Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: anti-choice Democrats are the reason Nancy Pelosi was House Speaker in 2006 and 2008 [View all]lapucelle
(19,495 posts)49. Derp indeed.
It was nice of Mr. Ryan to finally come around once it seemed safe, but he's been voting on these issues for many many years. He has a mixed record at best.
I'd like to hear him say something now that the issue is going all squishy again. I'm sure he's aware that progressive apologists are making it known that they will compromise on somebody else's civil rights. He's so good at saying stuff. Maybe he should speak up now.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
72 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
anti-choice Democrats are the reason Nancy Pelosi was House Speaker in 2006 and 2008 [View all]
geek tragedy
Aug 2017
OP
best way to block that is to have Democrats as House Speaker and Senate Maj leader
geek tragedy
Aug 2017
#5
Reid had an anti-choice voting record--it went beyond "personal/moral opposition."
geek tragedy
Aug 2017
#23
Then call it what is fucking is. If someone is personally against abortion but doesn't vote to
boston bean
Aug 2017
#38
"personally against abortion" isn't a political position, it's politicianspeak
geek tragedy
Aug 2017
#41
for anti-choice Dems, as long as they understand they support the larger agenda
geek tragedy
Aug 2017
#62
This is gotten quite redundant, it's heading into "I'm owed beer and travel money" territory
elehhhhna
Aug 2017
#72
No, it's not nebulous at all. The Cambridge Dictionary spells it out clearly
LanternWaste
Aug 2017
#21
How about the Hyde Amendment--is that a litmus test for being pro-choice or anti-choice? nt
geek tragedy
Aug 2017
#24
The Hyde Amendment in my opinion is bad policy, it is not however a restriction on abortion.
boston bean
Aug 2017
#42
Would you prefer a Congress that has Nancy Pelosi as Speaker with 50 anti-choice Democrats
geek tragedy
Aug 2017
#12
It's not hypothetical. Its' the difference between 2007-2010 and 2011-present
geek tragedy
Aug 2017
#33
Does the same theory apply with the criminal bill in Clinton's 90's? Or possibly NAFTA.
DoodAbides
Aug 2017
#11
How did that affect the AA community. Now that I am actually thinking about it, interesting question
DoodAbides
Aug 2017
#14
There is no way you can even get that statement with anything being discussed.
DoodAbides
Aug 2017
#30
you just putatively excommunicated all anti-abortion voters from the Democratic Party.
geek tragedy
Aug 2017
#32
I did no such thing. They did by their inability to separate state vs religion.
DoodAbides
Aug 2017
#35
I am game. It is that important. To me, to lives that are affected by law. nt
DoodAbides
Aug 2017
#25
a good 25-30% of voters tend to be social conservatives but economically liberal
geek tragedy
Aug 2017
#55
Manchin and Donnelly and Casey had zero hesitation to go to the matts for Medicaid nt
geek tragedy
Aug 2017
#57
not really. They don't have to betray constituents if they never have to face a vote.
geek tragedy
Aug 2017
#61
Exactly. The best case scenario from Congress on abortion is no legislation. nt
geek tragedy
Aug 2017
#64