Just watched the MTP Interview. And while for the most part I thought

[saracat]

erry did a great job, I can't say I was happy about Kerry encouraging the Pro-Life Dems. He, in fact, concurred that the incident mentioned in Newsweek happened exactly as recounted. I have always known Kerry kept his personal beliefs about abortion seperate and I have no problem with that. I DO have a problem with welcoming anti choice people into our ranks and using Harry Reid as an example. Harry Reid is anti-choice and his votes reflect that. I was offended, It was as if we can allow KKK members provided thay vote our way on the other issues! How can I be expected to respect the point of view that says I have less rights than a fetus? I understand Kerry is pro-choice himself, but I will not respect these people and I am disappointed that he would expect people to. I am very disturbed by this.

[Sydnie]

1. I was left with the impression that

he wasn't compromising the party as much as he was insuring that a big tent could welcome all. If he has his way, he will get those that are pro-life to understand that we are not challenging their beliefs but rather asking them to not force those beliefs on others.

Validate their feelings but get them to see things from a different perspective.

I bristled just a bit when he said it as well but through the day I think I understood it. Win over your adversaries with familiarity perhaps?

Not all pro-lifers are fetus sign bearing nuts. Lets hope those that aren't are the ones that we can be more willing to accept.

If that is the only problem with getting them to vote with us, then we need to find a way to get them to vote the broader picture rather than single issues. I think that is the bottom line of what he was trying to say today.

Then again, I could be full of shit! LOL I don't think I am though... at least not about this.

[ginnyinWI]

2. I suppose the overall intention of the founders

of our country was that each state would elect senators and congresspersons who best reflected their own state, as well as their own political party. Some states would be more liberal or conservative on some issues, but in Congress it would all even out somehow. Issues like abortion or civil unions or any other debatable issue would be more or less important to the voters in a particular state. Massachusetts would be more liberal, Nevada would be more conservative for example. All of them must respect the Constitution and interpret it in good faith and enact laws that don't violate it. Until a law like Roe v. Wade gets overthrown, it's the law.

It's true that 60% of the people in this country believe in some kind of abortion rights, so hopefully they will elect representatives that reflect that view. JK rightfully pointed out that the majority in the senate don't want to change Roe v. Wade, or even Bush himself. (surprise, surprise, for the religious right who voted for him.) As long as the anti-choice crowd are in the minority, and they will be, there is no harm in an individual Democrat holding that view, when all of their other views fall in line with the Democratic party. It's just enlarging the tent. Otherwise they will have to become moderate Repubs, and that might fit them far worse.

It's not black-or-white. It's a sliding scale of gray, with a cut-off line somewhere in the middle. John Kerry is pro-choice while personally not believing in abortion, and Reid is anti-choice while also personally not believing in abortion.

Anyway, say Roe v. Wade does somehow get overturned. Abortion rights falls back onto the states, like it was in 1970. You'd have to travel to a certain state to get an abortion. The public would not stand for it for very long, believe me! They would demand a new law, and probably a more permanent one, such as an amendment to the Constitution. So in the end the pro-choice side would be strengthened. We progress on social issues; we rarely go backward for long!

[angrydemocrat]

4. Well I Understand Fully What John Is Saying

Because I personally don't believe in abortion but I am pro choice because it is not my place to say other women don't have the right to make their own choices. That is wrong and John knows that as well. We live in a country that is suppose to be freedom of speech, freedom of choice, and freedom of religion. Just because I believe one way doesn't give me the right to try to force others into that belief that is bullshit. A person can be one of those that does not believe in abortion themselves but they have to understand you can't force others believe
the same and vise versa. There is room for people who oppose and who don't oppose. Because like with me nobody knows my beliefs because I don't try to force them onto others.

[saracat]

5. Actually to me this isn't a debatable issue.

And it is black and white. I have more rights than a fetus . Period.

[New Earth]

6. that doesn't mean

you shouldn't respect people who disagree.

and to be honest i don't think we have more rights. we have equal rights as the fetus, but we have an advantage, is more like what it is.

[saracat]

7. I am sorry. I can't respect a point of view that demeans my person hood.

I am a person. A fetus is NOT. I will NOT be considered equal to them. I also won't respect the KKK even though we happen to disagree. And it is exactly the point that we should respect This "differing" point of view that infuriated me. I would respect pro life individually as long as people keep it to themselves and don't apply it universally.Anti choice people like Reid shouldn't be "welcomed". Reid wants Roe v Wade overturned. We should not "respect" that point of view.

