"Well, Dr. Dean, you don't know me."

[Tansy_Gold]

"I think we need to talk about abortion differently," Dean said. "Republicans have painted us into a corner where they have forced us to defend abortion. I don't know anybody who's for abortion."




Well, Dr. Dean, you don't know me.

I'm 'for' abortion as the only means of ending an unwanted pregnancy. Will abstinence take care of it? Will emergency contraception? Will birth control pills? Will prayer?

I'm 'for' abortion as the last resort for women whose other forms of birth control have failed and who do not want to be pregnant or have a child.

I'm 'for' abortion in the cases of girls and women who have been raped and been unable to obtain emergency contraception.

I'm 'for' abortion for the women who find themselves in financial straits and can't afford the many expenses of bearing another child, much less raising one.

I'm 'for' abortion for the women and their families who decide that bringing a child with severe disabilities into their family will put an undue burden on their time, energies, finances, and emotions.

I'm 'for' abortion for the women whose pregnancies present unexpected physical, emotional, and psychological health risks.

I'm 'for' all the reproductive choices that women ought to have readily and affordably available whenever they need them, including oral contraceptives, diaphragms, condoms, and abortion.

If the right to lifers have painted us into a corner, Dr. Dean, all we have to do is stand up and walk proudly out. So what if it messes up their paint?

[ProudToBeLiberal]

1. Let me simplify your rant

rare, safe, and legal. Which Howard Dean advocates.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maat]

7. But I don't necessarily want it to be rare ..

especially if, by 'abortion,' the Religious Right means use of the Morning After pill. I want that to be used liberally.

Some define birth control as abortion (Conservative Christians); I also want that to be liberally used.

A D&C early on during the first couple of months. If lots of women want them, then I encourage them to do that.

How do I get off saying this? I, unlike Dr. Dean, was a Child Protective Services worker (social worker) for seven years, and am well aware of what often happens to an unwanted child.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

8. wait

are you saying you advocate that people should just get pregnant to get abortions? WTF MAN that is JUST SICK. That's like saying people should only have sex to have babies or back in the 1830s, black should only get pregnant so the child could be use as slave labor and profit for the masters. Man dude...look at what you're saying.

edit- also you know very well that dean isn't talking about birth control methods. You know it but you still say it, what does that say?

[Maat]

16. Dean isn't ... but his opponents are.

They've made it very clear that they not only want to eliminate a woman's right to choose in a late-term situation that is hopeless ... but that they eventually wish to get rid of basic birth control.

When Dean says that there is room for a "pro-life" view, he doesn't realize it, but he is talking about engaging in conversation with people who want to eliminate basic birth control.

Did I say anyone should get pregnant just to get an abortion? Nowhere did I say anything like that.


What I said was, if someone is pregnant, and does not wish to have that child and care for that child, then I encourage that person to either prevent implantation with Plan B (the Morning After Pill) or terminate the pregnancy very early (when we are talking a clump of cells). That is a much better option than carrying the pregnancy to term and subsequently abusing or neglecting the child. And we don't have enough adoptive parents for older children, and many, many birthparents do not relinquish babies at birth.

And I'm female.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

17. I'm male nt

[booley]

84. Sorry but that's not it at all

"When Dean says that there is room for a "pro-life" view, he doesn't realize it, but he is talking about engaging in conversation with people who want to eliminate basic birth control."

Sorry but I know waaaaayy to many people who are against abortion AND PRO-Birth control. In fact, no matter whatever Pope we have may say, a lot of Catholics are this way. Many are disturbed by abortion. They are also smart enough to know that restricting birth control only leads to more of the very abortions they find disturbing.

This is part of the problem. we've let a small group confuse the issue, trying to make it as if the two are the same. That's the first thing we have to chip away at.

BUT don't assume that anyone who describes themselves as Pro-Life is anti-cbirth control.

[SemperEadem]

76. non sequitur

are you saying you advocate that people should just get pregnant to get abortions?

Nowhere at all, in anything he posted did his point even come close to saying that.

[Still_Loves_John]

22. The idea behind "rare" isn't that

women won't get abortions when they need them, it's just saying that, in an idea world, no one would be forced to make such a painful decision in the first place. It's a way of saying "We would love to live in a world where there are no unwanted pregnancies, where all children can grow up in good homes where their parents have enough money to raise them, where no one has to worry about complications during pregnancy, but since we don't live in that world, abortion has to be legal."

[tsuki]

38. Thank you. I was trying to think how to say that. I have no problem

with rare. I have a problem with the abstinence birth control. In the history of humanity, it has never worked (except maybe with the Shakers.)

We should be beefing up our planned parenthood message. That would make abortions rare, safe and legal.

[Maat]

56. No, it wouldn't.

The Religious Right defines BIRTH CONTROL as abortion. 50% of all fertilized eggs do not implant naturally. What the Religious Right is saying is that they want a woman to have to prove that a lack of implantation is natural, not induced. And, not only does Plan B prevent implantation, basic birth control frequently does also. So, they are very clear on their websites that they do not even want birth control pills available.

So, what I'm saying is that when speaking about abortions, we should always be clear that it is surgeries that we would like to be rare.

Progressives should make it very clear that we disagree with the Religious Right, and do not believe that Plan B and birth control pills are abortion.

Secondly, we should make it very, very clear that we strongly encourage the use of Plan B (The Morning After Pill) and birth control pills, providing a woman's doctor thinks that is advisable.

The idea that the world could take millions and millions more children (unwanted children) is so absurd that I can't even describe it. And people are going to have sex. The idea that they are going to wait until marriage is preposterous. So, we need to make it clear that we encourage the use of Plan B and birth control, and do not consider them to be abortions.

