Thank You Senator Lieberman, for Standing Tall for Women's Rights.

[Clarkie1]

Thank you for supporting increased funding for family planning to prevent unwanted pregnacies in the first place (isn't it ironic how all the "pro-life" folks vote against such measures that would prevent the need for abortions in the first place?).

Official Title of Legislation:

S AMDT 244 to S Con Res 18: To expand access to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care.

Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:

Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget that allocates $100 million for the prevention of unintended pregnancies.

Highlights:

- Increases funding and access to family planning services

- Funds legislation that requires equitable prescription coverage for contraceptives under health plans

- Funds legislation that would create and expand teen pregnancy prevention programs and education programs concerning emergency contraceptives


Senate Amendment Passage Vote: 03/17/2005: Rejected: 47 - 53: Recorded Vote Number: 75

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=3489&can_id=S0141103

On a related issue, thank you also for opposing infrigements on a a woman's right to choose. Despite your religious convictions, you are an individual who clearly understands the separation between church and state.

Official Title of Legislation:

S 3: A bill to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.

Project Vote Smart Synopsis:

Vote to adopt a conference report that prohibits any individual from knowingly performing the procedure known as intact dilation and extraction, in which a fetus is partially delivered before it is aborted.

Highlights:

- Permit the procedure if the life of the woman were in danger Click here

- Penalize anyone who illegally performed the procedure with fines and up to two years imprisonment


Senate Passage Vote: 03/13/2003: Passed 64 - 33. Record Vote Number: 51.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=3332&can_id=S0141103

[longship]

1. Sorry, I can't support a man who puts himself ahead of his party.

No way. No how.

Plus, he is 180 degrees out of wack on the most important issue for today, the Iraq war.

[Clarkie1]

2. Just trying to provide some perspective.

Maybe by running (potentially) as an independent he is putting his constituents ahead of his party.

Nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's patriotic.

[MadHound]

18. LOL, I'll have to remember that one

And use it the next time I'm debating the merits of running Green party candidates:rofl:

[saracat]

7. Well, my right to choice is still the most important issue to ME!

My personhood is at stake. But that doesn't mean I am a fan of Joe. Just saying.

[cornermouse]

3. Nothing like trying to maintain status quo,

which is what this is all about.

In ordinary times when the economy is good and someone like Bush hasn't been busy stripping away our rights, status quo would not be a bad thing. But after you've seen this nation sink under the series of attacks the republicans have been busy instigating and pursuing, status quo is no longer enough.

[sandnsea]

4. Doesn't support contraceptive freedom

He supports hospitals choosing whether to prescribe EC, even in cases of rape and incest. So he's slipped a little on his women's rights support.

[silverojo]

5. Has he ever!

Lieberman's stance on women's rights allows hospitals to say, "Sorry honey, we won't give you that pill here...why don't you pack yourself into a cab and drive to another hospital across town to get it? Don't worry, I know you're bruised and bleeding from having the hell beaten out of you, but that hospital has bandages too, and they'll patch you up just fine."

But I'll bet if that bastard has so much as an ingrown toenail, he rushes to the doctor to have it seen to!

[Skidmore]

6. Lieberman doesn't stand tall for anyone when he back stabs

as he is wont to do. Giving with one hand and snatching away with the other simply negates the power of any decision to the good he has made. Lieberman is all about Lieberman and those he would engratiate himself with.

[fudge stripe cookays]

8. So, how many...

of these little individual fawning-over-Joe threads do you plan on posting?

And what is it about "back stabber" do you not understand? He can give as much lip service as he wants to womens' rights, but by fully supporting and rubber-stamping this administration's policies towards women, he's done way more damage than he has good.

[H2O Man]

9. Many neoconservatives

have liberal social values.

[Caution]

10. Dosn't support Dem party members right to choose their candidate though

now does he?

[skipos]

11. Thanks for ignoring the will of CT Democrats!

Our party should ALWAYS be run from the top down. We don't want those pesky voters to have anything to do with it.
:sarcasm:

[Bluebear]

23. INDEED. nt

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

14. I wonder if Schlesinger will do this.

88% of Lamont supporters will have no regrets if Schlesinger takes the seat.

[dsc]

16. I would like to see a citation for that.

[LoZoccolo]

17. Here.

They're proud of it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2709895&mesg_id=2709895

All this talk of "party loyalty" falls flat when you realize they'd rather see a Republican win.

[dsc]

22. That isn't a scientific poll

Incidently I am a Lamont supporter who didn't take part. My one vote would change the fraction from 23/26 to 23/27. That alone would lower the percentage to 85%. How scientific can a poll be if one person can change the results by 3%?

