It only takes 1 vote going to republicans on an abortion issue to crutch abortion rights.

I presume that you mean only one supreme court vote... But those are appointed by presidents...And approved by senators...And those are elected by voters.

Not all Democratic voters agree on this issue (and not all represent states where a fervently pro-choice candidate can win.

Meaning.. small bills that rode away women's rights one bill at a time.

... is that there are seats that can either be won by a pro-life Democrat... or a pro-life Republican... with no third possibility.

It's the people who cannot come to grips with that reality who should not be running the party.

as they understand that they can not vote against choice...they cross the line and out they go.

Support Mello in his quest to be mayor of Omaha. According to what was cited in the Huffington-post piece, Mello had worked on reducing the harsh language of the anti-abortion rights statement.

Good for Elizabeth! Absolute perfection will never be given to us. And I too absolutely support women's rights, as does Sen. Warren, Schumer, etc.

In the same story where NARAL makes a strong case for supporting Northam over Perroello, it also noted that "In the race for governor, both candidates are supporting abortion rights and have received 100 percent ratings from NARAL."

NARAL has valid criticism of Perriello's mixed record representing a conservative congressional district on pro-choice matters, and they cite ways in which Northam has been a consistent champion for their position as their reason for backing him. More than fair. Still the story goes on to say:

"Perriello has told voters at town halls that he would veto the “same anti-choice legislation” that Northam would.

While in Congress, Perriello also voted against legislation that would defund Planned Parenthood and later ran the advocacy arm of the Center for American Progress, where he promoted abortion rights. One of his first gubernatorial campaign stops was a Falls Church abortion clinic - the same venue where NARAL announced its Northam endorsement on Monday."
http://www.standard.net/National/2017/03/13/Abortion-rights-group-NARAL-endorses-Northam-in-Virginia-Democratic-primary

Virginia voters could do a lot worse than ending up with Perriello.

Nope can't trust him and we don't have to with a pro-choice Democrat running who is good on other issues as well.

Not Warrens fault, but I am just so sick of this shit.

when 'settled law' is acknowledged.

Women have the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident.'

That is an intensely personal topic and I don't feel right telling anyone where they should stand on it.

If it is intensely personal that is fine. Be pro-life, but the legislation you pass on others does matter. I'm a Sanders and Warren fan. I understand their logic here, but there isn't enough trust to go around that we can say to people in our own party, "don't worry, we've got you, we just need to get these people to vote with us and you'll see."

There is something not entirely consistent about saying, I will rigorously fight for reproductive rights, and endorsing a candidate who might fight against those rights. On the other hand, the candidates in question have all said, at this time, that they promise not to stand in the way of women's rights, so its not like there hasn't been some litmus test of their pledged future intent.

But it is a difficult case to make that this is a long game strategy that will help us on women's rights. I think anything that takes on the money first, is that long game strategy, because reproductive rights, immigration, welfare, religion and crime, etc. are used as wedge issues by the rich and their propaganda wings in order to promote their agendas. We need to make them and those sources untrustworthy first, and anybody taking money worthy of massive scrutiny on any action that seems in line with those same lobby interests(even handedly), before we can start to undercut some of these identity level belief systems. But I can totally understand feeling like we are ceding this issue to the right when we say the pro-choice is negotiable.

And I totally understand the inclination for any institution that wants to lop off the Sanders influence on the party to use this to emphasize an inconsistency and to present a narrative in which he doesn't care about women's rights, which is why it was not in my opinion a winning move to make, that is if we believe we need to galvanize our base as well as to bring along those conservatives who we can strip off.

And this is a horribly important issue for women. That said, women should be really careful not to get pregnant if hey don't want children. Being pregnant when you don't want to be is awful. And having an abortion is an awful thing to go through. It's just a whole lot better to not have to make that gut wrenching decision.

But the option to end a pregnancy for whatever reason should always be there for everyone. And it should be affordable and safe.

Last edited Thu Apr 27, 2017, 02:35 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't think this was ever about tolerating the personal views of some Democratic legislators on abortion—that is to say, legislators who themselves are opposed to abortion but respect the right of women to obtain one, as per law. It was about making a national focal point of a supposed Unity Tour into a big-deal rally in support for a local mayoral candidate (was it really worth that?) who actively co-sponsored (or co-authored? I can't even remember, there is so much other mishegas going on) a bill that puts the issue of viewing sonograms onto the books in his state.