[New Earth]

8. you almost sound like you are degrading a fetus.

do not forget that at one time, you too were one.

my daugher's heartbeat sure sounded like a person when i went to my first doctor's appointment :shrug:

[saracat]

11. I was a fetus obviously until I was born. I don't believe I was a person

until I was born. But I respect your right to believe otherwise. I just don't respect anyone who is anti choice.

[angrydemocrat]

12. So What Are You Saying

That people like myself don't deserve respect because we believe different than you? There are many democrats that don't believe in abortion personally but we repect the rights of thos that do.

[angrydemocrat]

9. Nobody Is Saying It Is A Debatable Issue

All it is saying I respect your choice and you should respect mine. Period. We are both democrats and neither one has more rights than the other.

[New Earth]

10. it is a very debatable issue

that's why people are so passionate about it.

i am actually pro-choice, when it comes to other people's situations. i personally couldn't bring myself to do it unless it was out of some kind of horrible situation.

but i thought a lot about the other side (anti-abortion) and i totally feel and see where they are coming from. regardless, i still think it is an individual's right to make the decision on whether or not to have one.

[angrydemocrat]

13. Well I know but I was really trying to get o point across

I wasn't trying to debate about it. But you are right it is debatable because I'm sorry just because I don't believe in abortion personally doesn't mean I deserve any less respect or does it mean I shouldn't be a part of the democratic party. Not all democrats believe in abortion. But we respect the rights of those that do.

[saracat]

15. And you have a very reasonable point of view. I can agree with your point

I don't really think abortion is a great idea for most people but I don't want any government telling me what I can do with MY body.

[angrydemocrat]

16. Well I Telling You The Truth Here

I don't never see that happening. As long as we have leaders like Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, ect. I don't see it happening. And John has the same opinion I do he personally doesn't believe in it but he does and always has respected the rights of those who do.

[New Earth]

17. right

i was sure that's how you felt but your wording earlier didn't come off as well as this time.

i also don't want the government telling me what to do with my body or anyone else's. that's the only part of the other side needs to be 'attacked' - is that they think they can force their views on everyone else in the country.

[saracat]

18. Exactly. That is why I was so concerned with the

welcoming of such people as Reid. We all believe privately whatever we want to. But Reid wants the defeat of Roe V Wade.

[New Earth]

19. then the frame needs to change

from women having 'more' rights than a fetus to - no one has the right to force certain views on others through the law.

i'm not directing that at you, but at the pro-choice argument in general.

[saracat]

20. I understand your point, but I

am not really comfortable with some of the re framing. I wouldn't want to dilute the validity of women's rights. We have fought too long and too many lives have been sacrificed to guarantee us those rights.
No one seems to feel that the issue of civil rights needs to be re framed. I also don't even understand why this is being dealt with. Maybe we should just respond with the fact that this issue has been dealt with .Roe v Wade is the law of the land and move on. No one re argues the civil rights movement.

[saracat]

14. I respect anyones right to have an opinion. I just cannot respect an

anti choice position as it expects me to surrender my civil rights. I have NO respect for Harry Reid because he has no respect for me. I respect John Kerry's opinion on abortion but I don't agree with him about welcoming anti-choice people into the party. There is an enormous difference between personally disapproving of abortion and publicly working to overturn Roe V Wade. Reid votes against choice. That is more to my point.

[JI7]

3. i'm glad Kerry understands what it takes to keep abortion rights legal

[TayTay]

21. This is a debate about language

and how we talk about issues. Kerry was right. The Democrats are NOT the pro-abortion party. We are the party of choice. That means that we are open to all the ways that a woman can choose to control her own body and her fertility. He laid all the options on the table, adoption, discussing abstinence in a reasonable way and defended abortion rights. This position has not changed in 20 years.

I am pro-choice. The idea that we as a nation could slip back into the bad old days when women's reproductive health meant visiting an illegal doctor in some dirty back alley place is abhorent to me. This is partly for personal reasons. I don't want the abortion police showing up at someone's door questioning them about whether or not they did something to bring about the end of a pregrancy. I had a miscarriage about 6 months after I first got married. It took me hours to get a hold of my HMO doctor and then a few more hours until I could get permission to go to the hospital. Bt the time I got to the hospital I started to go into shock becaue of the all-day long loss of blood. At one point I had two IV's in me and a nurse and my husband squeezing fluid into my veins so I wouldn't bleed out. Thank gawd I finally made into surgery or I could have died.

