Roe v. Wade Still Under Siege, 39 Years Later

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

Read more...

Roe v. Wade Still Under Siege, 39 Years Later

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

Read more...

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

Read more...

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

Read more...

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

Read more...

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

Read more...

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

Read more...