What is with Louisiana Democrats supporting total abortion ban?

I have seen some Democrats in other states....like SD do this as well.

I can not believe this, and I think it is time we make our voices known about these bans coming from Democrats.

I will refer to this Kos post, as it has some good sources:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/20/15552/2980

"A Louisiana Senate committee voted 7-0 to ban all abortions with an exception to save the life of a mother. The bill, which was authored by Democratic Senator Ben Nevers, will go into effect only if the Supreme Court overturns Roe V. Wade. Democratic Senator Diana Bajoie said she wants to make the bill "more pro-life" by not allowing any exceptions:


storiesinamerica's diary :: ::

She did not offer the amendment but served notice she will on the Senate floor, where Nevers is expected to take up the bill next week. "I do have some concerns about this bill," Bajoie said. "It should be all or nothing...Life is life."

Nevers said he will work with Bajoie to "get as much of a pro-life bill as I can."

Nevers says the government should force young girls who are raped by a male relative to have his baby because "that child had nothing to do with that awful crime."

I have gone along with being open-minded on inviting pro-life into the party and being accepting, but this is getting out of hand.

No,huh?

Maybe a possibility. :shrug: Somehow I doubt.

I think many don't realize what demographics Democratic office holders are dealing with:

Religion
Like the other Southern states, Louisiana is mostly Protestant; however there is also a large native Catholic population in the state, particularly in the southern part of the state, which makes Louisiana unique among Southern states. The current religious affiliations of the people of Louisiana are shown in the table below:

Christian — 90%
Protestant — 60%
Baptist — 38%
Methodist — 4%
Pentecostal — 2%
Other Protestant – 16%
Roman Catholic — 30%
Other Christian — 1%
Other Religions — <1%
Non-Religious — 10%

90 % Christian

of that 60% Prot 30% Catholic

of the 60% 38% Baptist, 4% Methodist, 2% Pentecostal, 16% other Prot = 60

Unless the 1% "Other Christian" is in the 10% "Non-religious"

It says < which means less than. If the others are rounded up slightly, then it works out.;)

With my conservative background, I believe in women's rights, the right to choose not to give birth.

My uncle is Catholic, and it is non-issue for him...he does not care either way.

My brother's family are Presbyterians...they are neutral as well.
In fact the other day my sister in law said the GOP was using gays and abortion as wedge issues...she is a Republican.

Another family member got caught up the TX atmosphere of conservatism, and even he is not anti-choice.

I am sorry, but religion is no excuse to take away women's rights. The faith based money might be fueling some of this.

So it does not fly that because one is religious they must be anti-choice.

cavalierly leftist MEN are willing to abolish our hard won rights in the name of political expediency. It seems the rights of over half the population matter naught when some dearly held MALE problem might be solved by abandoning them.

That is why I will NEVER vote for any antichoicer of any party. That's where the line is and I've got plenty of company.

This is very troubling. When do we get the 60's now that we have the 50's?

listen to them howl.

We can't do anything about fundy women. When our own brothers sell us out so easily, that hurts.

Not one dime, one vote, one breath out of my body will ever support a woman hater, I don't give a fuck how great he sounds on men's issues.

If the "cavalier" women on the left worked on their own gender, this wouldn't be a problem in the first place. Anti-choice assholes only have power because women give it to them. Women ARE the majority in this country, at least in terms of voting power.

Instead of whining about those bastard leftist men (most of whom are on your side in the first place), how bout you go and convince the 45% of your peers that their rights are worth protecting? Then you wouldn't have to worry about us "cavalier" men.

I have seen in my own family strong independent minded women suddenly become afraid to cross their husbands in any way. They are Southern Baptists and Catholics, and something has changed them.

Bloggers on our side are not taking the side of women. Kos considers that an "issue", and we are supposed to leave it aside.

And you are jumping in this thread defending those people, and you are posting on a Democratic forum.

You really made my point for me.

You're content with pointing the dirty end of the stick at men, even though there are already FAR and away more than enough men to protect women's rights forever if you could only convince HALF of the women that are against you that their own rights are worth protecting! I'm sorry, but you can complain about bloggers and men on the left that refuse to be one-issue voters all you want - but before you start tossing stones, you best make damn sure you don't live in a glass house. And quite frankly, your house is nothing but glass.

Your quote:
"You're content with pointing the dirty end of the stick at men, even though there are already FAR and away more than enough men to protect women's rights forever if you could only convince HALF of the women that are against you that their own rights are worth protecting! I'm sorry, but you can complain about bloggers and men on the left that refuse to be one-issue voters all you want - but before you start tossing stones, you best make damn sure you don't live in a glass house. And quite frankly, your house is nothing but glass."