[tsuki]

64. I don't understand. For decades, there has been no problem with

birth control. Now, of a sudden, Fundie pharmacists want the right to deny a woman. At a time when my health carrier is pushing me to take my business to mail order.

As for Plan B being abortions, that is stupid, even for a Fundie.

[Still_Loves_John]

67. Why does it matter how the religious right defines abortion?

And, on top of that, very very few people define it like that. Considering most of the religious right is protestant, even most of the religious right wouldn't believe that. It's pretty much just a catholic thing. So you're overestimating even what the religious right considers abortion.

And on top of that, this message isn't for the religoius right, so their definition doesn't really apply. There are plenty of people who aren't hardline religious, but who still have some personal problems with abortion. That's who this message is for.

[LynneSin]

43. No, you're missing what Howard Dean is trying to say

Under the Bush administration which has worked hard to prevent abortions through bad family planning and education - the number of abortions has increased.

Abortions will never go away, I don't want them to go away, you don't and I know Howard Dean doesn't want them to go away either. But what I know Dean and myself want and I'm sure you do too - is a better angle of dealing with the Abortion issue. We shouldn't be worrying about the end results - Abortion, but what leads people there in the first place.

THe Bush administration has taken a page out of Nancy Reagan's social cause playbook thinking that fancy slogans will somehow prevent abortions like they were suppose to cut down on illegal drug use. Neo-Cons feel that we should only teach our children to "Just say No" to pre-martial sex and somehow magically all our children will stop having sex until they are married and then only in the attempts to pro-create. Let's face it, you put 2 horny teenagers together in the same room and all this "Just say no to sex" is out the door.

THe Bush administration also feels that family planning and healthcare isn't important. If my penis can't get erect I have several medications to choose from which are paid for by my health insurance. And yet if I want to keep my uterus unoccupied, then I better hope that my health insurance will cover the cost for my birth control pills and then I hope that I don't walk into a pharmacy where the pharmacist will get all moral on my ass for being single and possibly attempt to abort a fetus through modern chemistry. (Btw, I only have a uterus - just verbally the whole paragraphy kinda sounded neat).

Re-thinking the abortion issue isn't an attack on Abortions, it's just a new game plan to let us know we're not about abortions, but doing everything we can to ensure that every potential mother (ie - anyone with a uterus) can make informed & educated decisions for their body in hopes that ultimately, they will never ever have to consider abortion. However, should that rare case happen, then yes, abortion should be available.

This was never about abortions - repukes turned it into that fight decades ago in order to vilify the democratic party. This is about giving women & their families all the tools to plan when they want to have children in a safe and effective manner (ie - birth control pills).

[lojasmo]

51. That is one of the stupidest statements I've heard....

And part of the reason we keep losing elections.

[rocktivity]

30. Abortion cannot be kept rare unless it IS kept safe and legal.

As well as separated between church and state. If you believe abortion's a sin, choose not to have one. But in America, you cannot make that choice for others.

:headbang:
rocknation

[katinmn]

91. Exactly.

No one uses abortion like a condom or birth control pills.

It's an option and the decision whether or not to have one is between a woman and her doctor. Period.

[NYCGirl]

2. I think if you actually read what he says, you'll find out that YOU AGREE!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1730957&mesg_id=1730957

Because he's NOT AGAINST a woman's right to choose.

[LittleClarkie]

3. I'm "for" abortions

in the same way I'm "for" pap smears.

Necessary on occasion, but not alotta fun.

[LittleClarkie]

4. I'm for...

emphasizing preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

better sex education.

better health care so that affording prenatal care isn't an issue.

hope, because when we had hope under Clinton, there were fewer abortions.

[katinmn]

93. ...and pharmacists who can't refuse to give you birth control pills

[mahina]

6. I'm as right to choose as anyone, but I understand what he is saying.

I have argued the point myself. I think you missed his point, perhaps he didn't explain it thoroughly or it wasn't made clear in the context given. Was there a link that gives the context?

We are for a right to choose, to access to all options so women can make their own choices.

Promoting abortion is not the point, if you want to reduce abortions elect a democrat who will fund sex ed and birth control.
I don't mean to get into an argument with you but I hope you read the whole context of what he said on this matter. All the best to you, I'm working to keep our rights too! They are absolutely at risk, but not from Howard Dean.
Aloha no

[janx]

9. "I'm 'for' abortion as the last resort"

So are most people. That's exactly his point.

[DaDeacon]

10. That sounds like load of Crap!!!

Sorry but this that was just a silly bit of self servering begging of the question. Clearly the statement by Dr Dean was that no one thinks of abortion as a first choice, as the repubs have framed & with statements like this one it's easy to see how they did it. Our party doesn't seek to end all pregnancies with abortion, no one is aganist your choice but I am against your need to wave abortion like the need to have food or water.

You list, again and again when you are for abortions but you never seem to point out when you are against them? Or is that you feel that abortion is always a choice. I'm not pro-life and I'm not coming down on you it's just that I'm "Pro-Choice", by that I mean I'm not pro-life or pro-death I'm pro personal choice that only a woman can really make. What I'm not however, is a a person who feels the need to fight for death whenever life can be a choice. I should only hope you are too.

[Tansy_Gold]

15. No, I'm challenging his rhetoric

Because rhetoric is what the anti-choicers have used against us, and Dean himself acknowledges that.

When he implies "no one is for abortion," he marginalizes those of us who see abortion as a valid and valuable and necessary health option for women. His statement is one that the anti-choicers will fling back at us -- and even the anti-choicers within the Democratic party will grasp at to keep the pro-choice platform plank very, very narrow.

