Where is Kerry on South Dakota? Where is Edwards? Where are the Dems?

[Taverner]

You know, the ones that said they were pro choice and would fight for those rights?

Why are they remaining silent on the biggest rollback of women's rights in US history?

Look I know we don't control a thing, but that gives us all the more reason to speak up....

[stray cat]

1. Its an illegal law that will be taken care of by the lower courts

at least thats my guess.

[Warpy]

8. Yes, and appealed up to a newly right wing USSC

so stop pretending like this doesn't matter. It does.

In the meantime, that law is in effect in South Dakota. Until it's thrown out by that lower court, women in South Dakota will have to try to scrape the money together for a bus ticket to another state plus pay for the abortion there.

Why do men so blithely accept the destruction of women's hard won rights?

[Taverner]

16. "Why do men so blithely accept the destruction of women's hard won rights?

Well...I'll bet you donuts to dollars that a lot of the men who think this is nothing live in safe, comfortable blue states. "It could never happen here" they say. I should know, I'm a man in a blue state. None of my progressive friends are fired up about this, even though it is a big step in the dismantling of not just women's rights, but all personal privacy protections.

Soon after, expect states to start banning birth control, expect the sodomy laws to be back on the books, expect organizations like the Magdalene Sisters to pop up (the church will take care of your baby, as long as you are our indentured servant for life...)

IN short, ever read "Handmaid's Tale"? It's happening - not all of a sudden like it did in the book, but slowly, methodically so no one notices until it's too late.

[Warpy]

17. Thanks!

I appreciate that.

[gulfcoastliberal]

24. The 4th Amendment was destroyed by the "war on Drugs"

Now we're reaping the consequences of that catastrophe. A catastrophe legislated by the dem controlled conggres in the 80's - to appease Reagan. (Who should've been impeached for his high crime and misdemeanors - but then, as now, the dems work hand in hand with the repukes. Sorry, just feeling pretty pissed at our "opposition party" that doesn't oppose anything.

[dflprincess]

21. It might even be taken care of by the people of South Dakota

There was an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune last week (can't find the link, sorry) that reported that South Dakota has a law on the books that allows the people to petition to take any new law the governor has signed to a direct vote of the people. If I recall correctly, it takes a percentage (maybe 18%?) of the total vote in the last governor's race on petitions to have the issue placed on the ballot. This has been done successfully in the past. Per the article I read, prochoice groups in SD are working on this now and polls show a majority of the people in the state do not favor this law. It is not impossible that South Dakota voters will overturn this before it ever gets to the courts.

[gekeeley]

2. Yeah...

You're right, I haven't heard a word from anyone!... I didn't even notice that. What is up?!

[babsbunny]

3. I think they are busy behind the scenes working on election fraud

and how they will win all future elections! :sarcasm:

[leftstreet]

4. They're engaged in a serious battle over a more serious issue

Whether or not the Democratic slogan should be

"America Can Do Better," or "We Can Do Better"

[Taverner]

5. HAHAHAHA

How true...and also whether the blue tie works better than the red one...

[karynnj]

6. Maybe you should criticise instead all

the pro-choice Republicans and Democrats who didn't vote against cloture on Alito. Abortion was not the only reason to fight hime on - but he wouldn't be on the bench now.

Neither Kerry or Edwards have any standing on a SD law.

[TayTay]

7. They are not elected officials in the State of South Dakota.

What is it that you would have them do as federal elected representatives of other states? Kerry has a 100% rating from NARAL for his record on voting for a woman's right to choice her own health care. That represents his home state of Massachusetts.

Exactly what do you want these people to do in South Dakota. Short of leading a filibuster to try and get someone off the Supreme Court who is opposed to a woman's right to determine her own health care, what would you have them do? (Oh and does this apply to all other Senators or just the last Presidential ticket?)

[Taverner]

9. How about SAYING SOMETHING?????

The Repubs seem fit to comment on how we in California deserve to get killed in a Terrorist threat because we pass laws they don't like...

[TayTay]

12. Saying something about the State of South Dakota

and their right, as a sovereign state, to pass laws that affect the citizens of South Dakota. On what basis? And what could they say that wasn't dramatized by that filibuster of Alito, an action that spoke much louder than mere tsk-tsking over South Dakota. They have no say over that process at all, they are (were) federal officials.

The citizens of South Dakota are responsible for this action, not US Senators. The time for US Senators to comment on this was during the confirmation hearings and votes on Alito and Roberts. Anything now would be worthless grand-standing.

[sui generis]

25. they can be a leader and have an opinion

the question was rhetorical - it don't believe Taverner meant that there were valid reasons for not speaking up and taking a stance.

I know the answer. We are not uniformly pro-choice. That's why. We are also not uniformly pro-anything. That's a problem. We don't really have a clear national message or position.

[TayTay]

26. The people he mentioned have all strongly said

how they feel about Women's Reproductive Health and the Right to Choose. (Ahm, again, filibuster anyone?)

Perhaps this poster should target people who don't have 100% lifetime ratings from NARAL and people who haven't been involved in this as a signature issue for their entire political lives. That would make sense.