So, in recovery, I had to face the loss of a wanted pregnancy and the recovery of my own body from surgery. Can you imagine how that would feel if I also got a knock on the door from the abortion police and had to register what the hell I did to cause my own miscarriage (or spontaneous abortion as the med records would have it.) I cannot imagine a more frightening, humiliating or depressing event. We must never allow this to happen.

I have people close to me who have had abortions. I have driven them to the clinic, helped pay for the procedure and cared for them afterwards. An abortion is not something to be taken lightly. It is a soul-wrenching decision that is painful to make. There is nothing at all wrong with saying to women that it is better to not get pregnant in the first place than have to face this choice. (And the abortion choice must remain a legal and viable option.) I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-woman and pro-reproductive freedom. But I will always acknowledge that choicing abortion can be a painful and anguishing choice. Nothing happens in an emotional vacuum. Actions have consequences and having a pregnancy terminated can be wrenching. Do I mind that Kerry and Hillary Clinton have chosen to remind people that this choice can be emotionally costly, No not at all. I would much rather that abortion be safe, legal and rare.

Are we clear on this? I don't think you get much more pro-choice than driving people to the clinic, paying for the procedure and then caring for the woman's need afterwards. And I would prefer it if I never had to do that again in my lifetime. It is an awful thing to go through.

[angrydemocrat]

22. I Agree That The Debate Is About Language

Because while people like myself don't believe in it personally I also don't believe in trying to shove my beliefs down other peoples throats. I respect the right for any woman to do as they see fit. Who am I to tell anyone what they should or should not do. That to me is wrong. That is why I look myself pro-choice. I have never passed judgment on any woman that has made a decision to have a abortion because they have reasons for doing it wether it be rape, incest, or like in many cases a matter of life and death, there are reasons that is nobody's business except that of the woman and her doctor.

But also I have to say that alot of people like myself are misunderstood on this issue as well. Because when some people learn that you yourself don't believe in abortion on a personal level they are ready to judge you and treat you as if you are one of these far right nuts that gets out there with a picket sign bashing women and there rights and that is not true. Most of the time I keep my personal opinion on this issue to myself for that very reason. And many others are the same way. Because I don't like to be disrespected and treated like crap for a personal issue that is my choice personally. Just because I myself won't and couldn't bring myself to have a abortion doesn't make me any less of a person or a member of the democratic party. I respect the rights of others who choose to do so and feel that is none of my business and have no right to judge anyone, but that goes two ways those that don't believe in it personally and choose not to do it should get and deserve the same respect. There are many democrats that don't believe in abortion on a personal level but respect the rights of those who do.

So that is what part of the real debate on this issue is. Because not all people are like me and will in most cases keep their personal beliefs on this matter to themselves and when they are attacked for it many feel they are not welcome in this party anymore and that is wrong as well. And I know people that have talked about changing parties for that very reason. One lady I know said that if it wasn't for * she would have already done it. She said that if they ever get rid of * she still might. So is she wrong for this? Well I personally could never be a rebuplican for any reason but unfortunatly there are many not like me and will change parties. And if I was to post anything about my personal beliefs in the other forums even when asked you can bet I would be attacked for it. I have seen it done to way to many people. But we are not the people carrying picket signs disrespecting other womens rights. So this is one hot button issue on many peoples mind that is for sure.

[whometense]

23. Amen.

Beautifully said. Anyone who has either had an abortion or helped someone else through the process knows that for most women abortion is an agonizing choice.

The way the right frames this drives me insane. They favor the image of women getting - oops! - pregnant, tripping off to the clinic, and then bingo - back in action. Not the way it works.

I'm with TayTay. The part of this whole debate that makes me literally see red is all these middle aged men thinking they have the right to tell any young woman what she may or may not do with her body and her life.

When I was a kid a woman across the street (a Catholic woman with six kids and no money) got pregnant for the seventh time. This being pre-Roe v. Wade, she killed herself self-administering an abortion with, yes, a wire coathanger. It really happened. No way we're going back there.

