General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAbortion is the most progressive economic issue.
It's not secondary. It's primary.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/opinion/why-abortion-is-an-progressive-economic-issue.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
The Democrats unity tour fractured into disunity almost immediately after it began. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont refused to say whether Jon Ossoff, the Democratic candidate trying to win a typically Republican district in Georgia while being outspoken in support of abortion rights, counts as a progressive. He then went on to stump for Heath Mello in Nebraska. Mr. Mello, who is running for mayor in Omaha, has sponsored legislation aimed at restricting womens access to abortion, including a bill in 2009 that required women to be informed that they could look at ultrasounds of their fetuses.
The Democratic National Committee chairman, Thomas E. Perez, didnt do much to dampen the growing outrage among progressives who see reproductive rights as core to their values. If you demand fealty on every single issue, then its a challenge, he said last week.
Its not just a misstatement from Mr. Perez or a slight from Mr. Sanders. Democrats, in their postelection soul searching, are trying to learn the lessons from Donald Trumps jolting victory and how they might win back the presidency. And some all men so far, it should be noted argue that the party should move away from so-called social issues like abortion and reproductive freedom.
Instead, these men contend, the partys focus must be on economics. The glaring mistake they all make, however, is thinking that there is any way to disentangle reproductive rights from economic issues.
SNIP
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Yes, that's a truthful and accurate statement. Things like this will destroy our beloved Democratic Party from within, but nobody seems to be listening. Nobody seems to care. Nobody seems to be willing to learn from their mistakes. It's all so ego-driven, and women are being ignored.
Things need to change. Schumer and Perez need to get together and think very carefully about what their next move will be.
ProfessorPlum
(11,277 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Foamfollower
(1,097 posts)sheshe2
(83,928 posts)Mocking women seems easy. Standing by them so difficult when it should not be.
sheshe2
(83,928 posts)Bettie
(16,129 posts)economics.
It isn't an either/or thing.
But, on most issues there will be a person here or there who isn't perfectly in line with the party mainstream.
So, we can either insist on total purity or accept that we have a diversity of opinions and sometimes need to elect Dems who agree with us 90% of the time instead of 100%.
I don't think we need to move away from reproductive rights, human rights, etc. But we do need to add more focus on economics because neither set of problems can be solved without addressing the other.
Me.
(35,454 posts)"more focus on economics"
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)Bettie
(16,129 posts)neither should economic issues, which appears to be what others would like.
Zero focus on economics doesn't work either.
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)economic justice and social justice.
Bettie
(16,129 posts)that both can be priorities?
Demanding absolute purity and perfect adherence to every issue will end up with no one passing the test. It will also end with Republicans in charge of literally everything. Think they'll make things better?
And yet, not so long ago, people (most of the same people who are demanding absolute perfect adherence now) were admonishing others who wanted to primary more conservative members of the senate because they only agree 80% of the time or so.
So, is it absolute purity you are after or is it simply hatred for one guy?
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)I remember when Sen.Sanders told the Rolling Stone in 2015 that, "once you get off the social issues-abortion, gay, guns -and into the economic issues ,there is a lot more agreement than the pundits understand" I looked up the exact quote.
Now, Sen. Sanders has a good record on voting for pro-choice policies, so I wasn't overly worried about such comments. Although, I found them somewhat disturbing which is why I still remember them.
However, now he has endorsed two anti-choice candidates who are economic populists but anti-choice...Mello in Nebraska and Perriello in Virginia. So it looks like Sen. Sanders is willing to trade away my reproductive rights in order to advance a certain economic agenda. Both of these candidates voted to restrict a woman's right to abortion and Perriello is also a Keystone guy. So what rights are you willing to willing to give up?
Also, I would not primary red state conservadems, but I would not endorse them either.
ismnotwasm
(42,014 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)Except that Perez is turning out to be a huge disappointment. Though I dont know if Ellison wouldve been any better considering how he cleaves onto BS. But its a sad day when the Times get it and many progressives dont, however I am mighty thankful that piece has appeared when this debate has been raging here and everywhere.
ProfessorPlum
(11,277 posts)It is noted.
Me.
(35,454 posts)your presence in these threads is always noted
sheshe2
(83,928 posts)We see you.
mopinko
(70,238 posts)based on exactly this issue.
here is what i recall, and would appreciate the brain trust chiming in here-
i remember a story that cokie roberts told when rbg was confirmed. she was involved in arguing the case and made the argument that the decision to end a pregnancy had economic repercussions on not just the woman, but her entire family, including the baby that would be born if choice was denied.
she said that it became something of an in joke w rbg and justice kennedy- that she bumped into him at a party, and that he asked her "how's the baby?"
as i said, fuzzy old memory from when npr was a reliable news source, and cokie was a liberal.
ProfessorPlum
(11,277 posts)thanks for helping make this point over and over and over.
ProfessorPlum
(11,277 posts)and is a trusted ally of PP in Nebraska.
Whats more interesting is what happened nextand what didnt. In 2012, Mello voted with Planned Parenthood on two out of three bills tracked by the groupand was excused from voting on the third. After that, Mello, who had become the influential chair of the state legislatures budget committee, voted with Planned Parenthood 100 percent of the time. By 2015, the group was celebrating a fourth straight year without enacting any new abortion restrictions in Nebraska, thanks largely to committed womens health advocates engaged in the legislative process.