Do I believe women should get pregnant just so they can enjoy having an abortion? Oh, jesus fucking keerist, get real. Do I think abortions should be used as routine birth control? Fuck, no, because there are simpler, cheaper, far more convenient and far healthier alternatives.

But I do believe Dean put his foot in his mouth when he said. "no one is for abortion." And I wanted to point out the error of his statement.

Could he have said, "no one likes abortion"? Sure, and he'd have been closer to accuracy with that statement. (Almost) no one likes cancer, but we want to have a variety of therapies available when we have to deal with it. I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't "like" condoms, either, but not liking them doesn't mean the person is against them.

I don't care if Dean's statement was taken out of context -- he still said it, and it's the kind of thing, imho, that can be used against a pro-choice plank in the party platform.

I just wanted to make the statement that, regardless what Dean says, I *am* 'for' abortion.

[janx]

21. Well then I'd be tempted to think that it is your rhetoric

that is messed up, not his.

My mother told me as much 30 years ago. "Nobody is FOR abortion, but sometimes it's the only choice."

There's no error in that statement at all.

[welshTerrier2]

11. all this DU tap-dancing is total BULLSHIT

we can sit and debate all day, and all of yesterday too, about exactly what Dean did and didn't say ... frankly, parse it any way you want to, Dean's comments were vague because he did not address whether he would support candidates who are "ANTI-ABORTION" ...

there have been all these defenses of "safe, rare and legal" (which, fwiw, was the position Simon Rosenberg took when he ran for DNC Chair) ...

you give me a rock-solid guarantee that the Democratic Party will not endorse "ANTI-ABORTION" candidates and you'll find me far more tolerant of Dean's recent speech ...

but Dean et al are tap-dancing around this most fundamental issue ... what's up with the Party's backing of Casey in PA? Casey is not for "safe, rare and legal" ... Casey is "ANTI-ABORTION" ... oh, to be fair, he is not "ANTI-ABORTION" in every single situation ... when does he "permit" abortion? rape? ... um, nope ... gotta have that baby ... well, how about incest? nope, that shouldn't be a woman's choice either ... the only exception Casey makes is when the life of the mother is at risk ...

so go ahead and parse Dean's recent words on the subject ... but Dean has called for encouraging "pro life" Democrats to run for office ... no, "pro life" does not necessarily mean "ANTI-ABORTION" ... but if the Party pushes (and they are) Casey's Senate candidacy in PA, I guess then we'll understand that the Democrat Party is willing to deny the Constitutional rights of women to win elections ...

maybe that's OK for some; it's not for me ...

[DaDeacon]

14. Damn, when did choice become onesided? also?

What line in the US Constitution give anyone a right to an ABORTION?

[welshTerrier2]

18. i believe the case on this matter was called ...

Roe v. Wade ... i'm not a Constitutional scholar but I believe the Supreme Court ruled that a woman's "RIGHT" to privacy would be denied if any law were made to block her freedom of choice ...

so, yes, Roe stated that the right to choose was Constitutionally guaranteed ...

[DaDeacon]

26. No my dear, Look again!

Roe v. Wade proved the "UNconstitutionality" of anti-abortion laws thus baring the enforcment of such laws (read opinion of the Court, http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/ section 3 is the eye opener for you) .This is why stipulations on who, when and where abortions can be had are still in place. They can't say no but they can make it damn hard. However, I'm sadden to tell you abortions arn't Constitutionally guaranteed.

[welshTerrier2]

28. well, first of all, i'm certainly not "your dear"

secondly, as i said, i'm no lawyer but my reading and my understanding of Roe is that the right to privacy (Constitutionally guaranteed) protects a woman's right to choose ...

i'm also aware that despite the religious right's efforts over more than 30 years, freedom to choose has been regulary upheld over many court challenges ...

anyway, the more important issue is what position the Democratic Party will take on this issue ... you haven't addressed that at all in your responses to my post ...

[DaDeacon]

32. Well I thought I had sorry !

I think the party should remain pro choice HOWEVER, we have to be open to real choice. It's a private mater that the state should allow to be between a woman and her Doctor. The choice stance of our party should include voices who are open to life choices (adoption, planned parenthood, ect..) outside of abortion. We as a party are not allowing for that voice and thus are being made to look like a group of extremists on an issue that has no wrong or rights. A great move by the right but in the end it lacks complexity. It's like a trick question! "When did you stop beating your wife?" If you make this a yes or no type deal you always look bad but when clarity of thought and complexity of answer can be given it easy to say "I never beat my wife and that question is insulting." The right keeps asking us why are we against life? and we keep yelling to quickly "Cause' you're for it!" We need to open up the view to capture the depth of the issue. It's not back or white, it's a pinkish yellow?! If we keep letting others define it as in simple terms we'll keep doing the "yes and no dance."

[DaDeacon]

33. Yes you are dear to me, I love all my fellow Dems, Like it or not :)

[suigeneris]

36. If I understand you correctly...

...you are mistaken. A woman has a (qualified) right to an abortion based on 14th Amendment protection of her constitutional right to privacy.

However, the general idea "show me a line in the Constitution" is wrong on its face so I am puzzled why you make it. The great majority of our constitutional rights are not enumerated in the Constitution. No argument about that is there?

