OTHER POINTS

5. "Responsibility means that we decide what is really important and walk with that. We do not fall on comfortable norms and claim them as important when in fact... they are privileges."

Which comfortable norms are privileges in your estimation? (The first part of this statement is general and I don't think that anyone would argue with it.) we cannot take on Karl Rove's perpetual campaign and win. Sociopaths rely on emotional exhaustion to beat back their enemies. Apathy is what made the Iraqis just sit and put up with Saddam Hussein (and he was very aware of how to exhaust them). So we have to be discerning and step back and look at the big picture when taking on the monsters in the WH and their campaign to undo the New Deal. We have to save our strength (look at the ones who are stuck in the details of the last election or of 9/11. They need to accept both losses and step back and say "I don't have enough info on the issue and it was traumatizing..but I can step back and accept these two things.. so that I can live to fight another day and get rid of the creeps in the WH who I do not trust"). That is what I mean by discerning. Sometimes you just have to say I will never know about this so I will step back and fight for electoral reform for the reason that the system has broken down, there are cases of the Bush WH misusing the intension of the laws, trust has been lost in the system, etc. so there has to be some reform (ans since it is the only way for now) it has to be done on a state by state basis. Being adult and responsible means you take ownership of 'when you just don't have the facts to overturn an election' and put that one to bed so that you can fight the issue in a more productive way.

4."It means if we have been dismissive of our religious brothers & sisters we need to own that. Monotheism was better than what came before it (human sacrifice). People are born with a capacity to have 'faith'. We should not exclude or ridicule that."

This is a big one with lots of assumptions. Are you dismissive of your religious brothers and sisters? Or are you assuming that I am? Or are Dems in general? Not sure which it is, but I can only speak for myself here. My biggest concern about religion is not about the people who practice it, but a government that seems to want to use it as a guide for legislation and the right to interfere in people's personal lives. The Founding Fathers did not pull the separation of church and state out of nowhere. They were very knowledgeable about 300 years of religious wars--mostly between Catholic and Protestant--throughout Europe. They understood how Church power could threaten and usurp government. The history of Europe from the end of the Roman Empire on is the story of Catholic Church dominance (through bloodshed) and the breaking of that dominance (through bloodshed). The Founding Fathers were very well educated and decided that a state church would cause many of the same problems over here as it did in Europe. Therefore, they created a legal barrier--which over the years has been interpreted and reinterpreted--but the basic goal is the same: to keep church power from usurping civil power. What I see happening is the dissolving of this barrier, and that is a terrifying prospect. Once government gets in the business of backing or establishing religion, we have lost the core of civil government.

As I said, I cannot speak for anyone else on this matter, and I think that a lot of comments surrounding the Schiavo case have been cheap shots. But most thinking people know that it is a complicated case, even more complicated by our current political climate. I agree the boundaries are under attack. No I did not mean you in particular (how could I - I do not know you). I too am against the tribalism (getting people to identify with a narrow group and not taking ownership of how their actions/beliefs hurt/offend/threaten the lives of outsiders). To combat tribalism..we need to empathize more with our religious friends. To cross the false boundaries set up by our own liberal assumptions (not you but some people call the believers dumb - when in fact they are just human and have something called faith which is genetic). To cross the false boundaries set up by Karl Rove in the White House through wedge issues. Again not personal intent on my part in making my comments to you.. just in general. Polls say we have more more in common with many people who got swooped up in the anti-choice movement. We need to connect to people who have empathy and are devout. Because they are like us in more ways that they are like the people in the WH. Freeper fundamentalists I do have trouble with. But that doesn't mean I ignore the rest.

CLOSING POINTS

5."That would be what responsibility means to me. I may be wrong but I am willing to go on a journey and be taught what is 'my shit' and get rid of it..so that it does not cloud the debate or encourage tribalism. Tribalism and petty disputes are how the elites plan on single party rule. I don't want to see that happen. You beat the adolescents (tribals) by being really adult and using empathy to not hurt others needlessly. That is what it means. You dig deep. Just like the West did when they went to war against Hitler. They gave up an awful lot to do the right thing. It had to be done."

****One always has to dig deep to do something worth doing. And I agree that self examination and the journey to self discovery is vital in this life.

