Democrats need to reach out to voters who oppose abortion rights and promote candidates who share that view, the head of the party said Friday.
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told a group of college Democrats that their party has to change its approach in the debate over abortion.
“I think we need to talk about this issue differently,” said Dean. “The Republicans have painted us as a pro-abortion party. I don’t know anybody in America who is pro-abortion.”
I have no words.
Dean’s actual words are different from the MSM spin, I should note. His position is a sensible one: as a party, we are not pro-abortion. This is true. Very few people like the idea of abortions. We want there to be as few of them as possible. However, we also don’t think that they should be illegal.
Dean’s not saying that the party should be pro-illegalization. Dean’s saying that we have to stop letting the Republicans define us as baby killers and explain what we mean when we say we support a woman’s right to choose succinctly and accurately.
(And Clinton’s magic “safe legal rare” mantra doesn’t work, because of the “rare”. Republicans have capitalized on that to place many heavy restrictions on abortions in many states. “safe legal and unnecessary” might be a better way of putting it.)
“unnecessary” implies that there someone outside the woman and her doctor can make that judgement for her.
I’d settle for Safe & Legal.
I meant “unnecessary” as in “women don’t feel compelled to have them”. As in “no unwanted pregnancies”. As in, no woman in an economic situation where she feels she must abort a child she otherwise would want because supporting it would destroy her life. If you can come up with a better word for that circumstance, please feel free.
I think that, in order to win this battle, we need a positive goal. And that seems like a damn good positive goal to me.
very few people like the idea of abortion? well maybe that’s because the dems have just sat on their collective ass and let the right define abortion with a pr campaign filled with blow up photos of microscopic fetuses.
abortion is good! i like the idea of abortion! i am against government enforced childbirth. i am against being turned into breeding stock. it is my uterus.
you might want to check out:
Abortion is wonderful
Abortion is the termination of what could be a potential human life. No, I think most people very definitely don’t like that. I know I don’t.
However, I’m also against government-enforced childbirth. I think that reproductive rights are an essential part of human rights, and any full or partial abortion ban is a serious and unwarranted restriction of the rights of half the population. Just because I don’t like it doesn’t mean I think the government should ban it, or that it’s always wrong. (In fact, I think it may be right in some circumstances, but my opinion on that doesn’t matter, as I never have to make that choice.)
So while I do not personally like abortion, and am not pro-abortion, my opinion on that is irrelevant. I am pro-choice, and believe that the only person who has a right to make that choice is the one carrying around the fetus in question.
This seems to be the position Dean is trying to articulate, and I think it’s a smart one. It is attractive to people who are personally queasy about abortion, and it counter’s the right’s misguided “allowance of choice is endorsement of choice” message.
your exhibiting what a lot of us call the “ick” factor in your first sentence. hard to define really, but its some kind of fear men get when they talk about the reproductive rights of bodies they don’t inhabit.
you say
the termination of what could be a potential human life. No, I think most people very definitely don’t like that. I know I don’t.
ok, lets talk about your potential human life© concept. isn’t every sperm also a potential human life©? why don’t i hear you expressing the same discomfort regarding your billions of aborted potential human lifes©? or might it be that you’re really not uncomfortable with the loss of potential human life©, you just get all icky feeling when you think about me doing the shedding.
the potential life concept© isn’t valid unless applied selectively, based upon sex. apply it to both? Every sperm is sacred
Are causing an abortion. There are twelve states right now with bills ready to go that would ban abortion throughout pregnancy. That means no pill folks.
Go on. Hug them like the good doctor says.
Artemisia, I’m going to quote you here.
Um….the pill inhibits ovulation and prevents implantation. Not the same thing as abortion.
Or were you being facetious and I’m slow this early in the morning? :^)
Wrong, the pill inhibits implantation and that is why the religious right is opposed to the pill.
It’s an abortion.
That may be what the religious right believes, but that does not make it medically correct.