[DaDeacon]

39. No not at all...

the protection of privacy is based on or wish to have "a" medical procedure without the unlawful intrusion or notification of the state in THIS case. The legality of an "abortion" was never in question. The idea that it's covered under a "general idea" is a little lewd don't you think? The court is very clear on this! ...the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. You see that "including" is a great word and it's placement here is by no mistake because Justice Blackmun had to include it in his opinion in order to tie it to the lose interpolation of the 14th that was used as a constitutional bias for the majority vote. Read the opinion not the cliff notes friends, that's not an insult rather a request because you don't seem to be looking at the whole opinion . You see I am pro-choicer like many of you but I realize the fragile foundation of this legal truce. I fear that many of us don't know how easy it would be to overturn this case.

[suigeneris]

52. Then I don't understand you. Please clarify.

"the protection of privacy is based on or wish to have "a" medical procedure without the unlawful intrusion or notification of the state in THIS case." -DD

"THIS case?" All supreme court opinions look at instant cases and generalize in their findings. Nothing new about that in Roe.

"The legality of an "abortion" was never in question. "-DD

Sure it was, it was the entire matter, and because it was unconstitutionally denied Roe made clear that all women have a right to abortion. It is based on protection of their right to privacy. How can you deny this, the opinion is clear enough?

"The idea that it's covered under a "general idea" is a little lewd don't you think?" -DD

I'm puzzled. Maybe you miss my "general idea" point. Your assertion, "What line in the US Constitution give anyone a right to an ABORTION?" seems to me to entirely miss the point as only the tiniest fraction of our consitutional rights are enumerated specifically and it was just ratification politics that caused the Bill of Rights to be written at all. Without the Bill of Rights we would surely have possessed no fewer rights. Right?

Most Supreme Court decisions are anchored in some more *specific* right(s) but only because it makes them more palatable, not because it is necessary.

I've read the decision, not the Cliff Notes many times and I think Roe was correctly decided, although the result cold have been the same with different legal reasoning. Ultimately Roe had a liberty interest in deciding for herself whether to end an early pregnancy and the state did not have a clear and compelling reason to stop her. True then, true today.

Jefferson is clear on this point: "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."--Thomas Jefferson

[DaDeacon]

78. Sorry for the delayed response...

Here it is "...as only the tiniest fraction of our constitutional rights are enumerated specifically" that is my point. I don't like to seem like a jerk here but I hate hearing people throw around "what the Constitution owes them." Our rights for the most part only exist in the temporary reality of interpretation, i don't deny this I just wish that others understand that. Your points are clear but you forget that the court can only do one thing "debate and rule on the constitutionality of a law or laws" The fact that the 14th was used to say the Texas abortion laws were unconstitutional does rule on "the legality of an "abortion" , however it does so by saying laws against it or not in the spirit of the constitution at no point were laws FOR abortion brought before the court, to see if the act is illegal , word play i know but that is what I have been saying all along. What's your field of study I would love to get your opinion on other matters if you have the time?

[Orangepeel]

27. actually, that's not what R v W says.

For the record, Roe, as I understand it, says that states cannot restrict abortion rights in the early stages of pregnancy (roughly the first trimester), can make it illegal in the latter stages (roughly the last trimester) as long as they make exception for the health of the woman, and can place restrictions on it in the second trimester.

This is only tangentially related to your post, but I think it is very important to note what Roe actually says when anyone starts talking about compromising on reproductive rights. Many people in the country believe that Roe v Wade legalizes all abortions, but Roe is already a compromise of the sort that most people say they agree with.

[DaDeacon]

35. Good point ,but...?

I posted a link to the court's opinion so you can see to what I was referring if you disagree with my interpretation OK, but please if you have never read the courts ruling do so first. It's late and I have no wish to look up the Latin term for why roe v. wade protects abortion by the the baring of laws against them while not ruling directly on the issue of abortion itself (fun fact number 4: did you know that the same term I can't remember is the reason that mp3 can't be outlawed even if file sharing music "could be"). The end point is "abortion's" direct legality has never be accepted by the court.

[Tansy_Gold]

19. I'm not tap-dancing

I think Dean was wrong to make the statement, just as I think his whole big-tent, embrace the anti-choicers stance is wrong. And I don't support it.

[welshTerrier2]

24. sorry, i agree with your BP

the problem i've had with this whole discussion is that it starts with the premise that Dean, and the Democratic Party, are pushing some reduced flavor of "keep it legal" ... and all the arguments then battle back and forth over whether "for abortion" or "pro life" or whatever is the right message to send ...

but before we even get to that discussion, i think we need to put the more critical issue on the table ... the truth is, I don't trust the Democratic Party on this issue ... i do not believe they are willing to commit to the "legal" guarantee ...

this view comes from their support for Casey in PA and from Dean's previous language about encouraging "pro life" Democrats to run for office ... some will hide behind the defense that they are "pro life" only for their own personal views but that Dean would only endorse "pro choice" candidates ... they argue, given these definitions that you can be pro-life and pro-choice ... i say "fine" ... BUT, Dean did not say that the pro-life candidates he wants to "encourage to run" would also have to be "pro choice" ... he sort of omitted that little detail from his statement ...

i agree completely with what you wrote in the BP but I think until we resolve the issue of whether the Democratic Party will insist all Democratic candidates are "pro choice", the rest of the discussion is much less relevant ...

[janx]

25. Whoa. When did he say he would embrace anti-choicers?

Show me. That's one heck of an accusation to make against the chair of the DNC.

[Larkspur]

46. Dean doesn't choose the candidates...

Individuals have got to want to run, state and local Dem committess help nominated and support candidates, and Dem voters will select a candidate in a primary, if there is one. In some areas Dem committees are anti-abortion, so the candidate will reflect that. In some areas, like Pennsylvania, the Dem Governor is very strong and will support an anti-abortion candidate and use all his power to prevent a primary challenger to that candidate.

