then saying, but anti-choice is fine? and Bernie did say according to the New York times that Mello was a rising star. No anti-choice candidate should be deemed a rising star in this party period. The Democratic leaders mentioned were responding to the endorsement of Mello, They will at some point explain or walk back those statements in my opinion. Are we going to throw women's rights under the bus if a candidate has the 'correct' (Sanders?)view on economic policy? A candidates positions on social justice issues (including but not limited to abortion rights) are now irrelevant? Abortion rights are essential for women in economic terms...and we will never have economic justice by ignoring the rights of 50% of the population. Civil rights which include women's rights are not negotiable and we will not be relegated to the back of the political bus.


[font color="red" size="3" face="face"]Sanders, repurposing the themes of his presidential bid, told a crowd of about 6,000 on Thursday night that the candidate, Heath Mello, 37, would be a future star in the Democratic Party who could help break the grip of big money on the nation’s politics.[/font]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democrats-nebraska.html

how he has to take such an inflexible position that he has to disavow himself of Mello, who has made only innocuous propopsols regarding women's reproductive rights, as far as we know (please see the posting by OmahaSteve on this issue).

Explain how having no influence at all in Nebraska furthers our cause.

Mello has said repeatedly that he would not support limiting women's rights, no matter what his beliefs are. I believe that was also said by John F. Kennedy, Jr., and many other good Democrats who lived up to their word.

I think that some of the total insistence on absolute and utter purity with women's reproductive rights is at least partially an attack on Bernie Sanders. If I am wrong about this, then maybe the critics of Bernie in Omaha should also hugely criticize Nancy Pelosi and Dick Durbin.

Or maybe they should realize that politics is not 100% clean and free from accommodations.

I said that while I understood their desire to unite Democrats and stand by some unfortunate remarks made by others...they needed to clarify their remarks or walk them back. Sorry women's rights are human rights and you can't have economic justice without social justice.

"I think that some of the total insistence on absolute and utter purity with woman's reproductive rights is at least partially an attack on Bernie Sanders."

I think a few people somehow blame Bernie for Hilary's loss and will use whatever is available to attack him. They hate him.

It is 100% that and nothing else.


Unless it's a coincidence that it's coming from people that do that constantly anyway.

Kaine became a star it the Democratic Party though once holding some clearly anti-choice views (that is indisputable during an earlier phase of his career when he active in Virginia State politics). Kaine "evolved" which I am happy with. It takes time to see if an "evolution" sticks. I am willing to say that it has with Tim Kaine (his last evolution was to back away from supporting the Hyde Amendment when he became our VP candidate).

If Mello argued in favor of anti-choice policies now support for him would not be excusable. From what I can tell he doesn't now. Some say he's had a sudden conversion on that. There obviously was a time when Tim Kaine's conversion was fresh too. If Mello wants to rise in the Democratic Party, if he does not want to be primaried by pro choice Democrats in the future, he will have to walk the walk not just talk the talk. Meanwhile he is running against a Republican incumbent who walks the walk when it comes to fighting against women's reproductive freedom.

being forced on anyone else. Women need to make their own choices without government interference.

wait in the back of the political bus while economic rights for I guess white men are secured and only then can we fight for our social and economic rights...because abortion rights are linked to economic rights for women. It is a terrible idea and women make up more than 50% of the Democratic Party.

Mello's stance of forcing ultrasound for women?

Either those describing Mello's stance on ultrasound were lazy, mistaken, or...

I urge you to go back and read the excellent clarification he posted.

It's at:https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028967293 and the first several paragraphs are these:

*************************************

A false claim about Heath Mello in a front page diary has been corrected. Thank you, Daily Kos.


WOW!!! How did so many miss this? Fake news discredited on 4-20-17 with actual links and stuff!