With regards to combined oral contraceptives: “Estrogens suppress follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and thus prevent the development of a dominant follicle. Estrogens also potentiate the action of the progestin component, which suppresses the luteinizing hormone surge. As a result, even if the estrogen component of OCs does not adequately blunt follicular growth, the action of progestin blocks ovulation. Estrogen also serves to stabilize the endometrial lining, while the progestin contributes to other contraceptive effects on cervical mucus and the endometrium.” (Reference: Dickerson and Bucci. Contraception. In: Pharmacotherapy: A pathophysiologic approach, fifth ed. 2002; 1445-1461.)
Emergency contraception uses the latter effects on mucus and the endometrium to prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum.
If you were to ovulate the pill would prevent implantation – that is why the morning after pill works and why women without access to the morning after pill take two pills when they are worried about possible preganancy.
And with all due respect what the religious right beleives is significant regardless of wether it is based in fact because they run this country. If they decided a pill is an abortion (and they apparently have given that pharmacists are refusing to despence pills) than their perception is the reality.
The fact that there is no god doesn’t stop it from being in the anthem on my money and in my courthouse.
I’m not trying to argue with you, but I hate seeing the inaccuracies and misrepresentations of the religious right perpetuated. The primary mechanism of action for combined oral contraceptives is inhibition of ovulation, with the other contributry effects as noted.
And I agree, their (the RR’s) take on things is significant, even if based on misrepresentations of fact.
Peace.
You’ve also done some very creative quoting of the article. Some very important quotes that you’ve left out:
Sounds an awful lot like what I predicted he’d really meant based on your pulled quote, doesn’t it?
I think Bob Casey’s position is slimy, repulsive misogynism. But Dean can’t exactly talk down a candidate in public. Also note that “respecting” someone’s position is different from agreeing with it or endorsing it. I also respect Casey’s right to hold misogynist beliefs. He’s free to believe what he wants – and I’m free to loathe him for it.
Republicans and the MSM are going to try to use this to smear Dean. Don’t let them. His position seems to be the intelligent one. He’s pro-choice, not pro-abortion.
For his liberal views. Women reading this that feel, as kid oakland said, that this reads like a bad dream, should contact their Party via webplatform on This Page
i mean no offense by saying this so please dont take it that way. but i can’t dance around it either. you are male and you are canadian, yes?
if so, you are removed both emotionally, biologically and also physically from what dream feels, AND FEARS, (a) because you are not female and (b) you are not (i’m assuming) threatened by a change in the U.S. law that affects your basic reproductive rights.
to you this is an issue you cannot live and breathe in her direct manner because you lack the body affected by the threat of change in the law.
you have no “choice” to lose.
Bayprairie, could you please explain this viewpoint of yours — that a non-woman can’t truly understand and shouldn’t have a legal opinion on choice (if that is in fact what you’re saying) — more fully? I have always considered it one of the more confusing arguments out there. After all, it was white people who were put in the position of giving blacks rights; it was men who gave women the right to vote; it was Americans who decided to make war on Japan, a nation none of us could fully “understand”; and now it is U.S. citizens who are being asked to determine the illegal immigration issue. In all of those situations, the majority/privileged party had an opinion on the rights of the minority, because the argument was one of principle and human decency. What makes abortion so different?
I’m asking you with complete sincerity, BTW.
sure i’ll try and its kewl you ask. its late though if i dont do a good job please let me try again tomorrow.
firstly. im not saying a non-woman (can i say man here?) cant understand. your obviously extremely bright and i know you can imagine what it must be like, you can empathize, you can read, you can learn you can put yourself into my place mentally. what i’m saying is though, you are a step removed from my experience which is BODY CENTERED.
you dont “organically” fear the issue.
you can’t give birth. what we are talking about here is women, who can give birth FEARING the goverment MAKING them give birth. pro life to me? well all that means is tom delay tells me i have to have a baby and he writes the rules up so that i have no say so in deciding.
pro life means letting tom delay make my pregancy decisions. pro life is tom delay fucking me over.
you dont get pregant. you dont experience the fear of that that i do.
