I could not pull the lever for a candidate who doesn't support Reproductive Rights!

[Solly Mack]

61. I read that. He's right.

I remember people calling the LGBT community on DU purist and non-pragmatic for wanting equal rights.

It happened. Anyone that denies it either wasn't here or is choosing a revisionist history for whatever reason that motivates their denial of the facts.

I've been here since early days 2001.

I've seen people argue that a woman's right to reproductive health should be left to the states and removed from the national debate because it turns off some voters.


Left to some states, human rights become "bathroom bills", gerrymandering/voter suppression, and women's health clinics getting closed down.

And voting rights are human rights. If you can't vote, then you're left out of the process that determines the laws that govern your other rights.

Yay, us! (Not)

There's nothing purist about the rights of women being protected. Nothing purist about the rights of the LGBT community being protected. Nothing purist about the rights of African-Americans being protected. Nothing purist about the rights of LatinX Americans being protected.

If the protection and support of human rights is to be attacked as purist (and the word is used as a pejorative by many) then I can only surmise that there is an underlying contempt for all human rights being expressed.

A willingness to sell people out to gain the promise, even if not the actual fulfillment, of a win.

Jeff Sessions, along with Trump and the rest, are all too willing to attack human rights. We've heard it from their mouths and we've seen it with their actions.

It's a dangerous time in America to not be white, male, straight, and even Christian. It usually is - by the way - but right now, it's worse.

Being attacked from the outside and from the inside, by supposed allies, doesn't exactly make for a lot of trust.

I know people can hold one view of abortion while still upholding the core values of choice - but then said person would be anti-choice would they? I've read the Democrats for Life site, they aren't about supporting choice as their ultimate goal. So any candidate they supported would be suspect. And no candidate they support should get party dollars/endorsements. As Charles Pierce said, you don't tell them "the party establishment is open for business on this issue."