Howard Dean has nothing to do with selecting the individual candidates. His job as DNC Chair is to help get Democrats elected and he has to serve anti-abortion Dems as well as pro-choice ones.

[CTLawGuy]

47. as far as I know

Casey is the only guy running against Rick Santorum....


unless you'd rather have Rick Santorum :shrug:

[Crowdance]

73. Meet Chuck , he's gonna beat Santorum AND Casey

He's pro-choice and a great guy besides. He could use your check:
Chuck Pennaccio
http://www.chuck2006.com/

[CTLawGuy]

75. cool

thanks for the link

[welshTerrier2]

77. excellent !! thanks ...

i've read a fair amount of his website ... sounds like a great candidate ...

Casey is a very bad choice ... win or lose, his "selection" by insiders is going to cost the Democratic Party dearly ...

[dionysus]

12. thats the biggest load of bullshit flamebait i think i've ever read

n/t

[DaDeacon]

13. Right-o., it sure was!!!!

[Virginian]

20. The Chinese government is "for abortion".

An abortion is required if you already have a child. IMHO, that is what "for abortion" means.

I loved your prose, but I think we need to soften the rhetoric to help the other side hear us.

What you have stated is simply that you are against a bunch of (mostly) old, white men telling you or any woman they know what is right for her and her body, that they know more than she and her doctor about what is best for her.

To me, that means that you (and I) are against government interference or regulation of women's medical and reproductive needs. I don't want a Member of Congress sitting in the examining room when I get a pelvic exam. It is a personal and private matter. My decisions about me should be mine and not limited by someone with a political agenda.

I am NOT "for abortion." I don't think anyone should EVER, EVER be forced to have one.
I am NOT "anti-abortion." I don't think anyone should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term.
I am for a woman's right to choose her own destiny based on her own needs. For so long, we have used the term pro-choice to express this. The right wing propaganda machine has twisted this to mean Pro-abortion when that isn't what it means at all.
The right has also renamed "suppression of women" to be "Pro-Life" when it does not mean being for the life of the woman.

As long as we let them, the right will use these distorted sound bites to get their message across. They will never ban abortion, they depend on it as a wedge issue. We have a conservative Republican House and Senate. We have a very conservative Republican president. Don't you think they would pass a ban on abortion if they were serious about it? Oh, they did pass something, but it was struck down as unconstitutional by "activist judges." They knew it wouldn't fly. They didn't want it to. If they had been serious about it, they would have included the clause to protect the life of the woman.

Once again, I thought your prose was great.
I believe it will make people think about it.

[madfloridian]

23. Here are the words from the CA speech.

They are posted all over here today. I see nothing wrong with them. He addressed the fact at a meeting that he knew there was concern because he was trying to change the rhetoric. I think he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. I quite frankly think we will self-destruct as a party rather than trying to understand.

I had a hard time with the Casey and Langevin things, and we will donate to Pennacchio as a result of that. I am learning Howard Dean had nothing to do with that party decision, done at other levels.

Here is what he said in CA Saturday night at the convention.

SNIP:.."I think we need to talk about abortion differently. And I'll tell you just what I mean by that.

Republicans have painted us into a corner as being pro-abortion. I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion. I don't. They back us into getting into an argument over whether abortion is a good thing or not. Did you know there has been a 25% higher rate of abortion since George Bush was President than when Clinton was President? We can make common ground with folks.

The issue we need to debate is whether a woman gets to make up her own mind over what kind of health care she's going to get or whether Tom DeLay gets to make up her mind for her. That's the issue we need to debate.

When I was campaigning for this job I ran into a lot of women in the south who said they were pro-life. They would tell me "I wouldn't want an abortion and I wouldn't want my daughter to have an abortion, but I'm not sure if I'd want to tell the lady next door, if she was in a fix, whether she should have an abortion."

We call that person pro-choice, but she calls herself pro-life. The minute we start talking about choice, she's not listening to us anymore.

When we say this debate is about whether a woman has a right to make up here own mind. Every woman in America has been told what to do by somebody else once in a while. Every woman in America gets that Democrats believe that individuals should be allowed to make up their own mind and that politicians in Washington will not make these decisions for Americans." (Standing Ovation)

He is saying that the words pro-choice will turn away some people who really would not deny someone else an abortion....it is has been a misused word, like liberal.

[kodi]

29. I don't know anybody who's for abortion either.

i do know and am one who is for abortion rights.

it is a distinct difference that howard dean understands even if the originator of this thread cannot.

[Tansy_Gold]

31. semantics

it's like being pro-marriage, but not marriage rights for gays. and I call that bullshit.

I am pro-abortion the same way I'm pro-marriage -- if you want it, you should be able to have it.

I'm stating exactly what I mean. I'm not framing it in some politically correct, palatable-to-the-moderates, watered-down pap.

Am I in favor of abortion on demand? Yes.
Am I in favor of late-term abortion? Yes.
Do I think aborting of 35-week fetuses is going to suddenly take a huge spike if late-term abortion is suddenly legal and affordable and available? No, I don't, because I know most pregnant women, even those who are extremely depressed at the end of their pregnancies, are sensible enough not to go this route. The few late-term terminatoins that are performed now are emergency cases, and they will continue to be regardless any liberalization of the law. To think otherwise is to demean women.

Because this is what Dean is implying, but few of us are really coming out and stating it firmly. If Dean is looking for a new way to speak about the issue -- framing it in terms of women "making up their own minds," which is just a bunch of extra syllables for the monosyllable "choice" -- why not just be honest?

