General Discussion

Me.

(35,454 posts)

1. Simple Things Women Couldn't Do 50 Years Ago In The US

Wed Aug 2, 2017, 09:48 AM

Aug 2017

Why would women give up the progress made and why should we be expected to.

Serve On A Jury
Get A Credit Card
Easily Accessible Birth Control
Run The Boston Marathon
Buy Women's Athletic Shoes
Have The Option Of Attending an Ivy League School
Keep Their Job If They Became Pregnant
Attend A Military Academy Or Fight In Combat
Refuse Sex With Their Husbands
Legally Obtain An Abortion
Take A Stand Against Sexual Harassment
Take Legally-Mandated Maternity Leave
Open A Bank Account
Become An Astronaut

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

72 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Of Course Abortion Should Be a Litmus Test for Democrats [View all] mcar Aug 2017 OP

Simple Things Women Couldn't Do 50 Years Ago In The US Me. Aug 2017 #1

Here's another that really caused me grief as a young married woman. lark Aug 2017 #17

As For Names. Me. Aug 2017 #27

No retreat baby, no surrender. lark Aug 2017 #45

Amen To That Me. Aug 2017 #46

When I got married... LakeArenal Aug 2017 #29

I had a misadventure like that - yup, back in the mid-70s. When we'd just married. calimary Aug 2017 #31

i didnt take either husband's name. in the 70's mopinko Aug 2017 #62

Your optometrist was completely and totally wrong PoindexterOglethorpe Aug 2017 #36

Actually that happened in San Jose, CA. lark Aug 2017 #44

Wow. San Jose, CA. PoindexterOglethorpe Aug 2017 #55

I can tell you at the time, I was totally outraged. lark Aug 2017 #61

I don't blame you. PoindexterOglethorpe Aug 2017 #66

The other side. Forty years ago, my wife did the family banking. One day, NCjack Aug 2017 #39

No. kentuck Aug 2017 #2

I think the way the author puts it is right - and agrees with you mcar Aug 2017 #4

I concur. MGKrebs Aug 2017 #9

Legislatively opposed anti-choice or "pro-life" ehrnst Aug 2017 #30

Yes romana Aug 2017 #40

Exactly correct -- abortions are reduced with education and contraceptives not with limiting choices Dorn Aug 2017 #15

Yep. K&R demmiblue Aug 2017 #3

Why not anti-vaccination Democratic candidates? Why not flat-Earth Democratic candidates? hatrack Aug 2017 #5

Winning may not be the most important thing, ... JustABozoOnThisBus Aug 2017 #6

You nailed it, Justabozo SCantiGOP Aug 2017 #26

Yep mcar Aug 2017 #10

If you had two candidates who both rejected climate science MGKrebs Aug 2017 #11

I would be amazed if we didn't have some anti vax Democratic candidates dsc Aug 2017 #12

Every situation should be judged in its own context. LAS14 Aug 2017 #16

+1000 (nt) ehrnst Aug 2017 #32

How about romana Aug 2017 #41

We've got an anti-vaxer Democrat running here LeftInTX Aug 2017 #69

K&R Solly Mack Aug 2017 #7

No one is being forced by law to get an abortion. It is and should always be a choice. A personal The Wielding Truth Aug 2017 #8

As long as we understand that "pro life" is not "anti choice", that's fine. brooklynite Aug 2017 #13

"Pro-life" means being opposed to legal abortion. It's a political term. ehrnst Aug 2017 #22

No, it doesn't... brooklynite Aug 2017 #47

"Abortion is ... not particularly controversial." geek tragedy Aug 2017 #14

This message was self-deleted by its author ehrnst Aug 2017 #21

Those 25% of Dems don't think it's a dealbreaker if they're Dems.(nt) ehrnst Aug 2017 #23

are they welcome in the party? geek tragedy Aug 2017 #24

The stat was 75% "of Democrats" think that it should be legal ehrnst Aug 2017 #28

to be blunt, we don't have the luxury of turning anyone away geek tragedy Aug 2017 #43

K/R BadgerMom Aug 2017 #18

As was said on ABC's "The View" left-of-center2012 Aug 2017 #19

Some things are simply not negotiable. hamsterjill Aug 2017 #20

That's exactly right, hamsterjill. The right to choose is NON-NEGOTIABLE. calimary Aug 2017 #34

Absa-Fucking-Lootely! hamsterjill Aug 2017 #35

'Abortion is freedom" ismnotwasm Aug 2017 #25

I can live with a Dem that is against abortion. alfredo Aug 2017 #33

I don't care about anti-choice Dems, just don't give anti-choice Dem candidates national money (nt) ehrnst Aug 2017 #37

I see anti abortion and anti choice as something different. alfredo Aug 2017 #49

Hey Blue Dogs DonCoquixote Aug 2017 #38

As long as the best available Democrat is better than the Republican... Orsino Aug 2017 #42

the pretzel twisting around here defending that anti-choice d's and why we HAVE to niyad Aug 2017 #48

Anti choice is a disqualifier, but being personally against abortion but alfredo Aug 2017 #50

Well, it is for me. I would never, ever vote for MineralMan Aug 2017 #51

As long as the person isn't pushing legislation mcar Aug 2017 #56

It's choice. Those three Democrats would probably not MineralMan Aug 2017 #57

That's right mcar Aug 2017 #58

+1. In a Women In Politics college course--For the past 40 years, 45% of women voted Republican. TheBlackAdder Aug 2017 #60

Remember you asked about Blue Dogs last week? LeftInTX Aug 2017 #70

Yawn Azathoth Aug 2017 #52

... demmiblue Aug 2017 #53

Eye rolls don't make an argument Azathoth Aug 2017 #54

It's morally reprehensible for the government to force a woman to give birth DLevine Aug 2017 #59

Come on, let's separate out medically necessary abortions Azathoth Aug 2017 #64

"The state intervenes all the time to protect children from their parents". DLevine Aug 2017 #65

"If we have no right to our own bodies, we are not full citizens." Azathoth Aug 2017 #68

There is a risk to carrying a fetus to term. DLevine Aug 2017 #71

Agreed Doug the Dem Aug 2017 #63

AND a female president as a litmus test for the U.S. How long is it going to take?? kerry-is-my-prez Aug 2017 #67

K & R mcar, good read. JHan Aug 2017 #72