now, once again, i have not said that that you can’t “understand” this. what im saying is your body doesnt feel it. my fear of their control, and lets be frank. what the right wants is birth control = baby pesticides, they want to put us back where we have 18 children in our reproductive lives read margaret sanger, have no doubt about this. the right wants us barefoot and pregant.
we aint going there again.
choice is exactly that. its about control. no one should be discussing this NO POLITICIANS. this is me and my doctor and maybe, my mother. pro life? thats bullshit.
do you think abortion didnt exist before roe vs wade? do you think it will cease to exist once its outlawed?
oh no, it’ll just be your daughters and your neices and your cousins and people you know who have female relations
who’ll be traumatized.
abortion is thousands of years old. laws wont stop it. why do you think roe was passed in the first place? people got tired of the OUTRAGEOUS DEATHS OF INNOCENT WOMEN who made a mistake and wanted out. you see thats the thing. if you ever get next to women who’ve had abortions and ask them to tell you their stories. in almost every case you’ll see why they did. my point to the men who are concerned about women isnt that you dont get it, its that you need to listen to the women you love!!!!!!! ask them what they think! its their bodies!!!!!
winning doesnt matter to me. i dont care if i win or not. i’ll fight because it sthe right thing to do, and if i lose? well thats fine, it was beyond my control to begin with. but fight i will because its right.
we’re right.
now not talking to you. but to the party. if you push us into a corner?
you will not be able to control what you unleash. think pandoras box. you will be sorry.
i intend to fuck back.
and I actually now at least somewhat agree with what you just said, when I didn’t before.
You just changed a mind. Congratulations. And thanks again.
If you didn’t notice, I’m pro-choice. And what I’m pointing out is so is Governor Dean. The original diarist and the MSM article intentionally misquoted him to make him sound like he was pro-life. I do care about it, precisely because it does affect me – an abortion ban threatens the idea of equal rights, as it claims that women have less rights than men because of something that could potentially eventually be human. Making law to protect “potentials” is also a bad thing – that kind of thinking leads to laws protecting “profit potential” and other such abominations.
Bob Casey can deal with his own conscience,thank you very much, and I will deal with mine.
I would like to know how society benefits from forcing people who are not willing to be parents, to be parents.
I was not willing to be a parent.I was also not willing to give up sex.I had an abortion and I am not one whit sorry,it would have been a disaster for me to be a parent,now or then.I call that responsibility– you weigh your options,and make a decision,based on reality.Idealists or religionists try to make decisions for others based on WISHES. Well, if wishes were horses,then peasants would ride.
thats a great post shycat. i agree 100 and 10 percent. weigh and then select, no politicans involved. like politicans know anything? get real.
when women speak their words, it becomes Our Word.
I feel sorry for Dean. A bare two weeks (or so) ago in the big spread on him in the WaPo.. he rather obvioiusly used his brother Jim to, oh, sorta lob a warning shot out htere… a quote about third parties. It just hung in the air there. And I thought he was possibly on his own, winging it at the NAACP convention… his speech was very direct, open, honest. Hard to believe it was approved…
and.then.this. Not news… been headed this way.
I wish him luck, I really do. But this is why I did not support him to the DNC.. tho I know he will do his best with the state parties and, to the extent he can, the grass roots. He will try…
Jimmie tried to get a few things accomplished at the DNC too, as a sitting president… LOL. It didn’t go well.
I will be reading in 3 years that Dean regrets this…. he will be saying we needed to be smart but to absolutely defend CHOICE, womens’ reproductive rights and autonomy and that people who were personally opposed to abortion could run as candidates but not as ”pro-lifers”, and that they had to accept Roe as ”settled law” in the nation.
This, the way this is unfolding, enables the pro lfie agenda. As I suspect the party intended… LOL. To employ Republican language, to be held hostage to the “pro life” agenda.. well, Dean will regret this. Just as the party pushed aside Hafer, a pro-choice woman to clear the field for Casey.