[ncrainbowgrrl]

25. It can be "scientific"- just not "statistically significant."

(not a large enough number of individuals surveyed to gain any statistical power)

Oh gosh, I'm a geek. :blush:

[LoZoccolo]

27. I guess I can't keep you from ignoring it.

But after we start losing election after election due to the politics of self-destruction, you might see that I could see it coming. I really don't see much of a difference between the Nader lie that there was no difference between Bush* and Gore and the Lamont supporter lie that there is no difference between Lieberman and Schlesinger.

[dsc]

28. The difference here is that Lamont is doing the right thing

by running in the primary. If this seat is lost the fault will very likely be Lieberman's not Lamont's. The only way it would wind up being Lamont's is if he wins the primary, Lieberman doesn't run, and he loses to the Republican. No one really thinks that would happen.

[LoZoccolo]

31. Great, we can all celebrate "justice for Lieberman"...

...while a Republican sits in his seat for the next six years. But hey, we know it's Joe's fault, not ours! Great.

People generally do not take politics seriously here at all, I'm finding out. It's like a spectator sport, except you get to watch people drown in hurricanes and lose their jobs instead of chase a ball around. Good thing we're all priveledged enough to be able to treat it that way! And hey, fuck choice; I'm never gonna need to make one. Just thought I'd exercise my male priveledge the way the rest of the people here exercise their white or middle-class priveledge.

[dsc]

32. What should the liberal wing of the party do?

If they vote third party they are legitimately told they are helping the GOP so they should run in the primaries. So here a group of justifiably disastified democrats have decided to support a primary opponent to Lieberman. Now, Lieberman just say if I lose the primary I will run as third party. Out of curiousity, if McKinney had pulled this stunt after losing her primary would you be saying it was the fault of those who challenged her? If not, why not?

[LoZoccolo]

33. Lieberman is running third party...

...because he can win, and the polling has shown that, and Lamont has not yet established that he can in the poll I've seen. The block of undecideds is bigger than that of Lamont voters in a two-way race against Schlesinger, and he increases Schlesinger's share from 8% to 20%.

If the polls looked the same in that situation I would applaud McKinney for doing what it takes to keep a Republican from entering the Senate.

What should the liberal wing of the party do? Get more people to think like they do on their issues. Be genuinely compelling. Democracy is something you participate in. And some advice: activists have much more of a venue when they're not screwing other people over via the Republicans because of their favorite issue. I don't think punishing people for voting for Lieberman by cutting off their social programs and wrecking the environment will win them over.

[dsc]

36. Lamont would have money and the Democratic establishment

supporting him in a two way race. Unlike Lieberman he wouldn't be saddled with a hugely unpopular position on the most important issue of the day. I have no idea, but strongly suspect that McKinney could have produced polls showing her winning a three way race in her district. The simple fact is that Lieberman isn't saving the seat for Democrats but for himself. Lieberman has richly earned the primary challenge he got. He also is running one of the worst primary campaigns I have ever seen. If this is the way he intends to run his general election campaign he might well lose. Lamont, on the other hand, is running a terrific campaign and I have every reason to think he would continue to do so in the general.

[calico1]

15. I have to give you credit for trying so hard

to get Lieberman converts. While he does hold some Liberal values he is still a neocon. That for me greatly dilutes anything good he has voted for. I am also tired of his democrat bashing and Bush cheeleading. And being a resident of CT that voted for Lieberman twice I am now committed to helping unseat him. But thanks for your post.

[The Stranger]

19. I think Joe deserves to have his own board here on DU.

And if congratulations are in order, let me be the first . . .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Too bad he doesn't value the lives of Iraqi women as much.

Of course, thousands of them are no longer concerned about rights, being dead, thanks to his support of the invasion and occupation of their country.

[me b zola]

21. What an offensive post

How is it standing tall for women's rights to say that it is acceptable for a rape victim to be denied appropriate medical care if a hospital/medical facility is run by religious nutjobs/political activists?

:thumbsdown: for your post. In fact, your post is so offensive that you deserve a few more. :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

[WI_DEM]

24. I respectfully disagree

When Lieberman said that it is "just a short drive" to another hospital for a victim of rape or incest rather than being treated at the closest possible hospital--that was it for me on this issue. Secondly, by voting against Alito but not filibustering him (and Lieberman is not alone on this one) he did not stand up for choice, imo.

[in_cog_ni_to]

26. Uh, isn't this the same guy who told rape victims to walk on down to

a different hospital if they couldn't get contraceptives at the first hospital? Shame on him.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. Standing tall for women's rights?

In less it's those whore rape victims?

[Larkspur]

30. How come he supports Catholic dogma over rape victims right to

emergency contraception?

We can do better with a real Democrat, Ned Lamont, who will support EC for all women at all hospitals.

[RagAss]

34. hahahha...first time Lieberman and Tall were ever in the same sentence

[LSK]

35. and Lamont would have voted against it???

:shrug: