Bart Stupak is a Federal Advisory Board Member of Democrats for Life, What that MEANS

[jonathon]

The political group dedicated to electing anti-choice candidates in the democratic party. Oh, and you might be interested to know that Ben Nelson also serves on Democrats for Life's advisory board.

Democrats for Life isn't well known, but it is a determined and dangerous group. They are well-funded and they are singularly focus on promoting right wing policies in the democratic party. The damage they are doing to womens rights is obvious but the damage that they they are doing to the wider political issues is less obvious to the unaware citizen. And, equally as damaging. Stupak & Nelson are well-supported to be Right Wing Undercover Democrats. They are sold as palatable to the people as they run in states for their only qualification for election by the masses is to be anti-choice. In exchange for selling their souls to their cause, they get ungodly sums of money and a motive and guranteed zombie voter base to show up every November.

Of course Stupak and Nelson, they are now having to deliver. And, unlike the Wishy Washy dems, the anti-choice disciples WILL hold their politicians accountable if they fail their cause. Because as misguided as they may be, they BELIEVE deeply in it, believe enough to see it larger then any single politician and one political cycle, their goal is to translate their beliefs into the reality of this world. And, our own apathy and fear have caused those who reject this patriarchal, unworkable, and failed approach to women and human reproduction to advance this insanity forward.

Stupak and Nelson are THEIR represenatives, and politicans placed to do their bidding at their pleasure will not TOLERATE their reps failing to do their duty. Not a wit.

So, when you ask why would Stupak or any of the other right wing democrats hold any piece of legislation hostage over the reproductive rights of women, it is because he himself is a hostage to his constituents. And, that isn't a bad thing for a politician to be, if they are being held to account to help rather suppress half the world populations most basic rights. Good for them for getting their politicians to represent them. Horrible for us because we don't have our politicians working at our pleasure to what is right for everyone.

Clean energy...right for everyone

Universal health care...right for everyone

Sustainable Agriculture...Right for everyone

Peaceful Societies...Right for everyone

Educated children....Right for everyone

Fair disbursement of resources...Right for everyone

Art and Music...Right for everyone

All of the things of beauty and hope we can't quite bring ourselves to fight for as much as anti-choice zealots. How sad of us. They can fight for hate out of fear but we have failed to fight for love out of fear. Which is worse? They can not help what they do. But that doesn't mean that we can't protect ourselves from them. Fighting back isn't aggressive or wrong and we have to stop letting our fear rule us to complacency.

Our foremothers fought all too recently this same battle.

The time is now to fight it again!

Here is a facebook group you can go to that is building a movement around this premise, their website launches in April.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=292932589774

The bottom of this webpage has a good description of Democrats (puke) for Life
http://susanbanthonymuseum.com/userPage_11_Organizations.htm

(my wife wrote this - I am just passing it on)

[glinda]

1. k&r n/t

[jonathon]

2. Thanks - I think we forget how powerful these scumbag

Get off the wombs of women....

[RayStar]

41. Neutering

Any man that opposes abortion should be neutered. End of discussion.

[SoxFan]

3. Another pup tent Democrat

By all means, let's throw people who agree with 98% of platform out of the party.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

6. Pretty easy for you to say.

You have a penis. Some 51% of Americans do NOT have penises and this man and his idealogy are a danger to them.

[jonathon]

21. Womens Right: Expendable.

[Cerridwen]

9. While you may consider women's autonomy a minor issue, I'll point

out to you that many of those who are anti-choice, such as Stupak and Nelson, will prove to also be against gay rights, unions and the working class, will characterize those in poverty as "lazy" and "welfare queens," will put the "rights" of business over the rights of the individual, and will support de-funding of social net programs and support increased funding for military at the expense of any pro-survival spending.

Look closer and I'll bet you find that "98%" to be a bit of an exaggeration.