If he doesn't put it in simple, straightforward terms, he's still standing in the corner and the rightwingers are still holding the paintbrush.

[kodi]

37. and i would call your denial of humanity to a 35 week fetus "semantics"

late term abortions?

clearly you advocate killing a fetus up to the day it is birthed. after all, you stated clearly that you favor late term abortions.

you did not qualify your personal acceptance of such a procedure with "only to save the life of the mother" because if you did you would open up a pandora's box of when that fetus moves from property to being.


abortion should remain legal and on demand, but i think your remarks are full of shit.

[Tansy_Gold]

40. You may think my remarks are full of shit if you wish

but I'm not retracting them.

As I said in an earlier post, I do not believe women in their 35th or 36th week of pregnancy are going to rush out and get abortions for the fun of it. I mean, for crying out loud, let's get real. The women who get late-term abortions do so because they have extenuating circumstances, and that is not likely to change.

But if I have to make a choice (pun intended) between favoring late-term abortion in those cases where the mother determines it to be her chosen course of action or favoring restrictions on abortion that limit the procedure to the first trimester in such a way that many women are unable to obtain them, etc., etc., etc., etc., yes, I favor late-term abortions.

I favor allowing women to make their reproductive decisions without unnecessary and arbitrary restrictions imposed by men who will never have to make them.

I am against restrictions, especially those imposed by religion.

I am against withholding of funding for women's health.

I am against poverty.

I am against child abuse and other forms of domestic violence.

I'm also 'for' adoption, 'for' voluntary sterilization, 'for' rational sex education (including information about contraception and abortion), and so on. Being 'for' abortion doesn't mean I'm against everything else.

Am I advocating abortion as the birth control method of choice? No, I'm not that stupid. But I am advocating that it be available, safe, legal, and affordable whenever it is needed. And that 'need' can only be determined by the woman who is pregnant.

My point, from the beginning, has been that Dean said he wanted to change the way we talk about abortion, but he isn't changing it at all. I am. He's staying in that corner the anti-choicers painted him into. I'm not.

[ClassWarrior]

49. Semantics. Exactly.

So you're saying you'd rather defend the WORDS than the right. Right? Because as long as we irrationally cling to poison-pill words and phrases, we deep-six our chances of ever gaining acceptance for our values. What's more important to you, Pansy?

NGU.

[madfloridian]

34. Watch this video from Naples tonight..about 21 minutes.

http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/news/article/0,2071,NPDN_14940_3710665,00.html

He gets huge applause for his abortion statements.

[sandnsea]

41. I'm FOR women deciding themselves

Which is exactly what Dean is for. We need to stop fighting about abortion and start standing up for women to make their own medical decisions.

[w4rma]

42. In China they are *for* abortion to weed out potential females in favor of

boys. Are you "for" abortion in this case, also? Or how about "for" state mandated abortions (for whatever reason, maybe a judicial punishment or population control, or even ethnic clensing).

I'm sorry, but you have either not thought out your rhetoric very well at all or you support a bunch of pro abortion things that I absolutely *oppose*.

[LynneSin]

44. This has never had anything to do with abortions

When Birth Control became a regular part of society, it allowed women to make choices as to when (if) she would have children. Allowing us this control has take us out of the kitchen and into the work-force.

To me, Abortion was a cause dreamed up by neo-cons to help vilify independant women. And once the Abortion frenzy raged through the country it was easy enough to start including vilify birth control as another form of abortion. In a nutshell, men (and the women who have sold their soul & identity to support them) want to get back the control we gained decades ago. They want a world where the poor have no choice but to keep cranking out babies and who cares if a couple of these women die in the process of back-alley abortions. THey also know that abortion bans will not affect their own, since most of these men are from wealth and they can simply use their financial resources to obtain abortions for the mistakes they have made.

WE need to unpaint that picture. It's not about Abortions - it's about proper family planning, education & healthcare which, if all 3 are effective, should greatly reduce the number of abortions that happen. In France, abortions are very unrestricted but they have all 3 and the percentage of pregnancies terminated with abortion is very low. We can do the same here in the US.

[sendero]

45. I'm agraid...

... I agree with Dean's spin a lot more than I do yours.

You seem to believe that abortion is nothing more than a convenience to be afforded. Even those of us who firmly believe a woman should have the right to decide for herself, the idea that the decision can be made on a whim is repugnant.

Dean has correctly recognized that the right has successfully painted us as having exactly that attitude (that it's no big deal, just a small procedure) when most people could not possibly feel that way, and we should acknowledge that.

[LynneSin]

48. It isn't about the right to make a decision on a whim...

...it's the fact that there are better options available if we made them accessible, affordable and known to the population. We do none of these, worse yet, we give piss poor advise like teaching our kids Abstinence Only.

We've had tunnel vision for way too long on the abortion issue although for a good cause. We need to take the blinders off and realize that the population at a whole is like you and I - a little put-off by people out there that use abortions as a form of birth control. But that same population would probably not object to things such as affordable family planning, birth control accessibility and even sex education that focuses on the importance of Abstinence but discusses other options too. If we lived in a country like that - Abortions would be rare. But we don't, which is why under the Bush administration the number of Abortions are on a rise.

[suigeneris]

53. You say:

"We've had tunnel vision for way too long on the abortion issue although for a good cause. We need to take the blinders off and realize that the population at a whole is like you and I - a little put-off by people out there that use abortions as a form of birth control. But that same population would probably not object to things such as affordable family planning, birth control accessibility and even sex education that focuses on the importance of Abstinence but discusses other options too. If we lived in a country like that - Abortions would be rare. But we don't, which is why under the Bush administration the number of Abortions are on a rise."