Your theory on tribalism is interesting, and I don't disagree with your basic "divide and conquer" premise. That is how power is gotten. Tribalism is an interesting term, often used in right wing circles to discount the Democrats (who are supposed to be tribal?). I will NOT assume that you are using it in that context. I'd like to know your thoughts on who you think is trying to divide and conquer us as a nation. As I said, you get no disagreement from me on the basic strategy of dividing and conquering people. I would like to know who you think benefits from it and who is behind it. Look up Lugard and which the British used to rule their empire. You keep people so busy in little tribes and petty issues.. that they do not life up their heads long enough to look around and say: "coloninal elite with all of our wealth..get out!". Where there were no hierarchichal elders to be ruled down through..the British created the hierarchy or the divisions. Mostly they just exacerbated what was already there. At independance Quebec, India & Pakistan, Nigeria all exploded. That is what I mean by hierarchy. And not - I pay no attention to the vocab the Repukes use because they have stolen so much and warped so much vocabulary to keep the opposition silent.

The Bush WH offers democracy to the Middle East (to stop tribalism of the transnational bin Laden islamists) and creates tribalism in the USA to undo the democracy (pluralism of voting). They seem to want to control the USA as an empire would with the elites having their business at the top... while all the people are busy fighting each other or watching that they do not break customary rule and thus get ejected and starve.

6. "We have to resist the teaching Rove & the WH & GOP machine are spewing out. We have to resist the knee-jerk and stand back and look at the big picture. Don't react to them all the time..that would just be exhausting. Pick our fights. Pick the ways in which we do connect. Take back the democracy by putting away childish things and fighting in the discerning way adults do."

I agree that knee-jerk responses are rarely helpful politically and that the big picture should be the concern. What, in your opinion, is the big picture that we should be looking at? others have said it. Bush WH (Rove) is concerned with

1) redoing the New Deal so that the 'love of America the government' is erased as are relationships like the one with SS. So that Americans follow tribal elders and perhaps let the corporations rule them at the local level or with the elites at the top. But that there will be nothing big and strong about American government (delivering liberal values & public goods through the market)... so that the elites will be dominant. So that Karl Rove can run and rule the political agenda of the 2008 candidate and on and on (he did say till 2020)

2) Giving all they can to their elite backers in terms of restructuring, deregulaton of environmental law and tax savings to pay them back for money and the power it brought to the Right Wing of the USA. (perhaps securing positions for their children and grandchildren in the ruling elite).

3) hiding from their own crimes somehow in the future by building legacies or trying for a "soft landing" by getting their acts to be stamped as legal or the perception of them to be benign.

4) Using the tools of socipaths to accomplish this propaganda and adolescence in their followers. And what that means

These are the greater patterns of this WH (the last one mine.. but the others I got from other posts - em ... I may have not gotten them all right). And what needs to be taught so that Americans know where they are. So they understand that there is a thrid way. That if all nations agreed then nuclear weapons could be banned & that health care could be a norm. But most important..to not get lost in the details of the horrors and to step back and look at the overall patters (cause as TS case shows..they will break with all previously known conservative behaviour when they feel they have to) because those are easier and clearer to follow. There is a risk that following Bush by dancing with Cheney and looking into his eyes.. you will be danced outside of your own values & beliefs or turned into a pretzel (because there is no reality for a sociopath like Karl Rove...only winning exists..and like the covetous socipath that he is.. he likes to win when it diminishes the lives of others the most).

This is a long response and I hope you will read it. I look forward to your response.

IMHO

[Nikki Stone 1]

88. Thanks. Here is my response. (Looks like a good discussion)

Abortion

1. "I am in a discussion with a DUer right now who says that after 3 abortion.. there should not be a need for couselling. I say that if it happens for a woman who has 3 babies and gives them up for adoption - should it not happen again? She/he says I am saying that babies are better than abortions. "

About counseling: There is fear of the "slippery slope"--the idea that if you allow something in extreme cases, it can soon become normal in non-extreme cases. So, if laws are passed saying that a women who has had 3 abortions should get mandatory counseling, then, this law can be used as a precedent and soon, a women would have to get mandatory counseling for any abortion. Since other medical procedures don't usually require mandatory counseling, it seems unfair to target just these women. (Some types of criminal acts, however, do require mandatory counseling, and that puts the woman chosing an abortion in the same group as criminals when it comes to mandatory counseling. That may be the goal of the right. I don't know for sure.)