A little uncalled for, I think. People who don't treat women with respect need to stop and think about what they are doing.

You still have yet to do anything but give them a complete pass.

:applause:

I donated a few hundred to NARAL a couple of weeks ago. I never got a verification mail.

I called them, and I wrote. I finally got an email back apologizing. They have had a huge increase in donations and they have not even been posted yet.

I think that is amazing.

I donate regularly to NARAL myself. Sadly, I don't get so much as an update email either.

Nevers wouldn't have gone to the extreme, but the last hurricane season put pressure on all southern politicians. They need to focus away from that issue or they're sunk.

We need to pressure economic interests to stop rewarding states that are opposed to the 21st Century......

Bush won by 15% in 2004
Bush won by 8% in 2000

If you want to excuse such bigotry then be honest. What is wrong is wrong. It is not wrong everywhere but Louisiana. It just does not work that way.

I don't think running on a local message is meant to treat women like the Taliban would.

I intend to contact the DNC about this, and I intend to contact those Democrats as well.

And if Louisiana wants to go for Bush again after he screwed them, I say go ahead.

We're not taking back squat without at least a few red states. And unfortunately, the Republicans who control the local legislature in those red states are going to force Democrats in heavily anti-choice places to take a stand, which means we haven't got much choice there.

Want to change that? Donate to the Lousiana chapters of Planned Parenthood and NOW so that they can start changing people over to pro-choice.

I am an avid supporter of all the pro-choice groups. I donate to NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

If you think those Louisiana Democrats are right, you are in a minority here.

I am pretty moderate, but I can not go for that. It is time for the Democrats to admit that women are equally important as men and have equal rights.

And they need to leave religion out of it.

Our black churches here actually are hurting the Democratic party by preaching anti-gay and anti-birth control from the pulpit. There is no excuse for that in our enlightened country today.

If you can show me a legitimate plan where we can take back the majority with only pro-choice states and districts, I'll be more than happy to follow your plan. Unfortunately, I don't see where such a scenario even comes close to existing.

I agree completely that Democrats in general should "admit women are equally important as men", and quite frankly, they do. Sure, a few don't. I'm sorry, but I'm not tossing anyone out of the party over ANY one issue. That only leads to an incredibly small party with no chance of passing anything close to a progressive agenda, one which fully INCLUDES women's rights.

I also agree that our black churches are killing us on anti-gay and anti-choice issues. What I don't see is a way to stop it except through increased education, which isn't going to happen under Republicans. Which is further a reason why you deal with anti-choice assholes so that you can ultimately reach your goal. I'm not saying you need to give them money or even like them, but what I am saying is don't organize the lynch mob against our own damn party. You're literally slitting your own throat here and tossing out the baby with the bath water.

And hey - YOU are putting your ideas out there. If all you want is a hallejuah chorus, look someplace else. You're not going to get it here. This is not a party of robots, nor should it be.

want. Doesn't matter if they've been raped or forgot to take their pill or got caught up in the moment or just had sheer bad luck. Taking away someone's right to self-determination and to have some control over her life and her body is not progressive.

:hi:

Did you read my post? At all? Try again please.

This is a turning point in our country. I am willing to cede some ground on this. But even Dean has been willing to give to much ground to the pro-life groups who are not just against abortion...they are against contraception as well.

As I say, I am willing to cede some ground. But when I see what Democrats did in SD, and what they are doing in LA...then I get nervous.

And when men talk down to women here at DU, it really upsets me. It happens a lot.

The snide manner in which you address my concerns worries me. It really does. You sort of attacked me personally above. I did not alert, but it was way off base for a Democratic forum.

I don't know if you are male or female. It does not matter. Talking to other Democrats as some here are doing lately is going to hurt our party badly.

Not even in the slightest.

Having intra-party lynching ceremonies is going to hurt our party a lot more than me reminding you that we're not going to get anywhere without a few anti-choice assholes unless we start convincing more women that their own rights are worth protecting. There was absolutely nothing that I said that was offensive. I'm one of the most pro-choice people you'll meet and if you're having a hard time with ME, I would hate to see you come away from a conversation with an evangelist.

You still have not addressed how we can win back the majority without some anti-choice red states, and your diatribe about how women are "controlled" tells me nothing considering the voting booths are all completely private and that it's an incredibly rare occasion that someone would be taking a telephone poll with their significant other listening in on the conversation.

This is a republic, not a proportionally representative democracy. This is a winner-take-all, two-party system. You can either take the progressive that will support the guys who are pro-choice even if he is not himself, or you can take the conservative that will ALWAYS support the guys who are anti-choice.