Right, right, right. I think we would be smart to offer a number of well-thought-out programs in connection with abortion rights that would decrease unwanted pregnancies, hence abortions. These would include access to sex education and birth control but wouldn't stop there - those things drive people crazy who think sex out of wedlock is sinful and is encouraged by sex-ed and birth control - but also programs to prepare young people for responsible parenthood running the whole gamut from financially to spritually. I have faith that people, even young horny ones, make better choices when they have all the facts in mind. Choosing to have unprotected sex before marriage is rarely if ever the result of sound, informed thinking.

[Maat]

60. I agree.

But it is imperative that Dean or any DUer, when talking about abortion, emphasize that they are talking about the D&C or surgery.

The Religious Right considers Plan B (The Morning After Pill) and basic birth control pills to be abortion. We should be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that we DO NOT regard these as abortions. We encourage their use - because at most they prevent implantation.


As to subsequent surgeries, hopefully, if people avail themselves of the above options, they will become rarer.

But we need to be VERY CLEAR about how we are defining ABORTION before we even begin the discussion.

[leesa]

50. Don't you understand what he means? No one WANTS an

abortion, but it's a right you want to maintain for when you need to have one. It's so simple.

[Redleg]

62. Some folks here just want to disagree to be disagreeable.

I too thought Dean's message was pretty clear.

[ClassWarrior]

54. Hey everybody, let's trash our principles to save a few hot button words!!

NGU.

[NYCGirl]

55. Actually, we're trying to do just the opposite.

Trash a few hot button words in order to keep our principles.

[ClassWarrior]

57. So's Dr. Dean.

NGU.

[NYCGirl]

58. Yes, I mean Democrats when I say "we."

And trashing a few hot button words to keep our principals is a good thing. The words aren't important. Our principles are.

[ClassWarrior]

59. Exactly.

Sorry, I was responding to the OP, and I thought you were defending her.

:toast:
To our principles - the best of American values!

NGU.

[NYCGirl]

61. Absolutely!

A patriotic toast for all of us!

:toast: :patriot:

(I've been hoping to use the new smiley with the flag — ain't he cute?)

[ClassWarrior]

63. Yeah, it's sure refreshing to see a flag-waver wearing a smile...

...instead of a scowl or a vacant, brain-dead look.

:rofl:

NGU. :patriot:

[Generator]

65. Good post

SO I was thinking about Dr. Dean's comments at four am before I could get back to sleep.

I was thinking he's fooling himself. But he's trying. I understand what he's trying to do.

He's thinking that if you change the language, you will draw more people to the Democrats. Change that "hard core" image we have. WE love to have unprotected sex all the time and have abortions will nilly without a care in the world. We LOVE abortion.

But c'mon. They people that believe that are always going to believe that, the same as they are going to believe Kerry is a coward because Fox news said so. They have an agenda and it includes thinking the worst possible of those people that aren't like them-the liberals who are Democrats.

We are sex crazed and anti-life. Isn't that what LIBERAL means? We don't take responsiblity for our actions. We are not like THEM. But oh ho-and I've had experience with this myself. When, for whatever reason, someone who thinks they are pro-life gets pregnant and finds that for whatver reason, they too need to have an abortion. They still will consider themselves pro-life. They still won't think they are "like us". It's a culture of judgement. You can't change their thinking by changing the words we use.

They know what pro-choice means. It means choice. The other thing means you don't have a choice. They aren't dumb, just judgemental. Changing the words we use isn't going to change their mind. Maybe he's right but I don't think so.

They either judge us as sex crazed, irresponsible fiends or they know we are all women and we all want the best for ourselves. Changing the words isn't going to change prejudice.

What part of PRO-CHOICE is so hard to figure out? It's a choice or it's not. PERIOD. The rest is semantics and fooling ourselves into thinking if we JUST use the right word, they will no longer think we are anti-life heathens.

[NYCGirl]

66. We're not trying to change prejudice. We're taking back the debate.

We're taking back the issues.

[ClassWarrior]

68. It's not "just using the right word." Read the book.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

80. Kicking because I'd like to hear the justification for...

...the ill-informed comments in post #65.

NGU.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[janx]

79. I don't think so, from what I've read.

His point is that he has met people who consider themselves "pro-life"--probably because that term has been hammered home in the media and churches for the last twenty years--but who are in fact pro-choice, who believe that ultimately, it's a decision made with families, medicine, and religion in mind.

THOSE people need to know that we respect them. They're not for overturning Roe V. Wade, and in some instances they think that abortion is inevitable (saving life of future mom, rape, etc.). They don't believe that the government knows better than the woman/physician in the situation does, and they're right.

My ex-sister-in-law was born and raised heavily Irish Catholic. She was "pro-choice" because her religion taught her to be that way, but there were instances in which she knew that abortion was inevitable, and she had no desire to overturn Roe V. Wade. She wasn't stupid.

[Lars39]

69. The only thing I could add would be right to privacy to ensure

that women have these options. This should never have become a
political football in the first place, and I'd love to see women's
reproductive health choices be no one else's business but their own.

I'm glad you posted this, and I'll say it,too: I am for abortion.

[Lars39]

70. .

i refuse to be the one to kill this thread.

[Nikki Stone 1]

71. Recommended

kick

[demwing]

72. Why Are People So Afraid Of Doctor Dean?

even people who you would think would be on the right side of the issues.

Why does he scare people?

Think.

[Nikki Stone 1]

74. I'll bite: why ARE people so afraid of Dr. Dean?

Seriously. Go for it.