Now let's get this straight for all the apologizers: we all know that sonograms--almost never medically necessary for a first-trimester abortion--are the sneaky way in to the pro-lifers' attempts to nick away at women's choice and privacy. And even if a sonogram were necessary to a physician's ability to perform the procedure, there is no reason whatsoever why the patient needs to see it, whether she can refuse to or not. And it raises the cost for the patient significantlhy.It's just one more dip of the toe into the pond of trying to make abortion more difficult.

So no, this wasn't just a case of "differing views"--this was a case of someone who actively participated in a pro-life measure and got held up as a national example of "progressive" (even as another candidate for a significant federal office was ignored and his progressive status questioned).

Did not have to view the sonogram.

If this is the case, then Mello was certainly acting in a pro-choice fashion.

He also made sure that women were denied insurance coverage for abortions and voted for a 20 week ban. He is bad on this issue and you know it...if anyone but Sen. Sanders had made this endorsement, you would not have supported it in my opinion.This is a nothing mayoral race...money, time and endorsements wasted here while Ossoff who could really make a difference is ignored...so I guess we have economic purity and downgrade social justice rights as not important...tell me what right would you give up?

positive changes to the Republican abortion bill.

Demsrule86 -- You cannot read my mind and I don't attempt to read yours.

You think Schumer, Pelosi and Warren all support Sanders' view on Mello just to be nice to Sanders?

I don't think so.

endorsing Mello. He voted for a 20 week ban and to end insurance coverage for women...I would probably be forced to vote for a candidate like him in an election if I lived in his district...but I have worked for every election and donated since I was a kid...and that will not happen in a party that backs away from pro-choice values as if it is just any old issue and not a civil rights issue.

Nebraska's support Mello and believe he helped tamp down some of that state's antiwomen legislation.

I just posted this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=mello+has+approval+from+pro-choice+and+planned+parenthood+organizations.&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS730US730&oq=mello+has+approval+from+pro-choice+and+planned+parenthood+organizations.&aqs=chrome..69i57.24810j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

and not one organization popped up on the first page.

My computer later and post more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/04/20/omaha-mayoral-race-reveals-tensions-between-naral-democrats-over-abortion/?utm_term=.9fe255a3a49b

supporters who are overly critical of Sanders. (This piece is certainly is not critical of Hillary Clinton but of some overzealous supporters.)

http://www.salon.com/2017/04/25/the-democrats-hypocrisy-fest-disingenuous-attacks-on-bernie-sanders-persist-and-his-popularity-climbs/

"The Democrats’ hypocrisy fest: Disingenuous attacks on Bernie Sanders persist — and his popularity climbs
Clinton loyalists are still trying to tar Sanders as a sexist troglodyte. Read the polls — It's not working. ...

"If there is one thing that Hillary Clinton’s loyalists can never resist, it is a chance to sully the name of Sen. Bernie Sanders, who continues to be a thorn in the Democratic establishment’s side. Last week it was no different, when Democratic partisans seized on an opportunity to vilify and paint the Vermont senator as a cultural reactionary who is willing to sacrifice women’s reproductive rights if it means advancing his populist economic agenda.

"This opportunity came when Sanders, on his “Come Together and Fight Back” tour with newly elected Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez, made a planned stop in Omaha, Nebraska, to stump for mayoral candidate Heath Mello, a former state senator running against Republican incumbent Jean Stothert. The episode began about a week earlier, when the liberal activist website Daily Kos, along with other notable Democrats, endorsed Mello against his Republican opponent, seemingly unaware of the fact that he is not exactly progressive when it comes to abortion (though he isn’t exactly a fervent anti-abortion right-winger either). Then, on Wednesday, an article from The Wall Street Journal reported that Mello had supported a bill as state senator that required “women to look at an ultrasound image of their fetus before receiving an abortion.”

"This predictably created a maelstrom, even though the Journal article turned out to be shoddily reported. While Mello did indeed co-sponsor the 2009 bill cited, it only required the physician performing the abortion to inform patients that an ultrasound was available; it did not require a woman to receive or look at an ultrasound. Nevertheless, over the years Mello has supported other legislative measures — including a 20-week abortion ban — that are no doubt troubling for any progressive. Shortly after the Journal’s report, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, Ilyse Hogue, released a statement slamming Sanders and Perez for supporting Mello:

""The actions today by the DNC to embrace and support a candidate for office who will strip women — one of the most critical constituencies for the party — of our basic rights and freedom is not only disappointing, it is politically stupid. Today’s action make this so-called “fight back tour” look more like a throw back tour for women and our rights."