[jonathon]

18. Exactly.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

30. Facts don't lie. See for yourself.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/s001045/
http://www.ontheissues.org/MI/Bart_Stupak.htm


Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)

Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Voted YES on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)

Voted YES on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)

Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)

Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)

Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)

Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)

Stronger enforcement against gender-based pay discrimination. (Jan 2009)

Voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq. (Jun 2008)

Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)

Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)

Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)

Voted YES on restricting no-bid defense contracts. (Mar 2007)

Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)

Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)

Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)

Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)

[Cerridwen]

43. Those aren't "facts." That's a record of voting. A piss poor recording of the record.

First, there are no bill numbers attached to those assertions. Were they votes on a final bill; an amendment to a bill; a motion to suspend rules, debate, recommit; a resolution? What?

Secondly, let me take one example you've listed from one of your sources.

Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

That part is actually correct. I'm pretty sure, this little tidbit, makes it an empty gesture. He voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, 1996 on passage. Are you familiar with the phrase, political cover?

Do you know he voted for that Flag Burning Ban amendment? He voted to insert Congress into the Schiavo nightmare. He's voted for school prayer. The Patriot Act he voted "against" managed to make it into law anyway. As have many of his "liberal" votes. He has a wonderful knack of voting liberal in time to lose and conservative in time to win.

He gets to keep his "creds" without promoting any liberal leaning legislation.

He voted Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not have granted clemency to terrorists, 9-Sep-1999. Gee, which president was that?

That whole "Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)." Uh, yeah. That one's been bouncing around since 2007 and can't seem to get passed. (See above re: "political cover") Here's the wiki link that lays it out; my research supports this but wiki is easier to understand than me trying to re-create this wheel. One other note, do you suppose the fact that there is an "Exemption for Religious Organizations" in that bill that made it more palatable for him? Just a thought.

You see, a bill is not just a bill and a vote is not always what it seems. Much like our friend stupak.

He also voted against a bill that Expanded use on Medicare Select Policies Act, 6-Apr-1995. And, of course, he's voted against Stem Cell research. Can't let science get in the way of them good ol' biblical values.

Wanna have fun with your WaPo source, go to the link in which it shows when stupak voted against his party; I presume that means Democrats but given his history...

As to your other source; heaven help us if these are the kind of people tracking legislation and our legislators. That's like walking onto the sound stage at a film company and thinking it's real life. They're looking only at the facade; not at the pattern, the intent, the actual worth of the vote, and gawd knows what else they're missing. Criminey! No wonder we can't tell who's on our side.

If you're thinking is truly that simplistic, please stay in the Lounge posting about your penis and your vagina.

Thanks.

[BrklynLiberal]

40. You are absolutely correct!!!

If I would ever consider myself a single issue voter..it would be for women's health rights.
Somehow, I believe that anyone who agrees with me on that would agree with me on most of my other strong issues.

[jonathon]

11. I see. So a woman's body and rights are negotiable for you

That is incredibly offensive

[JerseygirlCT]

12. Anyone who thinks he has the right to interfere in the most

personal of personal decisions...

yeah, let's throw him out. His position on choice and women's rights makes anything else he may claim suspicious at best.

[jonathon]

13. It just shows where women still stand to so many ...

[JerseygirlCT]

14. It's sad, isn't it?

Truly, if you can't stand for an individual's right to control her own body... what DO you stand for?

Welcome to DU, btw.

[jonathon]

15. Thanks

[Hippo_Tron]

16. Benator and Stupak don't agree with 98% of the platform of our party

And there's different degrees. I don't really have a problem if we have a few anti-choice Democrats in congress who mostly keep their mouths shut on the issue and simply cast an anti-choice vote when a bill comes up to the floor. But Democrats who are outspokenly anti-choice and actually use their position to promote anti-choice positions are another issue because whenever they do that it does political damage to the vast majority of our party that is pro-choice.

For example, Bob Casey is an anti-choice Democrat that I'm okay with. Democrats like Bart Stupak and Casey's father are a different story.

[jonathon]

19. Not good enough. If they are going to stand against women on this right

And, actively use the office to push anti-choice agenda, I think they should not be supported by the party. No DNC donations. Nothing.