[angrydemocrat]

25. Well I Agree With What Tay Tay Is Saying Also

But what I'm saying just because a women like myself doesn't believe in it personally doesn't mean that I'm one of these nuts out here with a picket sign and against womens rights. To me that is a personal choice and I don't disrespect the rights of others. There are many democrats like myself that don't believe in abortion personally but that doesn't make us bad people and mean we direspect others rights. But when people find out that you don't believe in it personally there are many in this party that are so quick to judge for that and you are treated like crap for it. I know I have seen it done to many times to way to many people and it's wrong. To them if you don't believe in abortion you don't belong in this party. That is wrong. We don't disrepect the right for those who do believe and we feel we deserve the same respect. This is a personal issue that should be the womans choice not someone else. This is a issue many women feel strongly about and regardless of wether one believes in it personally or they don't they all deserve the same respect. They all should be welcome and feel welcome in the party. There are many democrats that don't believe in it personally but again we are not the ones with the picket signs disrespecting the rights of those who do.

[whometense]

26. Oh, I understand

where you're coming from, and have no argument with it. Your stand on this issue is just like Kerry's, in fact. I don't disagree with you at all.

I really think the argument is more a matter of framing the language we use to talk about abortion than it is about actual issues.

[saracat]

29. I only feel that we shouldn't welcome those who are active against "choice

I have no dispute with people personally opposing abortion. That is their right. But I wouldn't want to welcome those who "picket" and work to deprive other women of their "choice".

[TayTay]

30. This is part of the problem with coalition parties

It is possible to come together with others who might oppose some of what you believe in. This will happen again and again. We have a two-party system so those parties are coalitions. There are some things that some Dems approve that I don't. But I agree on the majority of ideas, so I stick around. My opinions and beliefs haven't changed, but I have decided that 80% is better on the Dems than 20% with the Rethugs (or whatever.)

[saracat]

35. I agree with you on this except I certainly

couldn't continue to be part of a coalition that threw abortion rights overboard, or worked to minimize them. I would not be able to argue that anything else could measure up to or replace my ability to exert governance over my own body.
I would venture to say that you wouldn't find many persons of color who would consider their citizenship moot as long as the party they supported had a good environmental policy or economic policy!
Abortion rights go to the heart of women's equality. Not having the ability to make decisions regarding her own body would subject any women to automatic second class status, if not to servitude. This is why it is such an important issue, and one where I personally draw the line in the sand. I was part of a PAC in the last election and we were deciding what were the immutable points in regard to our support of a candidate. We decided that under NO circumstances, whatever the contributions that the candidate may have made in other areas, would we EVER support pro-life(ant-choice) candidates. I still abide by that position. It would not be possible for me to come together with someone who was anti-choice.
And I do not agree with those who say that abortion is not under siege. The Supreme Court appointments were one of our chief arguments this past election. Bush 's addressing the Pro-Life Rally, the first time a sitting president has done so, was a signal. Most pro choice professionals, such as Gloria Felt , are very nervous. I had an opportunity to meet her and discuss tis with her, Are you aware that the anti-choice people also want to outlaw birth control as they consider it all an abortifacient? We are in perilous times indeed. The physician that is in charge of women's heath issues for the Administration has written a book advisung women to treat their illnesses with the Bible. I do not believe that this is the time to dilute any positions on women's rights!

[ginnyinWI]

39. I agree with you, too. Legal, Safe, and Rare. n/t

[blm]

24. There would be no Dennis Kucinich or David Bonior, then.

Both of these men fought hard against the Republican agenda. Bonior was Grover Norquist's favorite target, he hated him so much. David Bonior was also pro-life.

Dennis Kucinich took a long journey to his prochoice position. Should he not have been welcomed into the Congress with his longheld prolife position?

[saracat]

27. Watch me be flamed but no. If he were to actively promote the abolition

of abortion right s I would say NO> If he privately is pro life and works to preserve choice, that is acceptable.

[blm]

28. No flame, at all. Your position is my position. I made exceptions

to my position depending on their personal attributes and record. Dennis Kucinich was one of those exceptions, and I was proven right in supporting him, since he eventually changed his position politically to prochoice.

[whometense]

31. Not to be too Pollyanna or anything,

but I just wanted to point out that this thread illustrates perfectly why I hang out in this group.

I can't picture an online conversation like this anywhere else, on a topic that is so emotionally laden, that doesn't disintegrate into personal attacks and name-calling.

I'm serious. Thank you all.