Oh yeah, and you want to talk about women's rights? How about a woman's right to a decent education? An equal and FAIR wage? A woman's right to health care? Kiss all of that goodbye if you're helping the conservative win. Don't you care about those rights too? Maybe the choice sucks, but that's the system we're in. It simply does not make even a remotely small portion of sense to be a one-issue voter in our system. That's why I said you have to change the conditions on the ground if you want things to change. I was not being snarky - I was being 100% serious. If you want more pro-choice candidates in areas that are HEAVILY anti-choice, you have to help change the surroundings or you will not get your way. Demanding that we nominate candidates that have a 0% chance of winning is not going to change anything.

And I think you are right about education and all that. Still, it seems a slippery slope and makes me uncomfortable.

By this logic, any man in the world who decided he wanted a child could go rape a woman to get one and she would have no say in the matter. This is FORCED CHILDBEARING, not an abortion issue.

. In 2000, 92% of Louisiana counties had no abortion provider. 61% of Louisiana women lived in these counties. In the South census region, where Louisiana is located, 32% of women having abortions traveled at least 50 miles, and 10% traveled more than 100 miles.

• In Louisiana, 5 metropolitan areas lack an abortion provider: Alexandria; Houma; Lafayette; Lake Charles; Monroe

...full of DINO's just like Mary f'n Landrieu in the US Senate. :nopity:

Sorry! It was a quote from a source and I didn't even notice it!

....hope I didn't seem condesending to you as that wasn't my intent!! :hi:

Most of them are cradle Catholics, and they consider it being used as a wedge.

I think our Democrats are falling for things that are being used as wedge.

Wikipedia:

Boll weevils was an American political term used in the mid- and late-20th century to describe conservative Southern Democrats.

During and after the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, "boll weevils" were part of the coalition generally in support of Roosevelt's New Deal and Harry Truman's Fair Deal economic policies, but were opposed to desegregation and the American civil rights movement. On several occasions between 1948 and 1968, a prominent conservative Southern Democrat broke from the Democrats to run a third party campaign for President on a platform of states rights: Strom Thurmond in 1948, Harry F. Byrd in 1960, and George Wallace in 1968. In the 1964 presidential election, 5 states in the Deep South (traditionally a Democratic stronghold) voted for conservative Republican Barry Goldwater over Southern Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson, partly due to Johnson's support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Goldwater's opposition to it. After 1968, with desegregation a settled issue, the Republican Party began a strategy of trying to win conservative Southerners away from the Democrats and into the Republican Party (see Southern strategy and Silent Majority).

Skinner'll have to add "boll weevil" to the list of names we can't call each other. :evilgrin:

A no-exceptions bill is least likely to be upheld in the courts.

As much as I've defended the need to have more conservative Dems in more conservative states, this bullshit is a dealbreaker for me. Democrats MUST support keeping the government out of our lives. If we cannot argue this basic tenet, then we may as well concede the red states. Bending over backwards this far will snap the spine of our party.

:hi:

It may be more pandering to fundamentalists' fears of and inchoate rage against a modern world they simply do not understand. Fundamentalists are paranoid and irrational, not to mention highly inconsistent in their belief "system". How they can confuse the killing a woman, a viable, valuable human being, to save the life of a possibly potential human being... I will never pretend to understand. They must be crazy. :shrug:

Bush McMuffin horseheaded flamethrowing anti abortion wingnut, by being OPENLY AND PROUDLY pro choice.

She WON.

Our state legislature is filled with morons

because there are Dems who are as neandrathal as many pukes are.
The pukes do not have a monopoly on stupid arrogance.

While most Democrats support legalized abortion, many do not, especially in more conservative parts of the country. In certain parts of the country, you can't get elected to public office if you support legalized abortion.

There is not much leeway when people start controlling the rights of others to have birth control and choices about having children.

I remember the days before abortion was legal. To those of you who want to make it illegal again, I say think twice.

So that an anti-choice Republican with a completely conservative agenda gets elected instead?

I'd like to see someone like Bajoie tell her daughter she has to have the child.....get on camera and say it Diana!

:hi:

that I am a pro-life leaning dem. However, I would never call for measures like this. This is way over the top.

I'm not being sarcastic, here, I just want to know.

For instance, do you support the tiered approach of Roe? Do you want to decrease the number of abortions through improved access to contraceptives, increased research into new forms of contraception, improved sex education? Personally, I think you could say these things and still be considered pro life, because I think the term prolife has been terribly distorted.

Hence, my question.

Thanks.

It is a power play when it gets this extreme.

Controlling access to contraceptives is just plain evil. It is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of controlling women.