Our bodies are not up for negotiation and the problem with seeing this issue as negotiable represents the problem with the whole of the democratic party. If you can't stand on this - you don't stand for our party platform on a CENTER defining difference between the parties. Since all our rights are negotiable and not just womens, I would think this would be crystal clear. by now.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. That's more or less what I said

I can live with a certain number of passive anti-choice Democrats. I define these as people who vote the wrong way on bills when they come up in congress but keep their mouths shut about it as much as possible and don't introduce anti-choice legislation or amendments or try to push their position. In the case where they are in the Senate they vote for judges nominated by Democratic Presidents, as well.

Active anti-choice Democrats who use their position to push an anti-choice agenda are a problem for me because the party is pro-choice. My view is that anti-choicers are welcome, but the Democratic Party is a not a place to push an anti-choice agenda.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

29. Come on SoxFan, don't be such a bald faced liar.

Stupak only has a 95.6% voting record with the party:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/s001045/

I mean, come on, he and Dick Cheney are virtually indistinguishable.

:sarcasm:

[SoxFan]

33. Facts are stubborn things, aren't they Tommy?

Stupak's 100% rating from the AFL-CIO certainly paints him as a right--winger, doesn't it?

Or those 100% ratings from Americans for the Arts...such a cretin!

98& from the NAACP.

81% from the ACLU.

100% from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

An "A" from the National Education Association, and a 100% rating from the American Association of University Women.

There's his whopping 0% from the Club for Growth. What a fascist tool!

His enviro grades top out in the mid 70's, but that's not uncommon for Rust Belt labor Dems.

We'd clearly be better off with a knee-jerk right winger in that seat!

[Cerridwen]

45. There's a difference between voting with the party about the Boy Scouts

and voting against the party on DOMA.

[Mike 03]

4. Excellent Information. Kick and Rec. NT

[jonathon]

8. The anti-choicers in the democratic party are about to be called out...

The facebook group is just a lead in for the website.

I will post the website here as soon as it launches.

[Tippy]

5. Bart Stupak, C Street Democrat:

"I Don't Know What You're Talking about"

Michigan Messenger:

Despite weeks of media attention paid to the now-infamous "C Street" house owned by The Family, a secretive Christian group, U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak -- who lives at the house near the U.S. Capitol -- denied any knowledge of the nature of the mysterious Washington, D.C., rowhouse and any involvement with the organization that owns it and uses as a seat of influence on Capitol Hill.

It all fits together:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7826374

[jonathon]

20. The Family...Interesting...Let's see if we can plug it all in!

[Cerridwen]

7. I did a bit of research a while back. If you (your wife) has any interest

it's in this link.

It's from 2006 so I'm not sure how many of the links I included are still active.

[jonathon]

10. Thank you. She is aware of it an unfortunately it has passed both chambers of Congress

And, it is waiting for Obama's signature which isn't certain.

They have been busy.

[jonathon]

17. Thanks everyone. Since I posted this-

The facebook group shot up (this is really important for the larger campaign)10 members in minutes!

Thanks

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=292932589774

[jonathon]

22. Link to Democrats for Life own website with Stupak, Nelson, & other dem sellouts

http://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=212

[Odin2005]

23. Stupak is part of "The Family". He's a fucking un-American theocrat fucker.

[Kaleva]

24. Stupak couldn't hold his seat unless he got a solid majority of the female vote

So far, Stupak will run unopposed in this year's primary and I'm unaware of any organization or group making any kind of a serious effort in attempting to recruit a candidate to challenge Stupak (angry posts on DU don't count as a serious effort).

[jonathon]

26. Well, we need to get him out. We don't live in his state but...

My wife is working with Progressive Dems of America to try and get this issue on the national platform (womens rights and reproductive health). Hopefully with a campaign to fight back against the zealots, the constituents of these politicians will work to run and support candidates who support everyone's basic human rights.

You are right that bitching on message boards isn't activism. Although, it is a great communication tool for spreading awareness and provide ways to get involved in the fight.