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/20/1654741/-David-Nir-is-wrong

By Nova Land 2017/04/20 · 13:24

Snip: First, here’s a link to the text of the bill Mello co-sponsored. I urge people to read the text for themselves. I have, and can attest to the fact that the bill does not require women to undergo ultrasound. Rather, it requires the doctor to give the woman a list of places where ultrasounds can be done (including, and clearly specifying, places which will do it for free), but the choice of whether to have one or not is left to the woman.

The law also states that, if the doctor needs to do an ultrasound prior to the abortion for medical reasons then the doctor must inform the woman an ultrasound is being done and offer her the choice of viewing the screen, but the choice of whether to view or not is hers.

This is very different from how the law is being misrepresented. There were many laws passed which did require women to have ultrasounds; this one does not.

A number of people on this site yesterday were repeating the false claim that Mello favored forced ultrasounds and had co-sponsored a law requiring women to undergo ultrasounds. One source of this misinformation is VoteSmart. VoteSmart is usually a good source, but in this case they screwed up badly. On their page regarding the Nebraska law they give both the wrong title and the wrong summary. (Their summary claims the Nebraska law mandates women must have an ultrasound before having an abortion; the actual law says just the opposite.)

FULL story at link.

And from Nebraska's LARGEST news gathering agency 2 days ago: http://www.omaha.com/news/politics/bernie-sanders-stumps-for-heath-mello-in-omaha-stirs-national/article_284457a1-a7d1-5d79-ae2e-9c8bc68ea31e.html

"Mello is a sponsor of the final version of a 20-week abortion ban approved by the governor in 2010"... Pretty damning if true. The Huff po link is below.

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

And still Nancy Pelosi and Dick Durbin support mellow Neither of them are pro-choice, anti-women's rights believers.

I would trust either of those two a lot more than articles on the topic which might be nothing more than click-bait.

But the major accusation against Mello was that he was forcing women to have ultrasounds, and he clearly is not.

and discussion over whether Bernie is the arbiter of what "progressive" is, especially paired with his refusal to call Ossoff a progressive.

And I belive it was intended to be such.

Hardly "out of the way", especially when you factor in that Omaha essentially controls its own electoral vote in the electoral college. In the last weeks of the 2016 presidential race the Clinton campaign spent $167,845 on media buys in the Omaha market, compared to $25,542 that Clinton spent on media buys in Wisconsin. An election for the mayor of Omaha matters, especially during a period early in Trumps regime. If we want any hope of regaining Senate seats in Nebraska the local Democratic Party in Omaha will be crucial to that effort.