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)If you use the link and click on highlighted words in excerpt...it takes your to Nebraska documents.
"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
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,741 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,741 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,741 posts)IF he runs for President as rumored, you will work against him. You are consistent.
GOT IT
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,741 posts)PLEASE be sure to tip the waitress!
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Response to NurseJackie (Reply #15)
Omaha Steve This message was self-deleted by its author.
LexVegas
(6,101 posts)musette_sf
(10,206 posts)Planned Parenthood Voters of Nebraska has never endorsed Heath Mello for public office nor has Planned Parenthood Voters of Nebraska given Heath Mello a 100% rating, as some media outlets have erroneously reported, the group said in a statement.
Heath Mello's Regressive Record:
- LB 1103 Prohibiting Abortions After 20 Weeks of Pregnancy Bill Passed - Senate (44 - 5) Yea
- LB 594 Abortion Screening Requirements Bill Passed - Senate (40 - 9) Yea
- LB 22 Prohibits Insurance Coverage of Abortion Bill Passed - Senate (37 - 7) Yea
- LB 521 Requires Physician Presence During Abortions Bill Passed - Senate (38 - 9) Yea
- LB 675 Establishes Procedures for Ultrasounds Performed Prior to Abortions Bill Passed - Senate (40 - 5) Yea
ProfessorPlum
(11,277 posts)please
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)please
LB 22 - Prohibits Insurance Coverage of Abortion - Key Vote
LB 1103 - Prohibiting Abortions After 20 Weeks of Pregnancy - Key Vote
LB 594 - Abortion Screening Requirements - Key Vote
LB 521 - Requires Physician Presence During Abortions - Key Vote
LB 675 - Establishes Procedures for Ultrasounds Performed Prior to Abortions - Key Vote
ProfessorPlum
(11,277 posts)and I was specifically asking about the source of the quote.
LOL!!
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)You weren't specifically asking about anything at all. There was NOTHING specific about your request. You simply said "45. do you have a link please" ... a very generic request lacking specificity that you now claim.
That may have been what you specifically wanted, but anyone can see that you were not "specifically asking about the source of the quote"
George II
(67,782 posts)ProfessorPlum
(11,277 posts)and, as you point out, "Planned Parenthood Voters of Nebraska" is the source of the quote.
Not Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood Voters of Nebraska is a Facebook site, not an official site of Planned Parenthood, and could easily be a source of False News.
So, I'm open to hearing what PP's actual take on Mello is - if you can find a genuine quote.
George II
(67,782 posts)Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Including many places where Democrats need to win if they ever want to (re)gain control of Congress - along with many state legislatures and Governorships and other state offices.
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)Should we cave on all of this too...or are you only willing to throw reproductive rights under the bus?
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)I thought the Democratic Party was supposed to be a "Big Tent." How big of a tent are we going to be?
Where we can we find common ground with voters who don't necessarily agree with the official party stance on every issue?
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)I have voted for anti-choice candidates when the other person was GOP...but you don't endorse them, you don't normalize them and you don't support them in a primary when a better candidate is running (Virginia) I am so sorry my reproductive health is so polarizing. You want to de-empahasize women's rights you will lose many more votes than you will gain. You have to understand understand that this is a life and death issue for women.
A few years ago, I miscarried. I was left to bleed to death on a gurney in Georgia while my 'pro-life' doctor waited for proof the 'baby' was gone...the ultrasound was insufficient proof apparently as was the excessive life threatening bleeding...I was unconscious by the time my husband arrived just in time to save my life by firing the doctor and convincing a young resident to save my life with a D&C and massive blood transfusions...three weeks in the hospital and aids tests for years...and I was left infertile. It took a year for full recovery...so there will never be any compromise on this issue for me.
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)who has promised to restrict a woman's reproductive rights.
Now if we can only get the rest of the party to support a living wage, healthcare for all, and increasing access to higher education to all who qualify and not having them be in debt to a criminal bank for the rest of their fucking lives.
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's a contradiction in terms.
Cha
(297,722 posts)https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/opinion/why-abortion-is-an-progressive-economic-issue.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region
Yeah, that's what we've been sayin'
These men need to get woke..
"Yet he would happily exclude from the progressive movement even those he formally supports, like Mr. Ossoff, who dont seem to talk enough about income inequality to satisfy Mr. Sanders."
Tough.. it doesn't "satisfy" BS.
I wish it would be referred to as Pro-Choice.. no one likes "abortion".
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Cha
(297,722 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... in the very near future.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)Yet it continues to fall on deaf, indifferent ears.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)Women who can get the abortions they seek, however, are more likely to follow through on their employment or educational plans.
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)what rights are you willing to give up?
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Women get abortions for several reasons. Some for economic issues, others because they were raped, some because their pregnancy could kill them, and yet others for any other reason they seem.
No one should judge why.
Boiling this down to a single reason is dangerous to those that have other reasons.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)Orrex
(63,225 posts)rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
rec
GeorgeGist
(25,323 posts)there are plenty of issues more important eg. Helathcare, jobs, education, justice