Reply #7: This is simply not true. [View All]

[TayTay]

Remember, this is the guy with the lifetime 100% NARAL rating. What he did say, at the NARAL convention in late 2004, after the loss, was that Dems have to start to think about letting pro-life Dems run. We already know Sen. Kerry is raising cash for Bob Casey in PA.

There is a world of difference between saying that some states will no elect pro-choice candidates and that we might have to rethinkg the strategy and saying that Kerry himself is now less pro-choice than he was before. There is a distinct possibility that with pro-life Dems in power there would be less onerous legislation crafted in the first place and a much greater attention (and maybe funding) can be put on prevention methods. (Rethugs oppose both abortion rights and the prevention funding that might actually reduce the number of abortions. They won't fund condom distribution, sex Ed that isn't abstinence based and so forth.) This is a political compromise, yes, but based on the reality that the RW has successfully sold abortion as a left wing extremist position. We are losing on this issue and the cause of reproductive rights for women is going backwards. Sigh, maybe we need to rethink our strategy, because if it keeps going as it is, bye-bye Roe. (Which might happen anyway. The RW won the last election. They get to choose.)