http://www.legislature.ne.gov/FloorDocs/101/PDF/Slip/LB1103.pdf

LEGISLATIVE BILL 1103
Legislation bill 1103

Approved by the Governor April 13, 2010
Introduced by Flood, 19; McCoy, 39; Langemeier, 23; Pirsch, 4; Fulton, 29;
Coash, 27; Krist, 10; Schilz, 47; Heidemann, 1; Utter, 33;
Stuthman, 22; Wallman, 30; Dubas, 34; Sullivan, 41; Fischer,
43; Janssen, 15; Price, 3; Harms, 48; Cornett, 45; Gay, 14;
Nordquist, 7; [font color="red" size="4"="face"]Mello[/font] , 5; Lautenbaugh, 18.
FOR AN ACT relating to abortion; to amend section 38-2021, Reissue
Revised Statutes of Nebraska, and section 28-101, Revised Statutes
Supplement, 2009; to adopt the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection
Act; to provide and change civil and criminal penalties with respect
to abortion; to harmonize provisions; to provide an operative date;
to provide severability; and to repeal the original sections.
Be it enacted by the people of the State of Nebraska,
Section 1. Sections 1 to 10 of this act shall be known and may be
cited as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
Sec. 2. For purposes of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection
Act:
(1) Abortion means the use or prescription of any instrument,
medicine, drug, or other substance or device to terminate the pregnancy of
a woman known to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase the
probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after
live birth, or to remove a dead unborn child who died as the result of natural
causes in utero, accidental trauma, or a criminal assault on the pregnant
woman or her unborn child, and which causes the premature termination of the
pregnancy;
(2) Attempt to perform or induce an abortion means an act, or an
omission of a statutorily required act, that, under the circumstances as the
actor believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in a course of
conduct planned to culminate in the performance or induction of an abortion in
this state in violation of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act;
(3) Fertilization means the fusion of a human spermatozoon with a
human ovum;
(4) Medical emergency means a condition which, in reasonable medical
judgment, so complicates the medical condition of the pregnant woman as to
necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or
for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible
physical impairment of a major bodily function. No condition shall be deemed a
medical emergency if based on a claim or diagnosis that the woman will engage
in conduct which would result in her death or in substantial and irreversible
physical impairment of a major bodily function;
(5) Postfertilization age means the age of the unborn child as
calculated from the fertilization of the human ovum;
(6) Reasonable medical judgment means a medical judgment that would
be made by a reasonably prudent physician, knowledgeable about the case and
the treatment possibilities with respect to the medical conditions involved;
(7) Physician means any person licensed to practice medicine and
surgery or osteopathic medicine under the Uniform Credentialing Act;
(8) Probable postfertilization age of the unborn child means what,
in reasonable medical judgment, will with reasonable probability be the
postfertilization age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is planned
to be performed;
(9) Unborn child or fetus each mean an individual organism of the
species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth; and
(10) Woman means a female human being whether or not she has reached
the age of majority.
Sec. 3. The Legislature makes the following findings:
(1) At least by twenty weeks after fertilization there is
substantial evidence that an unborn child has the physical structures
necessary to experience pain;
(2) There is substantial evidence that, by twenty weeks after
fertilization, unborn children seek to evade certain stimuli in a manner which
in an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain;
(3) Anesthesia is routinely administered to unborn children who
have developed twenty weeks or more past fertilization who undergo prenatal
surgery;
(4) Even before twenty weeks after fertilization, unborn children
have been observed to exhibit hormonal stress responses to painful stimuli.

If he would take that stance today that would rule him out. He says he wouldn't. Other Democrats have "evolved" on their pro choice positions over time, and went from being opposed by NARA to supported by them as a result.
Has Mello done so? You can take him at his word, or not. Or we can also use the old standard: "Trust. But verify".

his extensive anti-choice record. He supported denying insurance for abortion coverage...that is shocking.

How much weight to give those is up to all to decide, in the context of his seeking the office of Omaha's Mayor vs the Republican anti-abortion incumbent. Should he win that job he will begin to compile a further record subject to more scrutiny and review.

record is a hold your nose vote for progressives. Also, wasting time and money on a mayoral race is foolish.

The Daily Kos article was good to see. However I don't understand the need for some to smear and lie about Democrats in order to defend Bernie.

Bernie's a tough guy, he can take care of himself. Doesn't need DU'ers to lie about Tim Kaine for him.

He was a sponsor...a 24 week bill! I posted this on my other reply and there is this as well...He voted for a bill that prevented
insurance from covering abortions.
http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/102/PDF/Journal/r1journal.pdf#page=1594

LEGISLATIVE BILL 667A. Title read. Considered.
Advanced to Enrollment and Review Initial with 41 ayes, 0 nays, 5 present
and not voting, and 3 excused and not voting.
SPEAKER FLOOD PRESIDING
The following bills were read and put upon final passage:
LEGISLATIVE BILL 22.
A BILL FOR AN ACT relating to insurance; to adopt the Mandate Opt-Out
and Insurance Coverage Clarification Act; to provide an operative date; and
to provide severability.
Whereupon the President stated: "All provisions of law relative to procedure
having been complied with, the question is, 'Shall the bill pass?' "
Voting in the affirmative, 37:
Adams Fischer Harr, B. McCoy Schumacher
Bloomfield Flood Heidemann [font color="red" size="4" Mello"="Mello"]Mello[/font] Smith
Brasch Fulton Janssen Nelson Sullivan
Carlson Gloor Karpisek Nordquist Utter
Christensen Haar, K. Krist Pankonin Wallman
Coash Hadley Langemeier Pirsch
Cornett Hansen Larson Price
Dubas Harms Lathrop Schilz
Voting in the negative, 7:
Avery Conrad Council McGill
Campbell Cook Howard
Present and not voting, 2:
Lautenbaugh Wightman
Excused and not voting, 3:
SEVENTY-

period.

very, very strong on social issues, including issues of education, environment, health reform, etc. These are all social issues.