"After Hogue’s statement, Clintonites quickly took to social media to pile on, using Sanders’ endorsement of Mello as further evidence that the Vermont senator — and by default the progressive left — does not consider women’s reproductive rights and other “social issues” to be nearly as important as economic ones. The implication is that Sanders believes women’s rights are worth sacrificing if it means combating economic inequality or corporate power. (No progressives have ever made this argument, of course.)

"In response to the criticism, Mello told The Huffington Post that while he is personally opposed to abortion, as mayor he “would never do anything to restrict access to reproductive health care.” A certain degree of skepticism is warranted, considering Mello’s history of flip-flopping on this issue, but the mayoral candidate is clearly not the anti-abortion extremist depicted by Hogue and others.

"Last year Hogue — along with most liberal Democrats — had a far more more forgiving attitude toward Hillary Clinton’s running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who, like Mello, is personally pro-life. “I am okay with people having a different moral system than I do as long as they don’t legislate that on me or anyone else,” said Hogue in a statement last July, adding, “7 in 10 Americans support legal access to abortion and some of them are like Senator Kaine, who feel personally opposed but still believe that it’s not for a politician to determine for anyone else. . . . I believe [Clinton] chose Tim Kaine because she trusts the guy, and I trust her.”"

"Of course, Kaine wasn’t just personally pro-life; like Mello, he also had a history of supporting anti-abortion measures as governor of Virginia. As ThinkProgress reported in July (around the same time as Hogue’s statement), while in office in Richmond Kaine had “pushed for adoption over abortion, promoted abstinence-only education, passed a law that required parental notification for minors wanting an abortion, and banned late-term abortion.” ThinkProgress noted, “He even signed a bill to use state dollars to create ‘Choose Life’ license plates, which funded state ‘Crisis Pregnancy Centers’ — facilities whose sole purpose is to dissuade pregnant women from getting an abortion.”" ...

made sure insurance coverage was not available for abortions. He is terrible on this issue and should not be endorsed...hell I would vote for him if I lived there over a GOP ...but he should not have been supported by the DNC or endorsed. I should add that he supported the XL pipeline.

regions. If you say it's all or nothing, you're just electing more republicans.

something that is a life and death issue for women...just no.

Last edited Fri Apr 28, 2017, 03:31 AM - Edit history (1)

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]Welfare reform of the nineties comes to mind. Or more recently the sequestration deal after the GOP forced government shutdowns during Obama.

I am a social liberal first and foremost, and as much as I hate it I have had to vote for candidates who were willing to sacrifice the things I care about. Both social and economic.[/font]

have enough seats to accomplish anything at all?

when a pro-choice qualified progressive Democrat is also running with endorsed by NARAL.

lite.

on the scale of being progressive and shun all the moderates, you're not going to be able to change anything.

She should not wade into this argument.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]Otherwise we will never get power back in any branch of government.

Reproductive rights will suffer far far more from the Rethugs controlling the house, senate, presidency, and Supreme Court than we will with us taking back those branches of government by electing flawed candidates who might not be with us on abortion.

Warren is correct on this. Sometimes you have to take one step back for every two forward; because in the end, that is still a net gain of one step forward.[/font]

So are we going to throw LGBTQ under the bus or perhaps interracial marriage?...should we endorse Ice and a border wall? How about we give up single payer or free college tuition or breaking up the banks...we might get votes for sure...oh wait those are economic principles and are sacred or something. What should we name this new party...certainly can't call it the Democratic Party.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]Kerry didn't support SSM. Neither did Obama in 2008. I voted for them anyway despite LGBTQ issues being the issue I am most passionate about.

I also had to vote for a person this year who was willing to sacrifice many issues I care deeply about:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8980003

But I did it because I know that the issues I care about will benefit the most from having democrats in power more so than Republicans. I was heartbroken that the person I wanted lost, but I did what was best overall for my issues.

It hurts, I know, but we got to put a close pin over our nose and do what is best for our issues overall.

That said, saying that we have to vote for dems (even if they are against us on issues we care most about) is not saying that we should give up on those issues. It is just facing reality.

And yes, if it meant giving democrats back government control overall I would vote for someone who would give up Single Payer or free College. Because I KNOW that doing that would promote those things more overall. I have done that in years past.

