Sounds like pro-life Democrats are pushing Dean into a corner...

[madfloridian]

Sounds like they are trying to get him to link to the Democrats for Life website at the DNC. The party has never done that, but they are pressuring him to do it.

Howard Dean is strongly pro-choice in every way. It kills me to see them pressuring him like this. In spite of polls showing that a great majority support abortion rights, they are doing this anyway....our own Democrats.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/072605/democrats.html

Senate and House Democrats, with the support of Minority Leaders Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), are pressing party Chairman Howard Dean to establish an official relationship with Democrats for Life, an anti-abortion-rights group that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has previously shunned.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) is leading the Senate effort, while in the House Reps. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.), Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) and Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) are playing prominent roles.
Reid and Pelosi have discussed a relationship between Democrats for Life group and the DNC. Dean has also participated in the discussions, according to Democrats for Life.

Representatives of Democrats for Life, including Nelson’s staff, and 16 House Democrats met with Dean on Thursday morning to urge him to establish an official relationship that would be signified by, among other things, posting the group’s Internet address on the DNC website. So far, the DNC has refused to allow even that modest show of affiliation with Democrats for Life.

DNC spokesman Josh Earnest said, “We don’t have links to any other third-party groups.”

But when asked about Dean’s talks with Reid and Pelosi, Earnest said, “I’m sure he’s had conversations with them about that because he supports a big-tent party.”

Democrats for Life representatives are scheduled to meet Pelosi this week, and Reid has voiced his support for establishing the more official relationship.

Reid and Pelosi have discussed a relationship between Democrats for Life group and the DNC. Dean has also participated in the discussions, according to Democrats for Life.

Representatives of Democrats for Life, including Nelson’s staff, and 16 House Democrats met with Dean on Thursday morning to urge him to establish an official relationship that would be signified by, among other things, posting the group’s Internet address on the DNC website. So far, the DNC has refused to allow even that modest show of affiliation with Democrats for Life.

DNC spokesman Josh Earnest said, “We don’t have links to any other third-party groups.”

But when asked about Dean’s talks with Reid and Pelosi, Earnest said, “I’m sure he’s had conversations with them about that because he supports a big-tent party.”

Democrats for Life representatives are scheduled to meet Pelosi this week, and Reid has voiced his support for establishing the more official relationship".

[madfloridian]

1. Among other things this group wants cut abortions 95% in ten years.

I think that is the right percentage. They are not very pro birth control either.

[Kerrytravelers]

2. Pro-birth... there is no such thing as "pro-life."

pro-life is a rw talking point and repeated phrase that has no meaning.

[madfloridian]

3. Whatever they call themselves, they are going against the majority's will.

And that is just wrong.

[NorCalDem]

5. Doesn't even matter what the majority will is

you can't oppress the minority. Democracy is majority rule without tyranny of the minority.

[Eileen]

10. Actually the correct appellation

Actually the correct term is: Pro Involuntary Gestation with an acronym of "PIG".


- Eileen`s always in process page -


Eileen

[WillyT]

39. Great Site Eileen !!! - Gonna Share It With My Mom And Sisters !!!

That picture burned into my brain when we went to the March For Women's Lives last year.

I will never forget.

[ellie]

50. That is a great site!

Thanks Eileen! I will spread it far and wide.

[madfloridian]

61. Great article from your site...just becoming aware of this stuff.

Just recently I began to realize how they are redefining everything to suit their ideology. Thanks, I guess, for sharing this.

http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/infrmdC/RedefiningPregnancy.html

Redefining The Meaning of Pregnancy
Or

How Birth Control Becomes An "Abortifacient?"

One of the main proponents of the idea that oral contraceptives are abortifacients is an unapologetic Catholic doctor, Larimore, who has been selling this doctrinal agreement agenda for some years now. The Larimore agenda is, unfortunately, quite misleading.

The argument of the 'abortifacient' effect of some contraceptive methods is predicated on the faulty premise that, as Abortion Opponents continually declare "Medical science recognizes that life begins at conception as an undisputed fact."