It is not OK to pretend the part after the comma doesn't exist.

not seek to impose his views on others, etc.

"Mello is a sponsor of the final version of a 20-week abortion ban approved by the governor in 2010, and cast anti-choice votes in favor of requiring physicians to be physically present for an abortion in order to impede access to telemedicine abortion care, and a law banning insurance plans in the state from covering abortions. He was endorsed in 2010 by anti-choice group Nebraska Right to Life." if you go to the link below and click on the links in the above quote...it takes you to the Nebraska bills and shows who sponsored what and who voted for what...Mello's record is clearly anti-choice no matter what he says now.

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

Do they not have concerns about women's well being, as well concerns for the environment, etc.

if you read my replies that Mellow for a number of anti-choice measures including allowing insurance companies not to provide abortion coverage. I provided the link to the NE voting record documents...so yeah our leaders can not throw women under the bus by endorsing Mello.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-choice-is-clear-sanders-defends-backing-anti-abortion-mayoral-candidate-after-backlash/

That said, we all know exactly what's going on, here.

At this point the noise machine is arguing with itself.

women's rights, but he continued to carry on all of his terrible programs, would you decide that suddenly he was looking fairly good as compared to Hillary?

How about if (pick the tyrant in history) suddenly said that he/she was for women's choice, that would endear that person to you? No matter how many people were killed, tortured, mistreated?

You're committing the "fallacy of perfection" in which you actually believe there is a perfection out there and will sacrifice everything to get it. But history tells us there has never been a perfect golden period in the past, and there will not be one in the future. Similarly, there is no person who is "perfect" on all major points, and this includes the leaders of the Democratic Party.

Also, of course, it is important to realize that a lot of charlatans will say anything at all to get elected, and so even if people say that they are totally for women's rights, they may well be wolves in sheep's clothing.

I'm not a DNC strategist, but as a voter I have some lines in the sand when I cast my ballot.

But my point about "we all know what's going on" is some people suddenly holding Bernie Sanders to a different standard than they themselves have been working off of for years (hell, Harry Reid was an anti-choicer at one point, that was my objection to his becoming Senate Majority- at the time- leader)

because ZOMG Bernie Sanders.

I just fucking tune it out at this point. It's ridiculous.

It is weird to me. To me it was a mistake or what we used to call a gaffe.

I don't have to agree with everything Bernie says to like and support Bernie.

It seems like some folks can't handle the idea that Bernie is human and makes mistakes.

So they completely change their long held beliefs in order to defend him. And end up digging themselves into a hole.

As I said elsewhere, Bernie doesn't need people to do that. He's perfectly capable of defending himself.

FWIW, If I lived in Omaha I would vote for Mello. He's way better than the alternative. But I won't effusively praise him as a progressive. As I said, that's weird to me.

She is on the board of Our Revolution and is a Sanders supporter.

They are asking why a woman's right to choose isn't an issue that is included when discerning how the Democratic party should be reformed. Bernie presents himself as an agent of change in the party. We're holding him to the standard he himself presents, and asking him why he doesn't think issues like abortion rights are part of that platform of Dem reform.

His backing of an anti-choice Dem says one of two things. Either he doesn't care about abortion, or he really isn't that different from other Dems after all. In other words, he's a politician.

He is being held to a different standard--- because people are mad about that.

So again, this all has to do with residual primary crap or these other old fights and yadda yadda yadda. I'm stating what is bald-faced obvious, here.

Look, personally, I do think we need to change the party-- and I'm not convinced Bernie Sanders is the person to do it.