[Hidden Stillness]

81. Dean--You Don't Know Me Either

This is exactly why I did not support Dean. I was hoping this attitude was gone, and happy about the rest of the job Dean has been doing as DNC leader, but this is really offensive. People are not even noticing, one way or the other, that the line before "don't know anybody (blah)" is even worse: "forced us to defend abortion." What does that mean? By the way, I know lots of people who are for abortion and grateful it exists; I am one of them. I will also not be intimidated on this issue, but when you have "I'm going to murder you 'baby-killers' " on one side, and "We" "don't like abortion" on the other, from your "friends," then don't be surprised when you bring about the inevitable oppressive isolation of the abused woman.

This thread is full of the kind of annoying, "superior" sarcastic attack, from the "framing" crowd, that I have gotten completely sick of reading on this website and elsewhere. Oh you are so wise, and you have to live in this world with us stupid peons....

I remember the 1970s, when people fought and fought, with challenges to State courts and finally the Supreme Court, with marches, speeches, and a very brave (1971 or 1972) full-page ad in the New York Times, "I Have Had an Abortion, " I think it was called, a list of people, by name, before it was even legal here. These people had guts, courage--they had estrogen. They fought for the right to abortion. There is an undeniable pattern in the world, that where women are free and have rights (Scandinavian countries, U.S. and Canada, much of Europe, etc.), abortion is available--because women always support the right; where women are oppressed and don't have rights (Islamic countries, Africa, heavily Catholic countries, most of the world), it is not available, because males have kept it from us. I remember some years ago the woman Prime Minister of Norway made that point at the United Nations, and then when the "U.S." (global corporate) media played the quote over and over on the "news," they censored the comment every time. The only exception, I think, is China, where it is used as an oppressive social control of population growth, but of course, women do not have the right of abortion there, the Communist government does.

This is another example of the neverending situation where the males who lead the Party, (or the corporate world, or anything else), believe it is their personal property, and that we do not really belong there and are a nuisance. They are so quick to "dispense with" our concerns, to try to get more males, that they make these remarks that are very threatening, and don't even make sense. Who would say, the equivalent, "Nobody supports Living Wills, we want them to be rare," just because nobody wants to die that way? You are throwing out and casting aspertions on the solution, and never make a statement against the problem. I do not want abortion to be rare, I want rape and sexual abuse to be rare. I do not want abortion to be rare, I want males pressuring teen girls who are not ready to have sex, and don't want to, and who then abandon them, to be rare. You are so quick to attack the woman for being (insert vulgarity; I will not use it), when there is an unwanted pregnancy, yet not a single one of you attacks the male for the same, and wants to impose penalties on a male who, equally, causes this problem, then prances away from it, leaving her alone. Do you uneducated people not know where babies come from? You are so offended, yet do nothing to solve her problem, while letting the male get away with it. Will you NEVER end this bigotry against us?

When people start telling us they want our rights to be "rare," it is the same as anti-abortion terrorists, (who never pay a price), threatening and murdering clinic workers, until they close down so many clinics that abortions then become...rare. You tell the persecuted clinic worker what the difference is. Sometimes the "Lakoff/framing" types are so fucking oblivious that you wonder what they are so snot-assed arrogant about.

I remember an ad on TV (before they censored them completely) around the mid-'90s, from NARAL, that never used the word "abortion" once--it was just "choice," "we are for choice," over and over. There was NEVER a reference to what they want a "choice" about, even once. It was chilling, and I knew the anti-abortion persecutors and murderers had won a huge battle; that we cannot even talk publicly, with ordinary words about legal things, and they can. We had to fight, at great personal risk, to even use the word abortion, as our earned and fought-for right, a thing that will not be pushed back out of the safety of the public, and back to the back alleys where she will be alone again; a thing that exists and is needed, because no male ever fights to end the tragic, oppressive things that cause a need for it. I am for abortion and abortion rights. I want there to be exactly the number of abortions that women, and abused girls, need--and not one fewer.

[welshTerrier2]

82. well, this male ...

applauds you and thanks you ... great post ...

my only quibble: "no male ever fights to end the tragic, oppressive things that cause a need for it" ... there are many males who stand with you ...

the DNC is hanging a stopwatch from a chain and letting it swing, pendulum-like, back and forth and back and forth ...

and they tell us: we have to "win"; we have to "win"; we have to "win" ...

and they tell us: "put your principles aside; put your principles aside; put your principles aside" ...

i will never do their "chicken dance" ...

NO FUCKING WAY !!!

[Hidden Stillness]

88. The Replies Are Appreciated; We Have to Speak Up Too

Thank you for that great response, and I'm always glad to hear of supporters of women's rights. I hope you weren't offended by the comment, but sometimes it seems that way.

You have to let the other side know when you are not fooled; that we know what they are really referring to, and that it is not "framing" and "slogans" when they really will drop some people's issues just to get themselves elected. After all, when was the last time they raised the minimum wage (1997), and when will they again? They didn't "reframe the issue," they dropped the effort completely.

[Generator]

86. Excellent post

Pro-choice means pro-choice and if we have to tap dance around our rights then they have already won.

I wish he had said we want "unwanted pregancy to be rare". Because if you are pregnant and you need an abortion, you are most certainly for abortion, and wish your weren't pregnant.

[CWebster]

83. What "rare" really means:

http://www.progressive.org/april05/com0405.php

[WI_DEM]

87. I don't see where Dean and others are advocating anything less

than you are--rare, safe and legal abortions. In other words we are pro-choice.

[cookiebird]

90. Damn straight, and

Awesome!

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.