This is neither accepted fact nor is it undisputed. Some doctors have the audacity to think they have the right and qualifications to make such pronouncements. Most doctors are aware that the combining of genetic materials will produce a unique DNA but are not foolish enough to believe that a sexual reproduction method involving live gametes is the creation of life. Many even recognize that we, as society or scientist, can not properly define what we mean by 'life' and therefore would not have the audacity to pronounce such "truths" for humankind. Most people furthermore are capable of recognizing that the question of "when a life begins" is irrelevant. It's a red herring argument. In the abortion debate the only germane question is "when do we grant membership in our society to a developing human."

[meow2u3]

17. Pro-life Dems also oppose the death penalty

They also believe in caring for the kid--and the mom--after birth, too. So don't lump us pro-life Dems with the fanatical Repunks, smearing us with the same broad brush.

Don't even think about equating pro-life Dems with anti-abortion Repunks. Pro-life Dems' motives are protecting the underdog, the little guy, against the arbitrary will of the big guy (or gal, as this case is); anti-abortion Repunks only care about hiding behind the life of the fetus to subjugate women. Yes, Virginia, there is a big difference, and it's high time we make this distinction--and get rid of that goddamn pro-choice litmus test!

[Eileen]

26. It really doesn't matter -

whether they are Regressives or supposed democrats. The mere fact that they blithly believe that they have any damn right to make medical decisions for other people without the required credentials puts them in a dubious position. The further fact that they would legislate their beliefs based on mythology is another reason to oppose their views no matter how altruistic they claim to be. The fact that any such legislation would remove a woman's right to bodily integrity and provide a part of her body with more rights than any born human being indicates that they are quite happy to endorse a modern form of slavery. And finally the fact that none of them can ever give an answer to the questions concerning fetal rights - 1/ How would it work? and 2/what should the penalty be for a woman who obtains an illegal abortion. - indicates that their primary reason for opposing abortion is the control of women and their sexuality. When they act on their beliefs and start providing funerary and burial services for menstrual discharge from sexually active women, because it may contain a fertilized ovum or "micro mini human pre-embryo" then I'll believe they are at least serious about their claims although they are also quite looney.

Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster

- Eileen`s always in process page -


Eileen
Spelling and code adjusted E

[Kerrytravelers]

28. Pick a different name. The repukes already have "pro-life."

I don't know what you want to call yourselves, but please pick something different from those who are actually just pro-birth and than don't give a damn about people the moment a woman gives birth.

[Wapsie B]

4. I just have to wonder sometimes

how many of these people are truly Democrats and how many are repug plants wanting to neutralize Dean in any way. The righties know Dean's a strong leader so they've got to stop him by whatever means necessary.

[bklyncowgirl]

6. Can they link to both Democrats for Life and NARAL? NT

[madfloridian]

7. Great idea. They should do both.

I hate this.

They should fighting to find out who outed a CIA agent.

[bklyncowgirl]

14. Agreed. Democrats should stop arguing and...

concentrate on the real enemy.

DNC links to all sorts of progressive blogs and websites. Have a group of links called "Progressive organizations" or something like that--and a disclaimer that DNC does not endorse all of these organizations policies and leave it at that.

Either do 'em all or don't do 'em.

[zulchzulu]

8. First things first: "Pro-life" is a Repug framing technique

We are for Reproductive Freedom...not a reproductive police state.

[madfloridian]

9. They have a 95/10 plan. They can call themselves anything.

But they want to control women's right.

[zulchzulu]

12. Women's right to be a domestic barefoot, pregnant cookie maker

One thing the American Taliban don't force on American gals is the Arab custom of wearing a towel on their head. Yet...

[madfloridian]

45. Ha Ha, just caught your comment.

But they would if they could.

[madfloridian]

11. Here is the website with their 95/10 plan for abortions....Roemer.

http://www.democratsforlife.org/

“We have made more progress on abortion in the last six months than the last 30 years. The Republican Party's policy on abortion over the past five years is like having a bunch of tin cans tied to your back bumper -- It sure makes a lot of noise but is not very pretty and certainly doesn't accomplish much. Democrats have a plan that does, The 95-10 Initiative.” said former Indiana Congressman Tim Roemer"

I don't want to hear their plan. They should not be legislating our rights. This site thinks the Republicans are too easy on abortion!

