Is it safe to ask here why the current VP mentions are all quasi anti choice?

[saracat]

I posted a question about Kaine and was peronally attacked. I read the Biden and Bayh threads and it seems all of them have poor "pro-choice rankings" I am very concerned(I Know, I shouldn't use that word!)especially as only one Senator has even spoken out about the new fed policy equating contraception and abortion. What does anyone think it means?
I will openly state I do not find any "bargaining" with "choice" acceptable.

[bliss_eternal]

1. You're welcome....

...to ask here, but I'm not sure if you'll get an answer that will appropriately satisfy your concern. Why shouldn't you use the word "concerned"? Has someone told you that--I don't understand... :shrug:

We don't do any debating here (about candidates, choice, or anything else). This area is primarily to discuss pro-choice issues and concerns--and to find and offer support regarding being a pro-choice member of DU. It's a supportive forum (or at least I hope it is).

No one minces words here about choice issues. If a candidate has stated they are anti-choice, members in this area take them at their word. If a candidate hasn't voted supportively of choice (and/or others women's issues), then they are anti-choice. No one here is confused about that. Does any of this answer your questions/concerns?

Members are here to take refuge from the "choice isn't important" conversations that take place in other areas of DU. It's one of the reasons this forum exists. No one here stomps on or dismisses women's reproductive care and rights as a trivial issue, or something women need to "wait to have dealt with when we win the election." :eyes: Yes, we've ALL heard that (are sick of it) and it's one of the reasons we have this space.

[saracat]

3. Thank you. I feel like I can breathe again. I feel like someone undesrstands.

I am scared to death of this election , and the VP choices meant to appeal to those "centrist " interests don't make me any more comfortable..I have real issues with "choice" and women's issues constantly being thrown under the bus and alwys being told to "compromise".

[bliss_eternal]

4. hi saracat...

...welcome. :hug: I'm really glad that you feel understood here. I can relate to your frustration with the main forums and the whole "throwing women under the bus" thing. It's a shame they don't get that by not recognizing (and fighting for) women's rights, they diminish their rights.

[bliss_eternal]

2. I'm merely guessing...

...but it seems that on the right, a candidate isn't even viable if he/she isn't "anti-choice." This has been talked about a little bit on this forum (in another thread, I'll try to return later w/a link).

As far as Dem candidates, I would guess that if our candidates for VP aren't firmly "pro" choice, the reason is they are trying to appeal to the centrist and right wing consituents of the populace. Those that don't respect or see women as human, could care less if our issues are something that will be treated well during their time in office.

I feel that the progressive guys (and some women) don't appreciate being called on the way candidates vote in regard to women. It's uncomfortable for them, as it requires they examine their personal issues regarding women, choice and our rights. At least that's the sense I've got over the years after bringing up women's issues, based on the responses (or lack of).

Just my two cents, whatever it's worth.

[ismnotwasm]

5. Yup

That is exactly what this forum is for, as well as a kind of information depot.

Politicians like that tend emotionalize the fetus as far as I'm concerned. In other words, growing tissue containing human DNA somehow equals a loved and wanted infant.

Another thing is fear. Women as a sex and half the human race have irrevocable moral, spiritual and physical power over the life and death of fetal tissue. I think that causes a great deal of discomfort and fear. I think if you dig hard enough we'd find that fear at the bottom of the anti-choice hysteria, and the forced birth position.

A simple example is "partial birth" abortions. Even the term is misleading, but the implication in arguments is always that women somehow casually decide to abort just because they feel like it, without thought or consideration. Or that medical providers somehow have a plot to mislead woman into these choices and women don't have the intellectual wherewithal to participate in these decisions.

I don't bargain either. The forced birth position, no matter how prettied up, horrifies me, because people are missing all of the larger implications the main one that women are stupid, or incapable of making decisions over their own bodies. Another that women simply don't have the right.

It makes me sick. We shouldn't HAVE to compromise in this. Fuck anyone with poor pro-choice rating. There are others out there to choose from.

[ismnotwasm]

6. Here's a good article on the subject from NOW

Putting the politics of choosing Senator Clinton as VP aside, the summary of "the short list" of candidates is nothing short of appalling

"This week the press began pushing the story that Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine was a likely choice to fill out the Obama ticket. Other names on the "short list" may include Senators Joe Biden from Delaware and Evan Bayh from Indiana, former Georgia senator Sam Nunn, governors Kathleen Sebelius (Kan.) and Janet Napolitano (Ariz.), and Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel from Nebraska. Sen. Clinton's name remains in the mix, but most prognosticators say it's unlikely she'll get the call. Indeed, Senator Clinton may well have taken her name out of the hat early on.

The New York Times puts forth a frustrating Catch-22 in the veepstakes, claiming that there's little chance Obama will choose Clinton, but that hopefuls like Sebelius shouldn't hold their breath either because "if a woman were to be placed on the ticket, could it be anyone other than Mrs. Clinton?" Um, because Clinton was such a strong contender, that should eliminate all other prospective Democratic female VPs from the field? John Edwards lost, so does that mean Obama shouldn't consider any white males for the VP slot? Of course not. Only in a patriarchy are we allowed just one woman trailblazer at a time!

So, let's look at some of the men whose names are being bandied about. Gov. Kaine is reportedly very close with Obama and is supposedly the frontrunner at this time. This concerns me a great deal, as it should all feminists. Kaine, a former Catholic missionary, is on the record as having "a faith-based opposition to abortion," and having promised to enforce the (numerous) restrictions in Virginia law. We think Barack Obama should look for someone who trusts women to make these important decisions with their doctors and their families."



http://www.now.org/news/note/073108.html