They seem unaware they are doing it. The religious right has been militant about abortion, contraception, and having the government control those things by laws. Our party has gone along with those tactics, gradually giving in bits and pieces of the rights of women.
The use of the words safe, legal, and rare...nothing wrong with the way Clinton phrased it. But they have since gone beyond it. Our party has gone along with banning third term abortions, even to the point of jailing doctors who do them. Considering that most of those done third term are for the life or health of the mother or other critical health concerns...that's putting doctors and women at the mercy of the government when a life could be at stake.
The religious right has no intention to compromise with us on that issue. They want it banned.
I read the DU post today by
MajorChode in which they quoted Barry Goldwater from 1981.
Barry Goldwater, 1981:
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'
I remember when Howard Dean in 2003 said he was tired of listening to fundamentalist preachers. Then one of his first acts as DNC chairman was to invite the pro-life group, Democrats for Life, to the DNC to present their
abortion reduction plan..the 95/10 Initiative. He was wrong. It sent the message that the views of the religious right meant more than our views.
We should not be giving in to the use of the words "abortion reduction", because then we come across the problem of who gets to decide the amount and the method. Think the right will let us decide. No, I don't think so.
Their plan:
The 95-10 Initiative
A comprehensive plan that will reduce the number of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years by promoting abstinence, personal responsibility, adoptions and support for women and families who are facing unplanned pregnancy. The 95-10 Initiative seeks to reduce the number of abortions in America through Federal, state and local efforts as well as support and encouragement to volunteers and dedicated people on the front lines helping pregnant women. Much attention has been given to ending abortion or keeping it legal. We believe that we must do more to reduce the abortion rate by helping and supporting pregnant women.
My question. Why do they get to decide? They are a religious pro-life group. Why not leave it up to the women and their doctors? That's too simple a solution, I guess.
In a great post at Religion Dispatches it is pointed out that all of these plans simply show the view of women that is from past centuries. It treats them as though they are unable to make their life decisions.
The post points out how difficult it is to make
"common ground" with extremists.The lack of a sensible legislative agenda on contraception, economic support for women who wish to continue pregnancies, and adoption reform is disturbing, but most disturbing is the fifth-century religious view of women that permeates the movement. Women are presented as victims, unable to make choices about what is best when deciding to be sexual and when they are pregnant. In the truly progressive faith community, we hold that women have a right as moral agents to decide what is best when they face unintended pregnancy, and we believe that women are not by and large victims—they are the authors of their lives. Given the history of religious oppression, a movement that speaks or advocates for women’s concerns needs to advocate for women as moral adults.
Religious leaders who respect women’s consciences, their dignity, and their human rights will find it hard to make common cause with a religious movement that does not lift up those values. We suggest that proponents of abortion reduction seeking common ground go back to the drawing board. They might actually try to talk to those in the religious community who are strongly pro-choice.
Our party leaders have basically taken womens' choice off the table. In 2005 Chuck Schumer
made a shocking statement."So I called up Governor...our number one target is Rick Santorum...let him go back to wherever he lives, Maryland, you know you heard about it, he is Pennsylvania but he tried to get exempt from the school tax there cause he lives in Maryland even though he is a registered citizen of Pennsylvania. In any case I called up the Governor of Pennsylvania, Governor Rendell, I said who is the best candidate to beat Santorum. He there is only one person who could beat him but he won't run and B you wouldn't want him to. I said why wouldn't we want him to run, he said he's pro-life. He's a deeply religious Catholic man. Bob Casey."
"I said, those days are over Ed. Yes I'm pro-choice, but we need the best candidate. We can't insist that every democrat check off 18 different issues before they get (unintelligible) we could do that, we can't anymore. And so, we persuaded, Harry using his very...Harry has amazing insights into people...and we together persuaded Bob Casey to run. A poll yesterday...national...all the polls they did...Casey 51 Santorum 40. You should see Santorum nervous and walkin on the floor."
Chuck Schumer said that the party could no longer be bothered with worrying about womens' rights...he trivialized the issue.
To make matters worse, Harry Reid made a really pathetic statement about groups which support womens' rights. He compared our pro-choice activists to activist groups which work to get highways built. He marginalized womens' rights.
Reid disparages pro-choice activistsSenator Reid said that he welcomed the new "emphasis on recognizing the diversity of the party." He added, "We have had a lot of pro-life Democrats, but the pro-choice folk haven't reached out to them and haven't protected them."
He acknowledged some complaints from abortion rights groups about the party's shifting rhetoric. "They have to keep their folks geared up, just like people who work for more highways," Mr. Reid said. "That is what they do, just like the pro-life groups."
He said pro-choice groups don't reach out to the pro-life groups. Our Senate leader took the side of the right wing.
Trust the party leaders to keep womens' rights in focus? Not me. I don't.
The scary part is that the House Democratic leaders recruited
12 anti-choice candidates to run in 2008.Oh, yeah, the party leaders reached out.....to the other side. They left us behind.
...."The anti-abortion pitch is standard fare in Alabama’s Second Congressional District, a deeply conservative area that President Bush carried twice and that has been represented in Washington by a Republican for four decades. What makes the spot unusual is that Mr. Bright is a Democrat. And that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which has been pushing hard for Mr. Bright’s election, paid for it. In fact, Mr. Bright is one of a dozen anti-abortion Democratic challengers the party has recruited to run for the House this year and has aggressively supported with millions of dollars and other resources in culturally conservative districts long unfriendly to the party.
That is the highest number of anti-abortion candidates the party has fielded in recent memory to run either for open seats or against Republican challengers, according to party strategists and a leading anti-abortion organization.
The tendency to use the words "abortion reduction" and "common ground" worry me. It shows that many of our Democrats do not understand that the goal of the militant religious right (not speaking of moderates here) is to ban abortions. Many want to ban the morning after pill as causing abortion. Some want to ban any birth control pill because it thwarts God's will.
The punitive tones about abortion and the doctors who perform them has worked. And I fear our party is using it. The Faith-based council that will advise Obama on women's matters is heavily weighed down with anti-choice people. I have seen from 2 to 6 people on the 25 member council named as pro-choice, but some of them are really more into the "abortion reduction" theme. That is way too few pro-choice and far too many anti-choice on the council that will advise a Democratic president.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