[janx]

13. This is a very stupid move.

It's one thing to build a big tent, but it's quite another to go so far as to ally ourselves with people who actually want abortion outlawed.

[wli]

15. more AEI/GOP moles

Don't let them in the door.

[Catt03]

16. I read their proposal and I don't think it is a bad idea

They are not advocating prohibiting abortions nor women's right to privacy; they are advocating education, birth control,medical access, safe sex, open information and expansion of the WIC program.

If all the above are put into effect, then abortions may be reduced by 95% in ten years.

What's wrong with that?

[madfloridian]

19. What's wrong? They are cutting all but 10% of abortions.

They are making themselves the controlling factor. They are putting themselves in charge of making these decisions for women.

It is not just the GOP using this as a wedge, it is our own party doing it.

[Catt03]

27. The proposal is for reducing abortions by 95% in 10 years.

Listen, I have been for women's privacy for reproduction for 40 years.
Been on the front lines and believe that women absolutely have the right to power over their own bodies.

However, if the Republicans continue in office, even contraceptives will be limited. At this point I say f--- ANY one issue that stands in the way of a Democrat being elected. I am no longer naive or nice or willing to continue to give the Republicans an opportunity to continue their domination of this country.

Hell...I've learned from Rove. I support the damm proposal and can work to defeat it after Democrats are elected.

[madfloridian]

34. Ok, then we give up our rights so the GOP can't take them?

Makes sense.

[dolstein]

18. As long as they only work for Dems, it's ok by me

A Democrats for Life group is a smart idea in states like Utah, Idaho, Mississippi, Lousiana and Alabama. As long as they agree to endorse only Democrats and not to field challengers against pro-choice Democratic incumbents, I'm ok with providing a link.

[DanCa]

20. Working to reduce abortions is wonderful overturning roe is horrid. (nt)

[ourbluenation]

22. There is nothing wrong with reducing the need for abortion...

We need to quit thinking that we are "pro abortion". Nobody is pro abortion. We are "pro-privacy", which is what roe v wade was really about. Rethugs like to portray us as baby killers and they are doing a pretty damn good job of it too.

[madfloridian]

23. Abortion is such a small part of it over all.

Our own Dems are going for conscience issues as wedge issues. They should be talking about Karl Rove or whoever else is involved in the outing.

[DanCa]

25. we should change the terminology to genetic mediicine

it would encompass abortion and stem cell research.

[DanCa]

24. Welcome to du ourbluenation

And I agree with you 100 percent.

[madfloridian]

21. Reid, Pelosi, Nelson, Stupak, Kaptur, and Ryan and Oberstar

Why are they concentrating on this instead of working to block a questionable judge? Why are they not calling out Rove? There are so many outrages. Why are they doing this now?

They are causing a wedge, the DLC is causing a wedge by setting a separate agenda from the DNC.

It is not just Republicans who are using wedge issues.

They are just as bad as the GOP in not standing up for what the majority wants. They are going for what the minority of folks in the religious community want.

[Larkspur]

29. This is an issue that Dean should bring before the DNC Exec Comm

and before the whole DNC Committee at their next convention. If the DNC voting members support this move and support putting a link, like to Planned Parenthood, to offset Dems for Life than so be it, but if they do not support it, then Dean is not hanging by himself. It is issues like this the reason why we have committees.

Anyone know what the DNC rules are on making decisions, like this?

[janx]

30. The way this article is written is deceptive. There's a lot of

interpretation and speculation associated with it.


It honestly sounds as if Dean is interested in more education and access to birth control--at least that's my take on it.

He won't make any official affiliation with any group interested in outlawing abortion, and I seriously doubt that Clinton would, but the writer of this article is trying to hype some kind of split in the party and scare some people.

It's lazy, sensationalist journalism (as usual).

[madfloridian]

32. I trust Dean's views....but Roemer is involved in this as well.

This group will not "outlaw" abortion....it will set itself up to decide who gets one. They are going to be in control, they say. In 10 years they say that there only be 5% of the abortions.