Also, it depends on what kind of counseling you are talking about. If the counseling is based on the woman herself and is non-judgemental, that is not a bad thing. But, when the right wing is talking about mandatory counseling, they are often talking about persuading a woman to change her mind and not have the abortion. It all depends on who the counselor is, and, if counseling is government funded, the quality of the counseling will depend on whatever political party is in office.

This is why counseling is a controversial issue. Personally, I think that there should not be mandatory counseling, but women should be encouraged to seek non-judgemental counseling, especially after the abortion.

I understand how someone having multiple abortions can be frustrating. A lot depends on the reasons why they are having them. If the woman is simply not using birth control, that is irresponsible, and there SHOULD be birth control counseling for a woman in that situation. Of course, if the woman is a drug addict or an alcoholic, those issues have to be dealt with first. I would like to find some studies on multiple abortions and see what the breakdown is.


2. Fact is there is some 'trite' going on. I remember my own education and it was quite trite.

I'd like to hear more about this. So much of our opinion on any issue stems back to our original education. My mother was very pro-choice, but even she made it clear that abortion was a very serious matter.

3. I am not speaking for all DUers and yes I have known of people who had abortions and yes it was devastating. What you do is great. Nothing personal about saying we can be trite. If only it is 5% of us.. it speaks volumes and it would be nice for us to take a look at that.

Well, 5% of any group can make the whole group look bad. I agree. I don't know how you reign people in on a message board though. And I myself am guilty of outbursts, especially when I get mad, but they are not against DUers personally.


4. Seeing as how when they poll so many anti-choice people do not really want to see abortion made totally unavailable.. and they do not want to see poor kids die... they just want it to be rare. And treated with a much greater degree of seriousness than some of us make it sound."

This is an interesting point. I have a friend who is very Republican, very pro-life, even though she is gay and most gay women are on the other side of the issue. When I asked her about it--and we argue politics all the time--she said to me, "Well, nobody wants to totally outlaw abortion, especially in cases of rape or if the mother's life is in danger." I said to her, "But your party does. You are supporting people who believe that even in cases of rape or incest that abortion is wrong." Her answer was very interesting. She felt that her vote was "evening out" the other side.

Now I totally disagree with her, vehemently. But I think there are many "pro-life" Republicans out there who secretly support abortion in some cases. This may explain the current approach of the Democratic party, I don't know.

I will answer the other questions in another post.

[applegrove]

112. For me - talking about abortion is a way to talk about other forms of

birth control and such. I really do not think enough goes into making boys and men take ownership. Just think if you had a pill for men.. how that would reduce the number of abortions.

Perhaps I am naive (actually I know I have been the queen of naive). But I do feel you have to go out there and talk to the abortion groups and have a serious discussion with them..to get back some middle ground.

Of course I do not want to see propaganda thrown at a woman when she makes a choice. But I also think that there are people out there..addicts too who have no morals or heart and they will use abortion as a tool instead of being responsible. And I think that a semi-propaganda counseling session might put the woman (and her man) on edge enough to be more responsible. I think the men should get counseling too. Though I do not know how that would work in all case... because a woman's right to abortion is is her very own.

I don't know exactly and I am not an expert in the field. But I think that there are many more people voting with Bush on this issue than should be. The goal should be to make abortion rare and that way to do that is education & expanded reproductive tools. And funding.

I am tired of Repukes taking an issue (that costs their elites nothing to implement) and grabbing and throwing it around hairy fairy. I think we as democrats need to make the abortion issue real: for ourselves as well as for the anti-choicers who understand that some women will die if they do not have the option to abort (for a variety of reasons) and that abortion is also about health of the woman..not just the life of the baby to be.

[Nikki Stone 1]

89. More of the response (continued)

The Economy

1. "And opening the borders to agriculture will cost farmers their jobs and it will allow Africans to finally participate in the world economy. The poor will move from subsistance farms, to schooling, to cities & trades and a lower middle class existance. So to think we could close our borders or save the farmer..would be killing millions indeed. And they would remember that. Could be with population explosions that our farmers will be desperately needed. But we have to give the poorest a kick at the can. Otherwise we are evil. (Which is where the Utopia comes in)."

So, your argument is that if we close our borders (which I don't think is remote possibility), we are actually killing others.

I think these arguments stem from a more general feeling that globalization is good. There are many others who believe that globalization will make everyone, in the end, poor, with a few wealthy winners. A lot depends on the treaties and laws and how things ultimately shake out. I have a bias here in that I am a very big fan of Paul Krugman, the only living hero I have ever had. (And I'm not kidding about that. I don't like the whole concept of heros.) Let me do more research on this before I comment.