If you go to the Facebook group we started, you will be notified when the national campaign launches in a month. Until then, the group is building momentum for the movement. Great group with interesting discussions on the wall.

Join here:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=292932589774

[Cerridwen]

46. Which means what?

"Stupak couldn't hold his seat unless he got a solid majority of the female vote"

I'm always astounded that with CWA, ann coulter, michelle malkin, phyllis schlafley, et. al. that people are still stuck with thinking women think and vote alike.

The r/w spin has really worked on a lot of people.

Here are the demographics of his district based on the 2000 census.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find the break down of who voted for him in his last election. The link I provided doesn't provide a break down by party affiliation. That would be helpful.

Of course, it's always possible that there are those who vote D because the only other option is R. So what to do when the D doesn't represent your interests in the way in which you'd wish they would? Vote D? Vote R? Vote 3rd party? Don't vote?

[freddie mertz]

27. K & R and thanks for the info and the links.

Funny how we never hear much criticism of this turd from certain quarters.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

28. Statistics don't lie. Take a look for yourself.

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)

Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Voted YES on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)

Voted YES on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)

Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)

Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)

Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)

Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)

Stronger enforcement against gender-based pay discrimination. (Jan 2009)

Voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq. (Jun 2008)

Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)

Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)

Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)

Voted YES on restricting no-bid defense contracts. (Mar 2007)

Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)

Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)

Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)

Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)

The Internets are your friend: http://www.ontheissues.org/MI/Bart_Stupak.htm, http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/s001045/

[Hell Hath No Fury]

31. Checked your profile.

You have a penis. Again, easy for you to say, Penis Man.

Signed,
Democrat with a Vagina Bart Stupak Wants to Control

[Tommy_Carcetti]

32. Ugh.

Exhibit A of how the abortion debate has become a place where rational and logical conversation goes to die, only to be replaced by brainless bumper sticker slogans and childish retorts. From both sides of the debate.

[plantwomyn]

34. The point is that there is only ONE side

that is EFFECTED by the debate, the side with the Vaginas!

Here is how the "rational and logical" Democrates for Life treated Rep. Tim Ryan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/22/rep-ryan-booted-from-demo_n_242841.html

"Ryan said he tried to convince officials with Democrats For Life of America, which he referred to Monday as a "fringe group," that the use of contraception is needed as part of any plan to reduce unintended pregnancies but that failed.

Kristen Day, Democrats For Life's executive director, was ready to move on. "DFLA gave Congressman Ryan ample opportunities to prove he's committed to protecting life, but he has turned his back on the community at every turn."

Since when did life begin pre-coitus?

So Tommy, it ain't just about abortion, it's about contraception. So now do you think that they are having a "rational and illogical conversation"? I think not. You cannot rationally and logically tell me that I should allow these men to decide what I can do with my body.

[M_A]

35. there should be no "debate"

When anyone, man or woman, "R" or "D" or "I" intends to put government controls on my reproductive organs it is a deal breaker. Until the Dems come together and reject even the idea that reproductive health care choice is "debatable" they will continue to divide the party and lose valuable votes/seats.

Deal breaker...end of story.

[Kolesar]

36. Well, that's a bit much...eom

[Hell Hath No Fury]

37. The Truth can be a "bit much".

:shrug:

[Cerridwen]

44. "Statistics" can be manipulated. As can piss poor reporting on voting

records. See post #43.

[liberation]

38. They should not get away with labeling themselves as "Dems for life" when they're "antichoice Dems"

It drives me nuts when these fundies get away with coercing language like that. Any "pro life" who is against providing healthcare for their fellow citizens and who supports wars should not be allowed to label themselves as the sacrosanct defenders of life...


Keep making the tent bigger Dems, who knows by the end of the year you can have all the GOP under it... now that their brand is damaged beyond repair.

[joeybee12]

39. Nothing scarier than a true believer...n/t

[bertman]

42. Too late to rec. Here's a kick.

[jonathon]

47. Thank you bertman. My wife sends her love

:)