Yes, many of the Democrats are for controlling this right. First comes the control, in the guise of religious views....and this site is that. Then comes the banning.

I think this is serious. I know The Hill can be divisive, but this time I think they are right.

I think it is getting serious.

[fujiyama]

31. I don't know what sort of relationship they want

Then again if that relationship entails Dean telling them clearly and forcefully, "the party's view on abortion remains as it is and we won't change it", then I'm all good with it.

I really don't know what the anti choice Dems want. Restrictions like parental notification? Why you don't care about kids with abusive fathers? "Partial birth abortion"? A procedure that is rarely used and only in those cases to save the life (btw why didn't the repukes have an exception for the life of the mother when they passed the ban?).

[madfloridian]

33. This group wants to do away with 95% of the abortions.

They get to decide. They have some good ideas, but it is a way to get a foot in the door to end abortions.

I know Howard Dean would not do this on his own, but it may take a good talking to by those of us who oppose it.

[fujiyama]

36. There is nothing wrong

with wanting fewer abortions.

But the only way to lessen the number of abortions is to educate people better about and make birth control and contraception more widely available.

I don't blame Dean for talking to them though. It may prove to be productive. Understandably some of these congresspeople are from conservative districts in red states...so they may be able to help with outreach...

But I don't think they should let this group influence the party much nationally.

[madfloridian]

38. Partially agree, but read this post of mine.

This group is very connected to religious groups. I found this and posted it...interesting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1956978

Also this Dems for Life group ran a candidate at the last minute against one our local groups were supporting. He was "self" funded, and he openly admitted he know nothing about debating or the issues...he was anti-gay and anti-abortion. He won the primary. Why? Because the Catholic and Baptist churches along with others supported him quietly from their pulpits, and they got the vote out.

It is their right to organize as churches, but it is not their right to play politics from the pulpit. or to discriminate against gays and control women.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[derby378]

37. They'll link to Amendment II Democrats long before Democrats for Life

And A2D is currently down, so DfL has a long, long wait.

[shance]

40. Forward this to every pro-choice Democrat you know.

And call Pelosi and Reid's office tomorrow.

[Lecky]

41. Grr... you people

As someone who is pro-choice, I have no problem with this at all. Democrats would NEVER pick SC justices to lesson women's rights.

When they say they want to reduce 95% abortions that means they will do it in realistic ways like promoting birth control or making other options known. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? They are not going to strive to make laws that impend on our rights.

Also, there are many pro-life Democrats already...

[madfloridian]

42. Foot in the door.

They decide who gets the remaining 5% of abortions. What is wrong with me? I have lived a long time, and I see what is happening here.

I saw it happen in my church, first over minor issues, then bigger. Then finally they even called Iraq a holy war.

It all goes together. The group that Jane Roberts and Patricia Healey are involved with, Feminists for Life...appears to be closely connected to Democrats for Life.

They don't like the SC ruling so they want to work around it.

We either get choice or we don't.

Disclaimer, I am too old to enough expect to have one...but we have 3 daughters who were entitled to choose it for themselves if they wished.

[Lecky]

43. Sorry disagree

I refuse to turn down pro-life Democrats because of my own paranoia.

[madfloridian]

44. I welcome them, but they want control of the party.

Read this paragraph. It was a speech by the president of Democrats for Life, as well as the state contact for Feminists for life...the group in which Jane Roberts is highly connected.

"The Democrats for Life and Feminists for Life organizations are proof that all people can and should be pro-life. It is consistent with the root principles of both the Democratic Party and the feminist movement to respect life and to encourage the development of everyone's full potential. Freedom and equality are unattainable if there is not first life.

So, my rallying cry for this rally is to call upon former Democrats who are pro-life to come back to the party, take your place, and make your opinion known. Democrats who are closet pro-lifers, I call upon you to stop being afraid to speak the truth. On Judgment Day you will not be asked if you are a follower of the Democratic platform, but if you were a follower of the word of God. A little political power is not worth becoming an accomplice to the murder of millions of babies. Pro-Life Democrats, let's take our party .