2." yes you have to make adjustments but you cannot stop it. Some DUers think you can. Some people think we can close our borders. We cannot (all the growth in the world will be taking place outside the West..we are mature economies in the west and we should not cut ourselves off from the emerging economies unless we want the dark ages and become like Argentina was). That being said there is room for adjustment, and monitoring and social norms and calling China on its devalued currency etc. But the past... the 'Utopia', if you will, that was North America not competeting with 1) less developed nations 2) any communist country 3) the Europeans and japan after WWII while they rebuilt is a normal way to be... that it was normal for us to be so rich... is not reality. North America competed with nobody but had access to all the world's resources. So that Utopia is gone. And things will be harder. But that is reality. And the only way out is to trade and go through changes."

I think the struggle now is not to stop the international market but decide who has control. I believe that a lot of what is now being done militarily is actually about controlling the market. We may actually see much more death and destruction as a result of the integration of world markets. However that remains to be seen.

I am not someone who believes in Utopias, so I can't speak for the folks you are talking to on DU.

3. "Corporations keep trying to tell us (as do neocons) that delivery of public goods is not appropriate in the market (i.e. health care). Bullshit! That is just some arbitrary norm that some Repuke came up with. But corporations will tell you they are not responsible for externalities and should not be regulated. My point is that the Market is over 10,000 years old. It belongs to the people. And elites are the ones (through slavery, royal families, feudalism, wars) that have regulated the markets over the past 10 millenia in their favour. The markets only started really working when we finally got rid of the elite monopoly on regulating the market and we people (in democracies) rolled back their priviledges (through regulations) and put regulations in for ourselves. Corporations were invented as a tool to take & make even more efficiencies in the market take place. All wealth (anythin above and beyond what you could grown yourself) is because of the market. Now corporations claim the markets as their own. They lie. "

The problem is that markets are most sensitive to economic disparity. If I have a huge amount of money and you don't, I can use many different elements of the market to limit your chances even before you start. Effective regulatory laws--and their equally effective enforcement--are the only way to guarantee your access, though things still won't be fair because I start out with a lot more money than you do. The market can only "belong to the people" if the people get together. Otherwise, we are only so many ants in a large machine.

I could be misunderstanding you here, and if I am, let me know.

4. I want each and every Liberal to know that markets are ours and tha capitalism has worked best when it was regulated for people not the elites. Cause I am tired of the neocons claiming they invented or have saved capitalism. Neocons were invented 40 years ago.


So how does this translate into action? Or is this just an issue of perception?

[applegrove]

113. Elliot Spitzer has been attacking the lack of transparency in markets

to go after corporations that are breaking the law. So looking at the regulations and do they really make for a level playing field. The basic assumption of any market is that 'given perfect information' people will behave according to certain market laws.

Well I consider it the government's job to reduced incidences of in perfect information that can be due to a lack of education, generational poverty, elite cabals, monopolies, teaching MBA students to attack government (and government regulations) just like they would attack a competitor, health is something limiting information.. Pretty much equality comes under this umbrella.

Unless there is a certain amount of equaliy the markets will not work and will go back in time to when all regulations favored the rich or royal (estates, feudal law, slavery, lack of environmental protection, etc.).

And because the markets belong to us we not only make sure the transfer of wealth keeps from getting out of hand, we allow all poor nations to participate and we close down the tax havens and come up with a basic tax on income all over the world. So that the rich cannot use capital flight as a whip. Same thing with health care. Make that a norm.

We go the third way and we do not accept Richard Perle's norms. We come up with norms based on democracy.. not based on the needs of the elites. Like the norm about not having any nuclear weapons.. that could be one. And if you have a nuclear weapon all your satellites get shot down.

We have choices in how great we make our market. Capitalism depends on certain norms to make things stable. The corporations and this generation of MBAs try and fool us into thinking we don't and that the market belongs only to them and that no public good (Kyoto) be delivered using the huge efficiencies. Apparently all public information is supposed to be delivered by pony express or something.

[Nikki Stone 1]

94. I will continue my responses to each of your other points later in the day

I have to go now. But I'll be back tonight.

[applegrove]

111. I'll take them all in at once. Will read later tonight.

[applegrove]

114. I've sort of vaguely answered... will try and be more concise later. n/t

[OzarkDem]

24. I would hope

the strategy is to stop letting the R's define us with a wedge issue. We should be focusing on an agenda that isn't based on wedge issues.