I think we need younger leaders, more leaders from the West Coast, we sure as shit need to embrace reproductive choice and not run away from it- most Americans are, after all, pro-choice.

I have long argued that the way for us to win long-term is to define ourselves as the party of personal freedom, undercut the libertarians on their left or social flank, and stand in stark opposition to the crusty old theocrats and jesusbaggers of the GOP.

We should be the party of reproductive freedom, of ending the drug war, of defending the rights of citizens to live their lives on their own terms and if they're terminally ill to define how they choose to exit, not force them to live and die according to the dictates of the state or someone else's "God".

I don't want Bernie Sanders in charge of the "new" Democratic Party, I'd much rather have someone like Gavin Newsom who understands west coast technological questions and unequivocally supports marijuana legalization. Pro-choice, anti-censorship, pro-4th Amendment, etc etc.

A perfect example of what I'm talking about is during the previous election when strong encryption was an actual issue related to points of policy, and it was clear that pretty much NONE of the candidates- not Trump, not Hillary, not Bernie- even really knew what they were talking about when it came up.

long and hard for equality.

You're a good person. But you are digging yourself into a hole.

Bernie is perfectly capable of explaining why he called Mello a progressive.

He doesn't need you to continue to twist yourself into a pretzle

one with a "D" after his or her name, the other with an "R", you'd sit it out if the person with a "D" disagreed with you on a single issue?

Remember, there are only two options in the race. I'd rather have an imperfect Dem than any Republican.

Where have I heard this before, oh yeah, about conservative Dem senators.

If Sanders hadn't said anything about this race, no one outside of Nebraska would care. It's just another way to continue refighting the primary forever.

Other than that, given where I live it doesn't come up.

that not all of our Dems are pure or have all the right positions.

Trust me, it is better to have a not-perfect Dem than a passel of downright evil Republicans.

My senators are Grassley and Earnst, and Rod Blum is my rep. I have zero representation, so to get some, I'd be willing to take the imperfect.

I do know from no small amount of Midwestern experience that Iowa can do much better.

I acknowledge that I'm fortunate in that where I live the Democratic Party stands unapologetically against theocracy and censorship, and for things like reproductive freedom, legal cannabis, etc.

Most of us have moved forward looking to drumpf doing some prison time.


And your last sentence, no- The trolls are the ones that post from the FAR left. The ones that hate anything West, the ones that praise Maduro, the ones that say North Korea ain't really that bad at all!

That is how they split. Also, My theory of the far right and the far left have more in common and complete the political circle has been proven true.

half the population still does not know the difference between being anti-abortion and anti-choice.

Good lord

you are anti-choice.

So Mello won't change the headcount in Congress.

If I lived in Omaha I would vote for Mello. He's the better choice.

However I don't see why someone would lavishly praise Mello as a progressive. It is weird to me.

I love Bernie however he's human like all of us. One thing humans have in common is that we make mistakes.

Bernie usually admits and corrects his mistakes. Bernie inadvertently threw shade at Ossoff. But the next day he gave him a full throated endorsement.

Republican, Mello is to be much preferred, so says the DNC leaders and Bernie and that makes sense to me.

I think lots of moderate Dems do believe in the 20 weeks concept. While I believe any women should have access to an abortion at any stage of pregnancy, I know people who believe they should only be allowed up to 20 weeks except for danger to the health of the mother. Some of those people are good Democrats. They just think people need to figure this out in the first 5 months.

because Mello voted for that also...what about carrying dead babies? the 20 and 24 week bans have forced women to carry dead babies to term risking their health in states that have 20 or 24 week bans. you can click on the links in the except below...and see how Mello voted...it takes you to the actual NE bills.

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

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

That is the hypocrisy. On display by one individual who is not a Democrat.

...push their belief upon others or try to legislate it as such

The arguments of the "right-to-life" organization are strictly religious. While they have every right to believe what they want, legislating those beliefs is unConstitutional.