Spintested: 01/20/12

Roe v. Wade Still Under Siege, 39 Years Later

Friday, January 20, 2012

What makes you believe that Obama is committed to pro-choice?

http://www.now.org/news/blogs/index.php/sayit/2010/08/02/is-obama-pro-choice

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2011-12-08/Plan-B-promotes-risky-choices/51751818/1

You really need to stop presuming.
About Civil Rights
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Roe v. Wade Still Under Siege, 39 Years Later

Can men be prevented from/forced to get vasectomies?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Roe v. Wade Still Under Siege, 39 Years Later

At the founding of the nation, abortion was common, accepted, considered the domain of the woman and the midwives and pharmacists they engaged to terminate pregnancies.

It became illegal, incrementally, as the practice of medicine developed and physicians and surgeons wanted the business of abortions and sought to prevent midwives and pharmacists from being able to terminate pregnancies by law.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Roe v. Wade Still Under Siege, 39 Years Later

Even the most pro-choice of Democrats in Congress, alleged stalwarts who've spent entire careers, decades in public office, have failed miserably to protect women's rights and have let it get to this point. One example would be Barbara Boxer.

In 2006, Democratic senators and the Democratic machine publicly supported Democratic candidate NedLamont who was running for senator in Connecticut against newly independent JoeLieberman. Privately, working behind-the-scenes, Democratic senators and former president BillClinton were working to help Lieberman raise money to beat Lamont, and Republican AlanSchlesinger. Before Lamont won the primary, when Lieberman was still a Democrat, Boxer stumped for Lieberman. She was asked how she could support him given that Lieberman supports hospitals receiving public monies refusing to give contraceptives to rape victims. And instead of dropping her support of Lieberman, instread of dropping him like the bad character he is, she dodged the issue.

During the Bush-Cheney administration, she wrote two murder mysteries, because "It was always something I wanted to do if I had the time."

In the 2010 midterm campaign, I asked rhetorically, "If Republicans win back control of Congress, do you think Democrats will be as effective at stymieing Republicans' agenda as Republicans have been the last two years at stymieing Obama's/Democrats' 2008 agenda?" Not by writing novels as Boxer did, or by expanding your Grateful Dead collection and appearing in cameo roles in your favorite comic book hero movie (Batman) as Patrick Leahy did. All on the public's dime, while collecting government salaries.

And we're just talking about the pro-choice plank of the party's platform.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Roe v. Wade Still Under Siege, 39 Years Later

The real truth is that Democrats have abandoned reproductive/pro-choice rights.

The Democratic Party is out of the business of being pro-choice because it's trying to turn the Democratic Party into the old Republican Party, grow the Democratic Party by attracting into the party anybody it can. It hasn't actually announced it publicly, but it only goes through the motions of seeming to be champions of women's reproductive choice. When it comes to actually championing the issue, Democratic politicians are AWOL, not only at the top, at the party organization, but absent also are the politicians whose talk as women's champions don't match the walk.

You can't have anti-choice politicians in the Democratic Party, receiving money and support from the Democratic Party's members and the party's machinery, when the platform of the party clearly states that Democrats "unequivocally support Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right".

Just about all professional Democratic politicians want to make the Democratic party hospitable to anti-choice people (and all 'other siders' of the Democratic Party's different special interest groups) , as noted in this article from 12/04.

The only way to do that is for the party to not take a stance on abortion, to remove any reference to 'choice'. During Howard Dean's tenure as chairman of the DNC, he indicated in several interviews that the intent was to move the Democratic Party from referring to abortion at all in its platform. Here's one of those interviews , from 11/1/05: Video | Transcript

January 14, 2005 - Dems May Waver on Choice, Repro Rights

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Roe v. Wade Still Under Siege, 39 Years Later

sorry but you are totally wrong. There are several Democrats who have openly said they do not support Abortion on demand

========================================

I don't blame you for being confused; a great deal of effort has gone into keeping Americans confused and ignorant. And nowhere is that obvious than when it comes to the pro-choice plank of the Democratic Party's platform which commits Democrats to opposing attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade. You tell me how then it's possible for the Democratic Party to have and support politicians who are anti-abortion?

The Democratic Party's National Platform is the written policy which determines the policies and legislation that Democrats in public office shall put forward and advance. It's what party members work to achieve and it's reviewed and renewed, rewritten every four years.

Nobody has been as ineffective at holding back incursions into abortion rights and access as Democrats, and that's because it's one of the methods that they use to keep pro-choice women and men showing up on election days (just as Republicans use threats of gun regulations, and tax hikes, etc., to keep their voters turning out for them election after election).

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Roe v. Wade Still Under Siege, 39 Years Later

As far as the Supreme Court goes, SCOTUS is lost already. Please remember that Scalia and Thomas made it through a Democratically-controlled Judiciary Committee and Senate. And Democrats voted to confirm Alito (58-42) and Roberts (78-22),

And Obama's appointments are really nothing to defend. Elena Kagan is the Goldman-Sacks seat.

If who gets to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg was such a worry, don't you think she would step down now while it's assured a Democratic president would be choosing?
About Civil Rights
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Roe v. Wade Still Under Siege, 39 Years Later

Democrats have been more than willing to sell any group's interests, but particularly women. This is just on a woman's right to choose: You can't get an abortlon in 87 percent of the counties in the US. [It's now up to 92 percent.] There are 3 states in the country that have only one abortion clinic, and other states heavily restrict abortlon, ban abortlons in clinics or any facility that receives public funds, or ban abortlon counseling or clinic recommendations. Why bother making it illegal if you can just make it impossible to get? Obama's healthcare reform legislation = ending insurance coverage of abortlon services. http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/11/17/gwu-study-yes-the-stupak-amendment-would-end-coverage-of-abortion-services-over-time/ Even the most pro-choice of Democrats in Congress, alleged stalwarts who've spent entire careers, decades in public office, have failed miserably to protect women's rights and have let it get to this point. One example would be Barbara Boxer. In 2006, Democratic senators and the Democratic machine publicly supported Democratic candidate NedLamont who was running for senator in Connecticut against newly independent JoeLieberman. Privately, working behind-the-scenes, Democratic senators and former president BillClinton were working to help Lieberman raise money to beat Lamont, and Republican AlanSchlesinger. Before Lamont won the primary, when Lieberman was still a Democrat, Boxer stumped for Lieberman. She was asked how she could support him given that Lieberman supports hospitals receiving public monies refusing to give contraceptives to rape victims, and instead of dodging Lieberman, dropping him like the bad character he is, she dodged the issue. During the BushCheney administration, she wrote two murder mysteries, because "It was always something I wanted to do if I had the time." In the 2010 midterm campaign, I asked rhetorically, "If Republicans win back control of Congress, do you think Democrats will be as effective at stymieing Republicans' agenda as Republicans have been the last two years at stymieing Obama's/Democrats' 2008 agenda?" Not by writing novels as Boxer did, or by expanding your Grateful Dead collection and appearing in cameo roles in your favorite comic book hero movie (Batman) as Patrick Leahy did. All on the public's dime. Democrats in public office haven't been taking care of us. They're not vigilant about our issues.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Roe v. Wade Still Under Siege, 39 Years Later

Both parties pander to anti-choicers.

While the Democratic Party has in its platform that they "unequivocally support Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion regardless of ability to pay and oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right" (which means that the party can't have or support Democratic candidates for office who don't believe in choice), the Democratic party does and has made itself hospitable to anti-choicers, as noted in this article from 12/04 - http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/washington/wnb121504.htm
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Roe v. Wade Still Under Siege, 39 Years Later

The nation is circling the drain because the left has done more than 30 years of compromising.

Real Democratic policies aren't that hard to sell to Americans. When most Americans want Medicare and other government programs which they've benefitted from to continue and teabaggers shout "No government control of healthcare; Get your hands off my Medicare", the answer is EDUCATION.

The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when RonaldReagan, LeeAtwater and KarlRove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism, and how liberals were responsible for creating the largest middle class in the history of the world, a strong regulatory system that provided clean water systems and nutritious affordable food for everyone, a public education system that led the world, etc., the DLC convinced Americans that liberals could never win another election. The DLC attributed to ideology what is more accurately explained by lousy campaigns outgunned by election dirty tricks and fraud.

When informed of the issues, most Americans agree with liberal policies. Neither they (nor I) would characterize themselves as far-anything or extreme, but mainstream. For example, nobody likes the idea of abortion, but most Americans do not want the government involved if they find themselves in the predicament of an unwanted pregnancy. And if you frame it as, "You like to kill babies?!?! ?!?!", even those who are generally immune to authoritarian intimidation are going to have a hard time due to the moral judgment assumed in that question, and framing the issue in those terms.

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It's not that Bush and Rove were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush and Rove were just more ruthless doing what politicians had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks, don't take 'no' for an answer and never back away, you will wear the opposition down.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

U.S. AG Eric Holder, DoJ Head Lanny Breuer Linked To Banks Accused Of Foreclosure Fraud

Attorney General of N.Y. Is Said to Face Pressure on Bank Foreclosure Deal

Obama Administration Pressuring NY Attorney General To Support Mortgage Whitewash

Occupy Wall Street To March Against Foreclosure Settlement Deal

President Obama is on the brink of cutting a backroom deal that would give bankers broad immunity for illegally throwing tens of thousands of Americans out of their homes. The Administration is pressuring state attorneys general to abandon an ongoing investigation into the massive “robo-signing” fraud, in exchange for a relatively small payoff by the banks.

Numerous investigations by state and federal authorities have demonstrated that banks used illegal procedures to make tens of thousands of foreclosures over the past decade. Rushing to a settlement before the full extent of the fraud is known would be a grave injustice to those who were illegally foreclosed upon and those still struggling to stay in their homes. “This is a clear, moral issue that cuts to the core of why we occupy,” said Max Berger, an Occupy Wall Street participant helping to plan the event. “Instead of throwing corrupt bankers in jail, the administration is pushing to give them a get-out-of jail-free card.