Does that mean abortion will become illegal? I doubt it. It means it doesn't need to be the flagship women's issue for the Democratic party.

[applegrove]

34. I agree. Thank you for your comments. n/t

[zulchzulu]

35. Nah...it's a shell game...

There is NO way that the Dems would suddenly shift positions and let Roe v.Wade go away.

As for Jesse Jackson, he saw a chance to be on TV...and like Randall Terry, he went for it.

[applegrove]

36. I don't think they are shifting the position on that. You can just use

other tools to make abortion rare. What about a pill for boys? And operation? Funding for unwed mothers?

They have done tests and a good number of the people who vote against abortion rights just don't want it to be such a trite thing. They want counseling. They want to see it become very small in numbers. They are open to birth control. They really, really do not want to see poor girls die for lack of access to abortion. They want it to be fair and rare.

The numbers are not there to undo Roe vs. Wade. The numbers are there to bring the ones who just want to see abortion rare and serious..over to our side. They are now giving out the morning after pill like candy. That is another way to diminish the issue. So it is less of a wedge.

You diminish the reality of abortion and the opposition goes away.

[Nikki Stone 1]

39. I have answered your previous post (above) with a rather detailed answer

Happy reading.

[madfloridian]

40. Hey, tell us where they give out that pill like candy?

I had to laugh at that one. Maybe you are not aware that pharmacists are getting away with not filling birth control prescriptions.

Giving out the morning after pill like candy? Unbelievable statement.

[Nikki Stone 1]

41. Wasn't there a thread about WalMart refusing to carry emergency

contraception?

[madfloridian]

43. Yep. Just today.

:hi:

[Nikki Stone 1]

44. We could also mention the fact that most insurances don't cover

birth control but do cover viagra.

[applegrove]

49. Bingo!

[ElectroPrincess]

82. I know - that's the ultimate sign of our sick patriarchal society

[applegrove]

48. I'm from Canada. They just made that pill not need a prescription.

And yes - the attempts to not allow birth control to be sold.. will make the anti- choice group look hypocritical.

You have to be there to make it happen. That is why we discuss. I especially want to sit down beside a misogynist (who have had a tough time keeping women in this last generation because not enough women are repressed and uneducated enough to hang around)... I especially want to sit by the misogynist and talk turkey and 'a man's new responsibility in this whole reproductive rights thing'.

I can frame that argument pretty well in a brief but descriptive account of female circumcision and how customary law and its introduction usually has a basis in practical matters.

You dig!

[Nikki Stone 1]

53. What part of Canada are you from?

I always wanted to live there. I speak some French and have liked most of the Canadians that I have met.

[applegrove]

60. Cannot say. I have PTSD from being stalked by a psychopath in my 20s &

30s so I do not give out personal information on the Web. You, of course, understand that my boundaries may be a little different than the norm. So I cannot with the personal information. But I do look forward to reading your stuff and responding.

[Nikki Stone 1]

70. Of course. No problem.

Sorry if it seemed intrusive.

[applegrove]

71. Not at all. I volunteered Canada. You were just being yourself. Sorry

Not deal at all.:hi:

[Kipepeo]

56. Yep

In fact, the FDA bowed to Bush last year and refused to make Plan B available over-the-counter here. Looks like we may have another shot soon though: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45610-2005Mar17.html

A new study in Canada shows that making Plan B available over the counter there has increased its use and likely prevented many unwanted pregnancies and subsequent abortions: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050329/HPILL29/TPHealth/

[applegrove]

61. The second article... exactly the issue. Right on for posting that. n/t

[LittleClarkie]

42. Naw

Harry's not an activist, and can represent the majority in this issue, I think. At least when he's wearing his leader hat. No telling when he's wearing his senator hat. As a spokesman for the party, I think he will make the appropriate comments.

As for Jesse, I think he's a Reverend first, Dem second, media hound always.

[More Than A Feeling]

45. Reid is eager to take down Bush's judicial extremists

especially potential supreme court nominees, so I don't know why you are worried about him. Roe v. Wade is safe with him. As far as restrictions on abortion went, I don't see any coming down the pike. Do you? Bush hasn't exactly made it a priority.

Jesse Jackson is not an elected official and represents the Democratic party in no way shape or form, last I heard, so he can be photographed with whomever, and it won't change a single plank in the party platform.