[saracat]

36. I agree. Thank you all for being YOU!

:-)

[GRLMGC]

32. I'll be honest with you

I bristled when he said that and was all like "Ugh, I can't believe he said that". I thought about it and understood what he was trying to say. I think there are ways to reduce abortion rates like family planning services that can prevent unwanted pregnancies and the need for abortion. Of course this will never be 100% and we need safe and legal abortion services to exist. If someone who is anti-choice can accept trying to reduce abortions and not overturning Roe V. Wade, then I don't see a problem with them. Then again, there are others who cannot be reasoned with and they probably wouldn't be a part of the Democratic Party. I also don't think Roe v Wade will be overturned. The Repubs need this issue to draw votes. Call me cynical but I think that Repub politicians (for the most part) have no desire to overturn Roe V Wade.

[New Earth]

33. i think you are totally right

Kerry even said something similar to that on the MTP interview - that the Republicans really aren't going to try to overturn Roe v. Wade. it's just a tactic to keep support from anti-abortion groups, etc. I have thought that was the case for a while now.

[saracat]

37. I pray you are right, but I am not so sure.

I am honestly scared by how many women don't think Roe v Wade is important.

[GRLMGC]

38. Honestly

The Repubs need issues like this to survive. They wouldn't get elected as well as they do any other way. I pray that it doesn't get overturned and that we can work on ways to reduce the number of abortions while having that option in place

[ginnyinWI]

40. I think it did win them votes

I think a lot of reasonable people would have wanted to vote for Kerry/Edwards, but the abortion thing stopped them cold. I heard it over and over during the campaign from people I spoke to. They can't put it in context or anything--it is an emotional hot button.

If the Dems can find a way of re-framing it, it will help those people to vote Democratic. But isn't there some way to take it off the table permanently? Like an amendment to the Constitution? So that the Repubs would not be able to wave the hope of overturning it in front of the faces of voters? Already 60 % of people are in favor of some sort of abortion rights.

[elshiva]

42. Saracat, I think Roe v. Wade is very, very important.

Abortion should be legal, because that it is the truly pro-life position to respect both the lives of the woman and the fetus.
Catholic theology has some doctrine called ensoulment, which I think Kerry is talking about when he said, "I can't legislate an article of my faith." Ensoulment is the idea that an embryo becomes a life at conception. This is purely a religious idea of personhood, based on a belief in a soul. The existence of the soul can not be proven scientifically nor can the meaning of personhood in general be proven scientifically. To me it's a matter of religion and/or philosophy.

(Kucinich is Roman Catholic too, so I guess that's why he was originally anti-choice. Now I know he is pro-choice now, thank God.)

Yes, again, we are the pro-choice party, not the pro-abortion party. I look forward to the day when there will be little or no abortions because men won't be rape or incest women. But until that day, I pray abortions remain legal and safe. Abortion is painful and difficult for most women, if only due to circumstances if not the operation itself.

[saracat]

49. I was raised as a Roman Catholic and attended Catholic schools.

I left the faith for a number of reasons but I took especial offense at their treatment of women. With the exception of a few Jesuit theologians, I have nothing but contempt for the Church! But I have also renounced all organized religion. Abortion to me is a medical procedure. It is also a difficult emotional choice. That choice should be the woman's and the woman's alone as only she will face the consequences.
I ,too, hope it remains safe, legal and rare.
Odd, isn't it? No one has these conversations about vasectomies?

[elshiva]

58. I agree that it is a sexist tradition, but I think it is changing

so I remain a Christian.
No one likes to talk about vasectomies, but I think the RC is against them too. I agree the argument is one-sided but there are alot of pro-choice catholics out there.

[TheDonkey]

34. I agree with some of his points about it

Democrats look out of control when we begin to shout down anyone who is liberal and pro-life, but as long as they realize that our platform is pro-choice and work with us to keep it that way I'm glad to have pro-lifers on our side.

We also really need to change the language about abortion. I was just at a meeting and a girl said, "yea I like abortions" among a conversation about choice and I thought it sounded... sort of odd. To others who might have been pro-life it would sound like she LIKES abortions, but what she really meant I'm sure is that the choice for a woman is what she likes.

It's a difficult issue and I think there is room for conversation over it.

[TayTay]

41. This is one of the BIG hot button issues

I deeply respect someone's right to believe in the sacredness of life and to believe, as I do not, that life begins at conception. There are some issues that you agree to disagree on. I am pro-choice. But I am also pro-education. People and specifically teenagers need correct information so that unwanted pregnancies don't occur in the first place. This is an essential part of the solution and it gets short shrift in the national discourse on abortion. The Rethugs intentionally lie about contraception, STDs and Aids/HIV transmission in order to scare kids into abstinence. This is wrong and morally indefensible. That is were some of my anger comes from, the intentional deception. That does not sound very Christian to me.

[WildEyedLiberal]

43. Christian as used by the neocons is the most Orwellian word

In the English language. They have taken the word "Christian" and turned it on its head so that it now, as they define it, means the exact opposite of what it actually should.

I was ranting to a friend the other day about the propaganda of the mainstream media, and how they use subtle techniques to brainwash people, and I realized, as she politely nodded at me, that I must have sounded like a total nut. Oh God, it's like everyone in the world is turning into bots, and we are the only people who still recognize truth and logic.

[saracat]

47. Absolutely right on ,Tay Tay!

Great post!

[TayTay]

44. Roe v. Wade, other things to consider

There is an article in the current Atlantic Monthly that talks about the positive aspects of overturning Roe. (Don't hit me, hear me out.)

The Roe legal decision is built on very shaky legal ground. Everyone who has ever looked at the decision knows this. The decision rests on an assumption that there is a 'right to privacy and a right to abortion' in the Constitution. This is very shaky legal ground. There is no such specific legal right laid out in the Constitution. Part of the reason abortion is still so controversial is because it WAS legislation by judical fiat. The decision to make that much social change at once was not vetted through the Congress, it was a sudden imposition by the Supremes. It was talked about at the time but elections were not held on it and the public dialogue was not completed and then boom, big change. And big backlash.

The Atlantic article stipulates that a Supremes rollback on Roe would reignite the debate in this country. You know, the country is pro-choice. The approval rate for most forms of abortion reach near 65-70%. The article says that if Roe was overturned that abortion would not go away as an issue, it would instead re-enter the legislative debate. (And thus engage the people in a public dialogue. You know, like a representative democracy should.) There would be an initial backlash and many states would enact punishing laws against choice. But there would be an equal if not greater number of states that would enact strong Pro-Choice laws. (Like MA.) Then we would fight it out in the court of public opinion and in the Congress.

Memebers of Congress are very, very vulnerable should it come to this. The anti-choice faction props up the extreme right because they have this as a hot button issue. Take that away, take away the argument that this was judicial activism and the fanatics kind of go away. Then you actually resolve the issue in a way in which it sticks. Real change, after a real debate that engendered the will of the people. Better and stronger policy that is not vulnerable to a single judge on a single court.

So, besides wanting to throw brickbats, what say you?

[WildEyedLiberal]

45. I read that article

Interesting points, though I found the author to be VERY blase' about the real-life effects that overturning Roe v Wade would have on women. His answer to the question "would you feel differently if you were a woman" I found particularly callous. Again, he does make interesting points, and I do think that, if it ever happened, it would make the RWers very unpopular. But it's hard to ignore the actual effect it would have on women. I live in a blue state, thank God, but millions of women don't.

[TayTay]

46. Oh, I completely agree.

Human suffering is nothing to ignore. But the fact remains that Roe is not the most stable of decisions and it always rests on the whim of a few judges. We are not able to put a good solid floor under Roe and make it law. There have been more than a few Congressional votes that have attempted to chip away at Roe and outlaw some procedure or another. But Roe has held. But someday, it may not. That is what happens when you do activism by judicial fiat.

This is also true about Gay Marriage. It became law in my home state because of judicial decree. (MA Constitution says laws and benefits apply to all citizens of the Commonwealth. The judges used that to legalize Gay marriage. It's a little stronger than Roe, actually.)

Roe could be overturned. It really and truly could happen. (Another strict constructionist like Scalia and it's over. Roe will go in pieces.) Then what? Then you put it back into the public discourse. Women will suffer. Powerful politicians will start to hear from constituents that we need some pro-choice laws because people make mistakes. And so forth. It is an interesting position to consider.

Oh, and btw, the right to choose is being eroded by other means today that might go away with a proper debate. There are a lot of med schools that no longer teach the procedures. They don't want the politics at their schools. There are vast stretches of the country where there are no docs who have been trained in how to do abortions. We already have a sort of Jim Crow system. And it will get worse.