Does anyone know if Ohio-2’s candidate is a pro lifer ??? Should check, just to see…;) And I have heard every apology/excuse/pushback for shafting contituents that exists… LOL.
Republicans will laugh, they already do, at calling Casey principled but not Santorum. It is actually funny, and, more than anything, very very lame. PA will vote for the Republican who defends his views and that of his party. Highest profile most expensive senate run in ’06 and Dems insist to run a virulent pro-lifer. LOL… well they do bleat name recognition…
I wish Dean luck… always did.
Um… this is Newsday…
before condeming Dean perhaps we should confirm the veracity of this one lone article. Russert did the same to Dean’s words on MTP … media matters picked it up I made a diary.
hmm well it is AP. The Newsday link did not work, I went to the Guardian. I have followed Dean since July 12, 2002 and sadly since election watched the progression of this foolish escapade.
I ahve caught each MTP programme and caught many of the print media reports and his speeches at state Dem party conventions. yes I understand about twisting words.
The campaign the party ahs undertaken will flounder… and I am sorry to see Dean caught in it and particiapting.
YEs those who personally do not believe in abortion may run, but they and the party should nt, and increasingly in sheer panic since Nov 2 have, embrace Republican language and thus endorse, as MORAL, the prolife stance. And thus enable the agenda.
I concede ”moral” to no one, if I do not retain “moral” for myself. My position is a moral one as well.
Casey opposes a woman’s right to choose (this is different from being opposed to abortion) as a religious belief he seeks to impose… and tries to sell it as ”moral”. He also supports legal protection for the fetus from conception. Think about that.
Dean will regret this… Pity. I am not ”condeming” him, I have an opinion, well founded too.
I still don’t get it.
Nothing has changed, he has been saying this for almost a year. Why the sudden realization now?
sorry Parker. I have made myself clear… each time there is a small new wrinkle… now he seeks to differentiate Casey from Santorum over “pro-life”. The very phrase is R construct…
Dean is defending a candidate who opposes a woman’s right to choose. A candidate who supports legal protection for the fetus from conception… These two expressed political positions are not being “personally opposed to abortion but supporting Roe as settled law”. Further, Dean now states specifically and individually wrt Casey that his position is “moral”
You are fine with these statements, I am not.
We disagree. So what.
What do you expect Dean to do, stand up in public and say “Casey’s a fucking crappy candidate, and I’d rather you voted for Santorum or stayed home, because I don’t want that misogynist twit in the Senate calling himself a Democrat”? No chance.
He also doesn’t say that Casey’s position is “moral”. That’s a deliberate misquoting. What he does say is that Casey’s position is a “position of conscience”. Which is a very verbose way of saying nothing at all.
In short, he’s trying to avoid smearing a Democratic candidate in public, and the MSM’s trying to use that to drive a wedge between him and the base.
And people here seem perfectly willing to believe them, instead of actually reading Dean’s quotes, which say exactly the opposite:
Sounds an awful lot like he’s pro-choice to me, doesn’t it?
LOL… I am massively disinterested that you disagree vehemently with me, with my political opinion of the mess that is unfolding. You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled ot mine… tho it gets misstated over and over. ‘Condemning”… no . Late “realisation” no. I keep up.
And now you with your exasperation. I know Dean is in a tough spot. I feel sorry for him. But this was predictable.
As for ”conscience” v ‘moral” Dems in the HOuse were released (big deal they vote how they want, too many with Bush) on Schiavo to vote their ‘conscience” (47 voted “with Bush”)
But split a hair iwth a machete. If you ahve the time… I don’t, so this is the last on this long nasty PA pirouette. The party looks desperate…
of course Dean is pro-choice. Little you can tell me about Dean/positions/policies. Sorry…this got silly two posts ago.
You hve nice day now… 😉
Yeah, Marisacat, you’re an old-school Deaniac, aren’t you? I seem to recall you were already a respected community member at Dean Nation when I started posting there in December 2002. Is my memory right?
Which doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to criticize him — I’ve done the same for many mistakes in is campaign.