Nobody is throwing anybody overboard. What is going on is that Reid has done probably as well as anybody could opposing Bush, and Jackson is just being a spotlight hound, in my opinion. This is just like when he defended the Decatur Seven after that brawl in 97, I think it was, only to see that embarassing tape come out afterward.

[Nikki Stone 1]

47. Jackson is not an official Democratic rep, but he is certainly identified

with the party. I think his presence there is more than being a "publicity hound", though I have to admit that I hope you are right and that I am wrong.

[Wabbajack]

46. Looks like some are

just like they turned their backs on gun saftey. That sure helped win the south didn't it?

[ProgressiveDepot.com]

54. They're certainly trying to play down the issue, that's for sure.

And until there is a serious challenge to Roe v. Wade, that might be the right thing to do. There's really no point in shouting from the rooftops as it only keeps the issue in the public eye.

[Nikki Stone 1]

57. Well, we'll see what the Dems do about the judgeships

Of course, if the filibuster is removed....

[Radical Activist]

58. No. It isn't.

No interest group has more influence or a greater veto power over the Democratic Party than pro-choice groups. Reid has said his agenda will be pro-choice as leader regardless of what his personal feelings are. No pro-life Democrat has a chance in hell of getting nominated for President because of pro-choice and women's groups. And Jesse Jackson is still pro-choice. Creating a false sense of alarm is a frequent tactic to raise money and support for a cause though.

[Crowdance]

63. Yes, it is. They're falling all over themselves to be anti-choice

these days. I predict the consequences will be dire, as those of us who can't belong to an unprincipled party leave. I was, at first, very saddened by this. But, as time has gone on, and many have tried to paint this pig of an idea with lurid makeup, I've become angry. This party is doomed.

[Freddie Stubbs]

69. DNC Chairman Howard Dean: "We are not the pro-abortion party"

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/11271150.htm

[Larkspur]

73. And Dean is right again!!!

Democrats are not creating "Aboriton mills" as the reichwing nuts claim Plan Parenthood clinics are. We're about choice, not promoting abortion as the only birth control device.

Thank you for posting this. :evilgrin:

[saracat]

91. Bleh! Appeasement. Trying to run from one of our most important issues!

In this regard, I am a single issue voter. If we throw abortion overboard, i won't support the Party. I am really displeased by all this "reaching out' And to the likes of Randall Terry yet! BTW, I KNOW that Dean isn't talking about Randall Terry.

[Freddie Stubbs]

96. Howard Dean said that he would reach out to Red Staters

when he was running for Chairman. Apperently some people didn't believe him.

[Mandate My Ass]

101. Does reach out mean cave in?

They're certainly not talking about relaxing their stance even though a majority of Americans support choice. They're already chipping away at abortion rights and passing conscience clause legislation so that pharmacists can deny filling scrips for BCP and EC. We're doing all the backpedalling and they just keep demanding more and more concessions based on ridiculous and false claims that the left is "pro-abortion."

They should be doing the justifying, not us.

[Freddie Stubbs]

103. One person's "caving in" is another person's moderation

Howard Dean always said that he was a moderate, but some people just wouldn't believe him.

[Mandate My Ass]

106. Too fuzzy for me. I want to know exactly what those terms mean

I want to know exactly how far he is going to moderate my rights and the rights of every woman in this country.

There is far too much emphasis on this issue when a majority of Americans support it. I repeat, make them justify why we have to moderate. A right is not negotiable under any circumstances.

[OzarkDem]

122. False choice

Reaching out to other voting constituencies doesn't mean Dems are becoming anti-choice.

[saracat]

102. So red staters are anti-choice? I live in a red state. If I had known this

was the message , I would have supported Rosenberg! I thought Dean would be progressive and outspoken. I hate being disappointed. I did know he was a moderate about many things.I should have considered that he would revert to his roots! But maybe things will get better. I hope!

[Freddie Stubbs]

104. He is being outspoken

What made you think that he would be 'progressive?'

[saracat]

105. He made socially progressive and fiscally conservative statements

during his campaign. He alsxo semmed to be supportive of some of the liberal stances of John Kerry. He is known for being blunt. Why wouldn't I think he would be socially progressive? his primary supporters touted his stance on things like domestic partnership. He took a huge risk with his wife's image as a professional NOT dedicating herself to his campaign. Sheesh. Why wouldn't I think he would be more progressive?