[saracat]

48. But if it is overturned we would have zilch chance of getting abortion

rights.The neocons will never allow it to be re argued. If that were to happen, I would , for sure, desert this country. I could not remain as a second class citizen. Not after all that had been sacrificed to give women rights. What a scary scenario! Roe, imperfect as it may be, MUST be upheld!

[WildEyedLiberal]

50. Wouldn't states still be able to make abortion laws?

Even if Roe V Wade were overturned, many states would retain legal abortion. I'm not saying that this is a good scenario at all, but it's not as doomsday as that. Obviously, we need to retain Roe, or otherwise write abortion rights into law, so that they are safe and available for any woman.

[ginnyinWI]

51. yes, that's how it used to be

New York allowed abortions, Wisconsin did not. So my friend travelled to New York to have her abortion. This was, um, 1970 I think.

[angrydemocrat]

52. Dang I left for a little while and when I get back

You guys have really kept this conversation going. And what is amazing about is there are no attacks! This is a issue that had you talked about it anywhere besides here you would have been in a major shitstorm. I have to say this is the first time I have ever seen this issue talked about and people didn't attack each other. To me that says a whole lot. I will probably never see it happen anywhere else that's for sure.

[TayTay]

54. Nice observation!

I feel that way as well. It's nice to have a place to calmly discuss difficult issues and not fear having the discussion degrade into hurt feelings and name-calling. Thanks to all!

[saracat]

53. If we had to go back to that way of doing things many

women wouldn't be able to afford to travel or give up the time. It is the old rich poor divide again. The rich are always able to fly to Europe as well. It will be the poor and middle class women who are screwed. As usual. It would be as good as doomsday for many people.

[ginnyinWI]

55. I agree,

it's a really unfair system if it goes back to that. But the likely result of that happening is what the Atlantic article is saying, that the public would not tolerate that for long, and some sort of new law would eventually take the place of Roe v. Wade--and maybe, just maybe it would take this issue off of being a political hot button in every election. So I think if Roe v. Wade were by some slim chance to be overturned,and I do think it's slim, there would be that prospect to look forward to. It would not be the permanent reversal that some people assume it would be. A light at the end of the tunnel.

[saracat]

56. OMG, I hope you are right. I don't have as much confidence in

the American public as you do. Over half of Congress are evangelical inclined. I heard a Air America Report on it, and these people will walk through fire to prevent abortions. They believe they are preventing murder of defenseless children and that is a very hard argument to counter.Many women today don't realize what it was like before Roe. Remember Whoopie having to "explain" the signifigence of the hanger at the March? Would you have thought the "public' would tolerate what it is already tolerating?
I hate to sound doomsday, but this threat is real and can't be nuanced away. That is the very reason the NAARAL and the Planned Parenthood people as well as the NOW representatives were so shocked at what Kerry said reaching out to pro-lifers. We are at war again to protect our rights.If large numbers weren't involved ,do you think there would even be this debate about "re framing abortion"? The MSM coverage of their march on the Roe anniversary was indicative of the sentiment being encouraged. I think the argument that the Repugs "need" this as an argument is weak. They also need to throw something at the evangelicals and eventually it will have to be red meat.Roe is the price this Admin is going to pay for having been "elected". Bush's telephonic appearance at the anti abortion rally was only a dress rehearsal.

[TayTay]

57. You may be right

But we are heading down that road now. We have a Jim Crow system as to who can get an abortion and who cannot. If you live in a rural area chances are getting more and more remote that you will have any doctors in your area who can perform the procedure. This is the truth. This is already happening. The RWers have been very smart about attacking doctors and med schools and attacking the fundraisers to those med schools to get them to not teach the procedure.

It's not enough to preserve Roe. Roe might become a law that no longer matters if things continue as they are. Blue Staters will be able to have access, Red Staters will not.

[LittleClarkie]

59. Though not right, that's the way they voted

they need to unvote it...

But then again, maybe they already did. We don't even know how many Red states should have been blue. Blah.

Whoopie and the hanger... does anyone remember her HBO special from about 10 or 15 years ago. There was a character she did, a beach girl from Calif who had to use a hanger to give herself an abortion and then couldn't have kids any more. I should go to Blockbuster and see if I can find that thing. It's been a while. How did Whoopie manage to touch you and make you laugh at the same time?