[Hell Hath No Fury]

60. From what you've posted...

I say that "Democrats" for Life can just fucking bite me.

I'm not going to let some right-wing nutter take away my basic civil rights, why the fuck would I let a "Democrat"???

Keep your stinking religion outta my life! :mad:

[CTLawGuy]

49. nothing of the sort

They are talking about a DE FACTO reductions of abortion (reduction in practice), not a DE JURE reduction (reduction due to legal restrictions).

A reduction of actual demand for abortions by 95% is what their goal is.

[KamaAina]

46. What is Pelosi doing on board with this?

We pretty much knew the others named, notably Reid and Kaptur, were anti's, but Pelosi?! This sure won't play well back in SF!!

I guess this is what happens when the Dem Senate leadership falls to an anti: he brings the House leader down the tubes with him. :grr:

[BIG Sean]

47. Good...give them a link

Our party is supposed to be inclusive, and as it seems, a portion of democrats are pro-life/pro birth/anti-choice. Most intelligent people are NOT going to vote because of one issue, but they can still still voice their opinion on it.

[Totally Committed]

48. Not "Pro-Life"... "Anti-Choice", please...

Thanks.

[DemBones DemBones]

51. What does this guy mean "We don't have links to any other

third-party groups"? Doesn't the DNC still link to "Catholics for Choice"?

If not, they used to, despite being asked not to. This group, "Catholics for Choice," or whatever it's called, is most definitely not a group approved by the Roman Catholic Church, so its name is misleading. And it's certainly not a Democratic group. I've written the DNC and asked them not to link to that group and they have never even replied to me. The DNC is not responsive to mere voters.

[theboss]

52. Isn't Reid Pro-Life?

Or am I confusing him with someone else?

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arcane1]

62. what the hell are you talking about?

how does one supress the 2nd choice? I'd think the desire to have healthcare and education for ALL children would fall under that category, no?

and what if this woman has no "male partner"? Or doesn't believe in God?

[Toots]

54. This is a demonstration of why Democrats are losers

They are not principled. They stick their finger up to find the prevailing wind on any subject and then put that wind to their backs. They will never get anywhere if they don't buck that wind occasionally. I think that was why Kerry could not garner enough support. He got the reputation deserved or not for being a flip flopper. I even felt he was that way yet voted for him anyway. Maybe it was in how he explained his decisions. The party has to stand strong or it will cease to exist. Either Democrats are for the Woman's right to chose or they are not but they just can't take both sides. They try to take both sides far too often on a lot of issues.

[madfloridian]

55. Feminists for Life connected to Democrats for Life. Judgement Day?

This is a speech by the president of Democrats for Life. Feminists for Life is the group that has Jane Roberts and Patricia Healey.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/government/kerschen.htm

"Also at the booth will be literature from Feminists for Life of America. I serve as the state contact for Feminists for Life. Those of you who attended the banquet that Greater Austin Right to Life hosted last fall got to hear Fredericka Matthews-Green, one of the most well known speakers from Feminists for Life. So, many of you know something about that organization, but I would like to remind you about our current major project, the College Outreach Program. Feminists for Life members are teaming with Crisis Pregnancy Centers to offer referrals and other information for the use of health clinics on college campuses. Far too often, these clinics don't know where to send a young woman with a problem pregnancy except to an abortion clinic. By providing them with alternatives, they know that we are giving women a real choice instead of leaving them to feel that there is no other way. If you are interested in one of our college health clinic kits or other information, please come to see me after the rally.

The Democrats for Life and Feminists for Life organizations are proof that all people can and should be pro-life. It is consistent with the root principles of both the Democratic Party and the feminist movement to respect life and to encourage the development of everyone's full potential. Freedom and equality are unattainable if there is not first life.

So, my rallying cry for this rally is to call upon former Democrats who are pro-life to come back to the party, take your place, and make your opinion known. Democrats who are closet pro-lifers, I call upon you to stop being afraid to speak the truth. On Judgment Day you will not be asked if you are a follower of the Democratic platform, but if you were a follower of the word of God. A little political power is not worth becoming an accomplice to the murder of millions of babies.