[sui generis]

27. nobody is being targeted

it's a bigger statement on our lack of cohesion as a party. Even Boxer just meekly helped shuffle the patriot act through.

That being said, it is a state issue, and it's a legal test they're running to spur the SCOTUS to review. The problem is that most people on the street don't see it as anything but a new law justifying or validating their fears - it's much more cynical than that.

Personally, I wish we had a single cohesive message to get behind that we can all agree on and support en masse, one that unites the DNC, the DLC, and all the other democratic alphabet soup. If our core principle as democrats is freedom of choice and other personal life freedoms, then the issue of the anti-abortionists is external to our party, but it's not.

We cannot have divisive issues within the party because we will reliably be hung out to dry with them, and it splits support for those issues. It's clear to me what our message as democrats should be, and it is inclusive of personal choice, equal rights, social programs, national healthcare, education, employment, and strong environmental controls. We don't need some democrats saying "psst ignore the gays, we don't really like them anyway" or "I'm a PRO LIFE democrat" or "corporations have more rights than individuals" or "let's change the constitution to protect made-up traditions".

It's fair to want our party to take a public position on vital issues.

[TayTay]

31. Then you should target the people nationally

who disagree with you on those issues. What good does it do to go after the people who agree with you on those issues? All it does is divide the party and get the argument into the weeds.

Go after the people who are actually in opposition to what you believe, not the ones who have spent a lifetime trying to bring about a positive progressive agenda.

[sui generis]

32. I would repeat myself

but then I'd be repeating myself.

Nobody is being targeted in the way you mean. You're arguing your point defensively and didn't really address what I said.

Our party is already split on this topic. Whoever isn't speaking up is pissing off whoever agrees anyway, whichever side you're on.

That's what I mean - there really isn't room for both views in the party. Either you are for personal choice or you are an authoritarian. Where does the party stand? Why can't we answer that question? Choice is choice. Nobody is forcing anyone to have an abortion. Nobody is recommending abortions - but the choice has been there for a woman to do so safely.

There are people in our party who think women shouldn't have that choice and they're happily quiet. You think a few people are being persecuted with the OP's post - that's just off target.

Where do we stand? Why don't we collectively speak up about what we stand for? Why is it our "party" is more and more like a convenient word for "not republican" instead about something?

[bubba j]

15. So they are not elected officials in SD

When did that EVER stop a politician from talking about what he/she thinks is right?

Why give these guys a pass when they want to LEAD!?!?!?!?

bubba j

[TayTay]

19. I believe that Sens. Clinton, Feingold, Kerry and Kennedy (et al)

comment on federal issues as it pertains to actions they can actually take.

Again, what do you want Hillary, Russ, John and Teddy to do that will result in any change whatsoever in the sovereign state of South Dakota and what laws it passes in it's legislature?

[sui generis]

28. speak up, that is all

what's the party line? does anyone know? is there one? why not?

[WI_DEM]

10. Once again we attack our own instead of the GOP Governor and

Legislature which passed this law. Have you checked to see if Kerry or many other Dems haven't spoken out against it? It could be that they arent' getting it in the news either.

[wisteria]

11. Hey, Kerry lead the filibuster against Alito. Alito was the final cue

the anti-women anti-choice crowd was waiting for. IMO, it is clear how he stands on this issue.

What exactly do you think our Dem's should be doing? The time to act was when Kerry did. Talk right now is just a wasted of time. It is now a matter for the courts. That is where our energy and money should be right now. Pressure the politicians when they have something to vote on.

[Taverner]

18. What should they do?

True I will give Kerry credit for leading the failed filibuster. Perhaps he's given up. God knows I would be thinking like that by now.

But every week I get a Kerry and an Edwards email asking for money. They haven't mentioned this once...and if they expect to win back the house in 2006 you have to keep the fire burning.

[TayTay]

20. These people reside in South Dakota and represent it in Congress

Johnson, Tim- (D - SD) Class II
136 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: johnson.senate.gov/emailform.cfm

Thune, John- (R - SD) Class III
383 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: thune.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home
**************

Stephanie Herseth
http://www.house.gov/herseth/

************

Have you written to them as Members of Congress that are actually from South Dakota and asked for relief of grievances?

[wisteria]

30. So you just want to see them acknowledge the current situation?n./t

[mattclearing]

13. It's a state matter for the moment, likely illegal, but not their problem.

Those people don't represent South Dakota.

It will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

[Clarkansas]

14. Has Bush, Cheney or any of the republican ring leaders commented yet?

I find both democrats and republicans quieter than I would have expected.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

22. I think in the next few weeks somebody will ask them in an

interview what they think about it and they'll come down against it.

But they are not representatives of SD and states are the basis of our union, so it might be sensitivity to that.

[KyuzoGator]

23. More importantly, where are the Dem WOMEN?

Hillary, Pelosi...anyone out there?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

29. Yes.. regardless of S.D.'s sovereignty, you'd think that any potential '08

candidate might want to stake out a position on this, especially since there's similar legislation planned in numerous states.

In an area where public opinion is overwhelmingly on the pro choice side, if potential Dem candidates are afraid to take a lead position on this, rather than see which way the wind blows... that would pretty much sum up a lot of the problems of the last several years.