Lack of abortion rights could spell the end of the Democratic Party

[Cyrano]

It looks like this "monster" called a "health care" bill is going to come up for a reconciliation vote (only 50 votes needed) in the senate.

As bad and insufficient as this bill is, it's a first step. However, the ReThugs and some Dems are trying to wipe abortion rights out of this bill.

Will the Democratic Party ever wake up? Will they ever remember who they represent? Will they ever recall that they are Democrats???

Assuming this bill comes up for a reconciliation vote, and a woman's right to abortion choice is demolished, then the Democratic Party can also consider itself as demolished.

I really don't believe that this will happen. But given everything the Dems have caved in on, who knows? Can the Democratic Party as a whole really be this stupid? Who knows?

Does anyone here on DU think the Dems would ever let this get through? And does anyone think Obama would sign it?

[babylonsister]

1. Fer cryin' out loud. End of the party? MASSIVE FAIL. nt

[saracat]

2. They won't "abolish" choice but they weaken it and support making it difficult

and Obama will sign it.

[leftstreet]

3. No. Lack of jobs and single payer healthcare is destroying the party

[Cyrano]

4. Can't argue with you there. But this one issue will destroy it in heartbeat.

[midnight]

5. Women want access to healthcare and the freedom to use it privately with

the help of their doctors.....

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

20. The Insurance Reform bill doesn't alter that freedom

it just neglects to pay for it.

It's not an ideal bill, but it improves some things.

[DevonRex]

6. Sounds like wishful thinking on your part. Oh yeah. One other thing: Total BS flame bait. nt

[Cyrano]

8. Flame bait my ass. Try reading something other than DU and

you'll find that there are those in congress who have this issue as part of their agenda.

And why in the world would I wish for something like this?

When you make an accusation (or, an attack like you've made), let's hear something to back it up.

Oh, and in case you didn't hear it the first time, "flame bait my ass."

[Common Sense Party]

7. How is Health Care Reform going to overturn Roe v. Wade?

[redqueen]

10. I was wondering the same thing.

Oh, the drama.

[Cyrano]

11. By removing funding for abortions.

[Common Sense Party]

12. Abortions are still legal, though. Correct? People just have to pay for

them out-of-pocket rather than through insurance.

[Cyrano]

13. Oh, okay. So let's just screw the poor ... again.

[Common Sense Party]

15. "Screwing the poor" is not the same thing as making abortion illegal.

[Cyrano]

16. You're right. And I admit to overstating my case in the OP.

Having said that, screwing the poor out of abortion rights is a first step.

Do you really think these people are going to give up on their final goal? We can't give them an inch on this issue.

[Common Sense Party]

22. Yes, it may be a first step. But there are many, many more

that they would have to successfully make.

Yes, they must be fought. But the end of the party is nowhere near imminent.

[EFerrari]

17. Okay. As long as we just screw the poor, that's cool.

[Common Sense Party]

21. Who said it was cool? I just said it's not the same thing as overturning

Roe v. Wade, and to say it is is mere hyperbole.

[EFerrari]

24. If there is no access to abortion for a large segment of our country

does it matter if Roe is still on the books?

Low income women aka, the Democratic base.

[Common Sense Party]

27. Of course there will still be access. We will have charities and private

groups help the poor.

[EFerrari]

28. Why should American women rely on private groups and on charities

for their most basic health needs?

That's the kind of thinking that got us exactly where we are today.

[saracat]

23. Technically abortions have never been funded with federal money. This does make it more costly

and difficult to acquire one. Chiefly , it echoes Hyde and by charging separately, it fuels a moral distinction.And it reemphasizes the inequality between male and female health care.It also provides for inequality is cost assessments per gender.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Demeter]

14. The Party's Over, it's time to call it a day.

They've burst your pretty balloon and taken the moon away.

It's time to wind up the masquerade.
Just make your mind up the piper must be paid.

The Party's Over.The candles ficker and dim.
You danced and dreamed through the night,
it seemed to be right just being with him.

Now you must wake up, all dreams must end.
Take off your make up, The Party's Over.
It's all over, my friend.

[stray cat]

18. If thats all it takes for voters to throw the election to the GOP then it should

[stray cat]

19. How many here wanted to vote for McCain Palin except for their stance on choice?

[saracat]

25. Silly question.Many would not vote for any candidate no matter what party

without considering their stand on CVivil Rights. I believe reproductive healthcare is a civil right.I believe GLBT rights are civil rights.I would not vote for any candidate who opposed them.

[lamp_shade]

26. Oy! Saints preserve us.

[kctim]

29. There is no way it could

the majority of Democrats are moderates and do not hold a do or die, all or nothing attitude towards issues such as abortion, gay marriage etc...

[karynnj]

30. Hyperbole - a woman's right to abortion choice is NOT "demolished,"

NOTHING is changed from the status quo.

[EFerrari]

31. I don't understand how you can say that.

Even if the bill's language only objects to abortion implicitly on paper and has no practical effect on abortion access (which is not the case but for the sake of argument) that legitimizes the anti- woman position.

[karynnj]

32. it keeps the status quo - current law forbids the federal government

from paying for abortions. What you are asking for is a change in that status quo. I would have no problem with that, but it is not worth sacrificing the bill for. Pass the bill, and then if there is sufficient support write an amendment to add it. The fact is neither the House or Senate could have passed it with more liberal language.

[EFerrari]

33. A new statement legitimized in Congress and signed off by Obama

is not keeping the status quo. It is corrosive.

If it weren't corrosive, why on Earth do you think the Republicans are insisting on it?

Seriously.

[karynnj]

34. My guess is that they are insisting on it for the same reason that

you are insisting (I think) that it be covered like anything else.

Think of where the pro-life people are. They think it should be illegal, but it's not and that is completely unlikely to change in the near future. They adamantly want to keep the provision that no federal money is spent. That is the uneasy balance, where neither side is happy is. They likely saw the lack of it being spelled out as moving the issue in our favor - and paying for abortions.

If you look at the polling on abortion, you can see that dependent on how the choices to select are written, how people are on this issue changes. One thing though is clear - there is a wide range of opinions and on an issue some see as black and white, many people still try to find a middle. One thing seems clear, there is less support for federal funds being used to cover abortion than for keeping abortion legal.

http://pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

Looking at these numbers, I can see why some conservative Democrats voted as they did.

[EFerrari]

35. Waiit a minute. You said that I was the one changing or wishing to change

the status quo. I showed that in fact, it's the Republicans that are forcing a change, not me.

And there is no reason in the world why I need to try to walk in the shoes of the anti-choice movement. The Democratic platform clearly supports a woman's choice. Or, has that been changed as well?

[karynnj]

36. I meant that the current legislation works hard NOT to change the status quo

in the country. (Nothing to do with the party platform.)