randomWalks

Yes. Ralph was wrong on this.

But please point out what the Democrats have done either A) in the last four years to fight Bush or B) in the eight years previous when Clinton/Gore were in office. Access to abortion has been on a steady road down uninterrupted by whether a Dem or Repub has been in the office.

Moreover, I fear that had Gore won in 2000 this rally would still be necessary, but would not have been organized because groups like NARAL and NOW wouldn't want to alienate a Democratic president.

Kerry, who I'm sure this event will be a big, long endorsement of, was not even present for the vote that okayed the partial-birth abortion ban--a vote which only passed because 14 Democrats voted for it. If they had voted against it the motion would have been defeated.

The Democrats have not fought for abortion and will not fight for abortion unless we force them too.

And that's why I'm going to DC.

Also, go vegan posted this four years ago.

DJ says most of what I want to say over here.

Moreover, I fear that had Gore won in 2000 this rally would still be necessary, but would not have been organized because groups like NARAL and NOW wouldn't want to alienate a Democratic president.

I have to call bullshit on that one. Gore said he would only sign a ban on third-trimester abortions if the bill provided for doctors to perform the procedure if the woman's life or mental health was threatened, I have no reason to believe whomever he appointed as Secretary of Health or Attorney General would ever propose anything anywhere nearly as atrocious as what Ashcroft, Bush and Cheney have foisted on us.

I have a zillion problems with the Democrats but let's at least be honest, the happy rolling back of civil rights that's happening because of Bush would not have happened under Gore.

Also, go vegan posted this four years ago.

Yeah, and he was wrong then too. People were right to be scared of the religious right-wingers.

No need?

I meant that women's rights wouldn't have gone backwards, as they've had under Bush. Certainly I agree that universal healthcare is fantastic, but that's less likely under a Republican administration than pigs spontaneously learning to fly.

But, but, but... if Gore had been elected, do you think he'd be actively pursuing the appointment of hard core right wing anti-abortion judicial nominees? Would we be so panicked about rumors of Supreme Court justices retiring? That's the key to preserving freedom of choice -- the Supreme Court. When it comes to abortion legislation, almost nothing else matters. I would disagree that we've been on a "steady road" regardless of who's in charge. Clinton *vetoed* such legislation. Republicans draft it.

The 14 Democrats who voted for the partial-birth abortion ban are undoubtedly Southern, and conservative. Ever since "liberal" became a dirty word, conservative Democrats have had the upper hand. Many of them might as well be Republicans.

That's why I voted -- albeit unenthusiastically -- for Gore, and why I'll vote -- even more unenthusiastically -- for Kerry. Ralph Nader *did* cost the Democrats the election, though it's true that if Gore had run a decent race he wouldn't have been that vulnerable to a third-party candidate.

I have to call bullshit on that one. Gore said he would only sign a ban on third-trimester abortions if the bill provided for doctors to perform the procedure if the woman's life or mental health was threatened, I have no reason to believe whomever he appointed as Secretary of Health or Attorney General would ever propose anything anywhere nearly as atrocious as what Ashcroft, Bush and Cheney have foisted on us.

!?!

What you lay out is a massive retreat!

The slogan in the 1970s was "Free Abortion on demand with no apologies!" Today you've got leaders of NARAL or NOW (forget which one) actually talking about making abortion "more rare." I think that's solely because of the fact the organizations are hitched to the Democrats and therefore trying to "tone down" their rhetoric from its roots.

If the BEST thing you can say about the Democrats is that they wouldn't be attacking abortion as hard, don't you see that as a major step backwards from where the women's movement had been? They wouldn't be attacking, but neither do they propose to push in the other direction. Clinton sure didn't.

I mean, why should third-trimester abortions be banned at all? The right-wing won that debate and Gore's position represents a defeatist position on that question.

And what about the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which the Democrats also aided in the passage of?

63 House Democrats and 11 Senate Democrats--many of them "pro-choice"--voted in favor of the misnamed "partial birth" ban. And in March, 47 House Democrats joined forces with Republicans in voting for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Going back to the last Presidency, Clinton broke his promise on the "Freedom of Choice Act" that he campaigned on. Moreover, is Choice not part of a bigger question about women's liberation? What of Clinton's attack on Welfare that has had its largest impacts on women?

Women came out of eight years of Clinton/Gore with less access to abortion than when they went into office. Abortion access and rights was slowly being whittled away. And all while that happened there were not large rallies being called to defend abortion rights.

I have a zillion problems with the Democrats but let's at least be honest, the happy rolling back of civil rights that's happening because of Bush would not have happened under Gore.

But the point is while Bush is pushing this attack, the Democrats are giving him the deciding votes. They are not fighting back. And yet the sole call of the movement is to elect them. Why? They have no reason to lift a finger because the movement is so tied to them.

That is the great historical trap of the Democrats. Their main claim to fame is that they are not the Republicans. But they don't actually ever have to lift a finger to fight for anything.

One of the reasons he's pushed so hard is because he knows the Democrats will not put up a big fight on this. And why should the Democrats? They haven't fought to defend Choice in a generation and yet every last speaker

Also, go vegan posted this four years ago.

Yeah, and he was wrong then too.

Which part was he wrong about?

Those are all facts.

Gore's voting record.

Access to abortion falling.

Clinton's failure on the Freedom of Choice act, etc.

Those are facts.

I meant that women's rights wouldn't have gone backwards, as they've had under Bush.

But women's rights also went backward under Clinton. And they'll go backward under Kerry as long as the women's rights movement is beholden to a Democratic party that does not represent its interests.

Certainly I agree that universal healthcare is fantastic, but that's less likely under a Republican administration than pigs spontaneously learning to fly.

This is historically untrue.

Richard Nixon--during the same presidency that we won abortion rights--called for an employer-mandate that would require that every job came with health benefits. Large social movements created a huge amount of pressure that Washington had to respond to. They helped end the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court responded in Roe v. Wade and Nixon was forced to introduce a lot of legislation that he despised, including this piece. It (like Clinton's half-hearted attempt) lost, but I think the point is that even a scary fuck like Bush could be battled if social movements in this nation were strong enough.

Yesterday was a magnificent showing, but where does it go from here?

Does it just go to Nov. 2 to elect Kerry and then disappear until another Republican is in office? What happens in the meantime if abortion rights slip away under Kerry as they did under Clinton?

I'm curious Lia, what part was I "wrong" about? One sentence in my whole post?

Is Ralph Nader pro-life or pro-choice?

Thank You,

Richard