5 new anti-choice "Democrat" reps elected, bringing total to 31

[MH1]

Correction: per post below - the seats switched; not the politicians. Sorry for the false alarm. I misread the original article.


"Democrat" is in quotes because 3 of the 5 switched parties.

Source: http://www.democratsforlife.org/

In a tight race, Bobby Bright (AL-02, open seat) DFLA Priority Candidate has won, keeping the seat pro-life, but switching parties.

With a solid win, Parker Griffith (AL-05, open seat) (DFLA endorsed) took over for a mixed abortion Dem.

In a close race, Steve Driehaus (OH-01) DFLA Priority Candidate has won, keeping the seat pro-life, but switching parties.

In in a nice victory, Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03) DFLA Priority Candidate won, keeping the seat pro-life, but switching parties.

Another Ohio pickup was John Boccieri (OH-16). The open seat turn the Red district Blue.

The 31 number comes from http://www.ncregister.com/daily/pro_life_dem_breakthroughs/

A record 31 Democratic Party pro-life candidates were elected to Congress.

According to Democrats for Life of America, five new Democratic pro-lifers were elected, joining 26 pro-life incumbents who were re-elected.

“This will be only the second time in 30 years that the number of pro-life Democrats increases instead of decreases,” Kristen Day, director of Democrats for Life of America, told Lifenews.com. “The first time we made gains was in 2006 due to the work of pro-life Democrats all over this country advocating on behalf of the pro-life cause.”

The first task confronting Congressional pro-lifers from both parties in the next Congress? Forging bipartisan alliances across the aisles of the Senate and the House of Representatives to prevent passage of the abortion lobby’s Freedom of Choice (FOCA) legislation.

Something for pro women's rights Democrats to think about.


On edit - er, never mind this part, except the question still holds generally -
I am not a one issue voter, and I know nothing about these individual politicians, but I suggest that especially in the districts where a republican put on democrat's clothing for this election, constituents should pay very close attention to all of their rep's votes, and start looking for potential primary opponents. What good is a "Democratic" majority if it comes from republicans who just call themselves Democrats?

[ananda]

1. What about pro choice Republicans?

How many of them were elected?

Do they balance out the DINO's?

[MH1]

3. I don't know about pro-choice repubs

I just ran across this link and it concerns me.

[Ian David]

4. That's a good point. However, "Pro-Choice" Repukes are just BARELY Pro-Choice.

When faced with an opportunity to vote Pro-Choice, they sorely disappoint, when it comes to judicial appointments, they always vote with the rest of the Repukes.

[barbtries]

20. and if their 15-year-old got pregnant

betcha i know what they'd do.

[tekisui]

2. The reasoning is to build a strong majority, get the chairs

and control the agenda. Pro-choice Dems could not have gotten elected in those districts. It is as simple as that.

Primary challengers will happen, as we move the country towards a Progressive agenda, and give the people results.

[MH1]

5. I understand that, but we already had a pretty good House majority, didn't we?

I'm less concerned about anti-choice dems who are mostly good on other issues (like PA's Senator Casey). What bothered me most was that three of five of these new "Demcorats" are simply republicans who ran as Democrats.

[tekisui]

7. Abortion is really not an issue that the House or Senate deal with.

Other than when they vote on Judges and Justices. We have a sizable majority in the House, so the 31 anti-choice members shouldn't be able to effect any votes there.

[MH1]

9. Then what is the "Freedom of Choice (FOCA) legislation"

referred to in the second passage I quoted?

(I'm off to look it up...)

[tekisui]

10. It is a right to choice bill.

Hopefully, the Dems will be able to pass it without those 31 Anti-choicers.

[MH1]

13. I hope so, but I am doubting it.

Maybe in Obama's second term if things go okay in the first and we don't lose too many congressional seats, then perhaps the leadership will be brave enough to bring it to a vote.

But every added dem that opposes it will be another nail in the coffin of women's rights.

[MH1]

11. HR 1964 (in the 110th - look for a new number in the 111th Congress)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01964:

CRS summary:

Freedom of Choice Act - Declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to: (1) bear a child; (2) terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or (3) terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.

Prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from: (1) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or (2) discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively.

Authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to obtain appropriate relief, including relief against a governmental entity, in a civil action.

109 consponsors in the House:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01964:@@@P

Senate bill (S.1173) has 19 cosponsors:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN01173:@@@P

Yeah, it will probably never pass but it is exactly the declaration of rights that is needed.

[TwilightZone]

6. We simply won't get pro-choice Dems elected in some states and districts.

The upper Midwest, for example. There's a reason why Ben Nelson, Tim Johnson, and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin are all pretty moderate/conservative. If they weren't, they'd never get elected as Dems in their respective states.

So, in some areas, we have a choice: a) pro-life Dem, b) pro-life Rep.

Pretty easy choice.

[MH1]

8. True, BUT -

1) the number of anti-choice Dems is increasing. That should worry us. One of those five was said to be replacing a "mixed-abortion Dem". (Not sure what that is but sounds, gasp, moderate.) I guess if the total anti-choice seats didn't increase we should be okay, though.

2) some of these are not even really Democrats, they just changed their party because it was a bad year to run as a republican.

[TwilightZone]

14. Tim Johnson is a "mixed" Dem on abortion.

http://www.ontheissues.org/social/Tim_Johnson_Abortion.htm

He's probably a good example of what they're talking about.

Re: "not even really Democrats" - I would disagree. One is not required to follow the party platform to self-identify as a Democrat, and anyone switching parties at this moment in time could very well be disillusioned with the Republican Party. If that leads them to our side, that's a good thing.

Party affiliation has evolved into basically whatever one wants it to be. Just because I'm very liberal doesn't mean that I think that a moderate/conservative Democrat like Ben Nelson isn't really a Democrat. He may not be my kind of Democrat, but party affiliation is about self-identification, not some label that we attempt to apply.

Two possible exceptions: Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller. But then, each of them has pretty much proven that they're not really Democrats. Lieberman left the party and Miller left the world of sanity.

[dsc]

12. The districts were GOP, not the politicans

Those winners were Dems.

[MH1]

15. Thanks for the correction - I just got the edit in under the wire.

I misread the article.

[Zynx]

16. I am perfectly fine with this. This is essential to being on our way to a permanent majority.

We can't be locked out of the pro-life vote altogether. We need to be able to get some of it to compete in various regions of the country.

[saracat]

25. No doubt you feel the same about the homophobe vote.

Women are so easy to throw under the bus ,as are GBLT. Why is it more important to "elect" dems than support human rights or Civil rights? I thought that was what being a Democrat was all about.If we elect dems who support GOP issues, what have we gained?

[stray cat]

17. Congratulations to the new Democratic reps and welcome!

I suspect the people they replaced were republicans probably who were also not in favor of abortions? Glad to have Dems in their place.

[Doctor_J]

18. Do we really want to have a litmus test for admission to the party?

Maybe we should require Dems to be in favor of gun bans? :eyes:

These people got elected by running against * and presumably with O. They will be on our side for health care, bringing the troops home, and other issues.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

19. "Pro-Choice/ Anti-Life/ Pro-Abortion" and "Pro-Life/ Anti-Choice" are the dumbest terms EVER.

Exhibit 1 why the abortion debate is where all rationality and logic goes to die, and shallow rhetoric reigns supreme.


Rant off.
:rant:

[IndianaJones]

21. its a big tent. nt.

[madfloridian]

22. I see you will get the but it's all ok routine...cause we have to turn right.

I get that everytime I post about standing up for things.

It's all okay they say...because those are really red areas and you can't get a real Democrat elected there. :eyes:

That is Rahm's legacy.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/3042

It's a sad one.

We all will just give up our rights, one by one by one and become just like the Republicans.

Recommended.

[madfloridian]

23. Wow you are getting lectured more about expecting Dems to be Dems

than I was last night.

[saracat]

24. My God ,what a disgusting organization.

[eridani]

26. I'm thinking that with Dems in executive and legislative branches--

--anti-abortion initiatives are off the table anyway.