I will probably have to do it again in the future. But so long as it advances my issues overall in the long run I will do it. That is why I voted and will continue voting Democrat.[/font]

In 2004 and 2008 there were few laws in support of same-sex marriage. Access to safe and legal abortion has been a matter of law since the 1970s, so what the party is doing by inviting anti-women candidates into the tent on the pretext of getting their numbers, is potentially jeopardizing and/or weakening established law. The GOP has found lots of way to eat away at reproductive freedom, and they will continue to do so. The Democratic party should not help that along by bringing in more votes for them.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]That doesn't change that if the republicans keep winning and gerrymandering they can and will undo all progress. Not just on social policy, but economic policy as well. Us not fielding non-pro-choice candidates won't keep them from packing SCotUS with anti-abortion zealots and evicorating roe v. wade if they keep on winning local elections.

If we actually want to protect Reproductive rights and autonomy, we HAVE to get democrats in those governmental seats. If that means supporting one or two anti-abortion rights dem in order to get a democratic majority and pass PRO-CHOICE legislation then so be it. What ever it takes so long as we are moving forward.

Assuming we are in a situations where it is either one or the other, would you rather never vote for a non-pro-choice candidate yet lose your reproductive rights? Or would you rather vote for said candidate and ensure reproductive rights remain forever? This is why this site is so insistent on supporting democrats. The only way for us to protect our rights is to win.

ALL THAT SAID, I disagree with your assessment. It is my experience that the longer legislative accomplishments have been around, the harder they are to remove. Republicans want to get rid of things like Social security and medicare since forever, but haven't been successful. People don't like change once they become accustomed to something and they really don't like losing rights and benefits.

More recent accomplishments are far more fragile and harder to maintain. Thus, I feel that it made supporting SSM all the more important. Had the democrats given it the support we give it now, we might have legalized marriage equality years before we did.

Regardless of which ever is more vital to defend at what time, we need to protect what we have achieved and to do that we NEED to get control back of the government. All three branches, and at the federal, state, and local level. It is the only way to protect these rights we have worked so hard for.[/font]

at Bill Clinton's 1992 nominating convention (never mind what Team Clinton said was the reason).

Because Casey insisted on speaking against abortion, rather than endorse the ticket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Democratic_National_Convention

That is, unless, we're talking about economic policy, in which the correct response is to shrug your shoulders, hand over your ball, and agree to play by whatever rules they choose.

To stop a pathway to citizenship for over ten million people in '07. These things matter greatly at the individual level.

because of anti-abortion democrats. Wonder how folks will feel if similar issues bring down "Single Payer" in the future because access to family planning services and who pays for them is going to be a big deal.

But we don't. We don't control anything. We have to start winning -- and we need to win wherever we can, including in conservative areas. This was essentially part of the blueprint for Dean's 50-state strategy (which brought us lots of #winning). You run the most progressive candidate for the region/municipality. Then you work on enlightening the winning Democrat, while making inroads with the constituents of the District. Eventually, you conduct enough outreach that either the candidate changes their position (remember when Obama was AGAINST LGBTQ rights?) or you have made the District progressive enough that you can run a more progressive challenger and throw the weight of the party apparatus behind the more progressive candidate. This happened in California and its happening in so-called purple states like Georgia right now.

We will keep on losing if we think we're going to be able to change minds overnight or get people in the Midwest, Plains and Southern states to vote for Democrats when we have these types of litmus tests. Perez had really stepped in it.

This is why Bernie emphasizes economic issues. They are a way of winning over typically single-issue voters (like pro-life, pro-gun, etc.).

over the NARAL endorsed candidate in a primary for the Governor's race.

Maximum Overdrive. Just the fight we needed to pull the party together.

I know that she has a professional history with Perriello, but he indicated that he was surprised by the endorsement.

Did Warren wade in to help the party frame this as a disagreement among Democrats (big tent party) rather than a disagreement between Democrats and the Our Revolution faction (us versus them)?

Is she positioning herself for a 2020 run, calculating that she can depend on the votes of Democratic women, but can't count on support from Sanders and his faction and needs to start courting them now?

It took months of very skillful politicking to put out that fire and now Sanders and Warren are casually dropping matches on it.

Dunno.

to campaign with her in 2018?

Link to tweet

Clearly this is all Bernie's fault.
..

She is redefining the party platform, so that either the GOP has to swerve further right or else be largely indistinguishable from the Democrats on reproductive rights. It is a bold move to get white female Trump voters.

She is better able to withstand challenges to this change in platform.