Pro-Life Democrats, let's take our party back; let's work towards transforming all Democrats into Democrats for Life!"

The last paragraph I bolded makes me furious. They are equating it to morality and religion and judgement day.

[adarling]

56. tell them to go vote republican

leave the website alone, again they are going against the majority. I am not for abortions but this is not the time to start fighting over this

[Larkspur]

57. Look at this situation this way, the Dems for Life are NEGOTIATING with

Dean, not distancing themselves from Dean.

I think what Dean would work towards is creating a policy that is based upon common ground with pro-choice and anti-choice Dems, namely that both groups want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions. The way it is done is the key.

Dean will NOT sell out pro-choice groups by supporting overturning Roe v Wade, but I think he will get both groups to support economic and social policies that will help decrease unwanted pregnancies humanely and thereby the number of abortions without making abortion illegal.

[madfloridian]

58. As I said, I trust Dean's views on it.

But I do not trust these groups. Read the quote about Judgement Day I posted above.

I have no objections to reducing abortions and providing support for the mother. I do have objections to a group that talks about Judgement Day and is allied with Feminists for Life as well.

Someone will have to say yes or no in providing support like this, they will try to control the outcome. It should be a woman's decision.

[sunnystarr]

59. What about Pro-Choice isn't clear???

I know I'm blonde but to me it always meant that one believed that every woman had the right to choose to be for or against abortion in her personal circumstance.

Personally I do believe that every woman should first be responsible with her body. Responsible means finding out immediately on missing the monthly event if you are pregnant ... unless of course it doesn't matter one way or another.

I believe that in general abortions should only be legal the first trimester. If one can't be responsible to make the determination and take action then have the baby and give he/she up for adoption.

First trimester abortions should be a right and an option to every woman. As I remember, miscarriages in the first trimester are medically called abortions - at least they were in the books 40 years ago.

Obviously the privacy rights don't extend to us in other situations. You can't assist in ending another's life just because they don't want to live. Suicide is illegal and that just involves continuing your own life. As a society we've decided that you can't sell your body so we have laws against prostitution while other countries have deemed it legal.

I remember being appalled when I found out that the daughter of a friend was having an abortion in her 8th month of pregnancy. I can't see how that differs from ending a baby's life right after birth. The image of that abortion has stayed with me throughout my adulthood.

Religion has nothing to do with it - just common sense, decency, and a sense of personal responsibility.

Obviously, as in all of life, exceptions have to be determined. Minors and mentally disturbed girs/women can't be expected to be responsible or even aware that they're pregnant. However even in those situations there has to be a limit. Life threatening conditions also require exceptions to a general rule but should be decided by the woman and the doctor.

It's up to the general population to decide what kind of society they want, and in the case of dispute, compromise for the general welfare and good should be the goal.

As a confused, misguided, and sexually abused teenager, I delivered two boys who were then adopted by loving families. The second time I had connections that would have given me the choice to abort. You needed the signature of a few doctors before an abortion could legally be performed. I chose to deliver my baby because I felt it was my action that caused the pregnancy and my responsibility to complete the pregnancy. My parents wanted me to abort. It wasn't religion that guided me (my parents were atheists). But I was raised to be responsible for my actions and to accept the consequences. So personally, I couldn't end a life to convenience my own. It meant being hidden away once I showed. I didn't go outside unless it was to the doctor and then I had to wear a big coat to hide my girth. It was 1963 and times were very different.

Both of my daughters had to make the same choice. One chose abortion and the other chose to marry at 17 and have my oldest grandchild. These decisions are always difficult but can be made responsibly. I supported both decisions. Whatever is decided has its repercussions and affects the direction of one's life and whenever possible should be up to the woman.

The Democratic Party is about much much more than abortion rights and it's upsetting to reduce the party's values that are important to every American to reproductive rights. To me it's only an example of letting the Rs set the agenda and it's why we lose support in the red states. If the 2 parties are to be defined as no abortion rights on one end and unlimited abortion rights on the other end, then I would have no party. Dems have an opportunity to include both sides through a pro-choice agenda - one that respects both views with a responsible position that isn't reduced to a soundbite.