From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Democrats, Their Apologists and Abortion
If nothing else, the Democratic Party was at least pro-choice—or so we were told. Ever since Ronald Reagan heralded the rise of social troglodytes in the early eighties, liberal leaders have scolded into line those disgusted with the Democrats’ support for foreign wars, “welfare reform,” and anti-gay legislation by insisting that the Democratic Party was all that stood between women seeking abortion and the Republican barbarians howling at the gates. For twenty-five years, the Democratic mantra on the eve of every election was, “Don’t forget the Supreme Court!” to those considering bolting from the Democrats to support a third-party candidate or just plain bolting. The argument was clear that not voting for Democrats was tantamount to handing over the High Court to the right wing. It almost went without saying that unless the Democrats got elected to Congress, the state house, the school board, or whatever, women’s right to choose would be eroded and then eliminated.
The jig is up. In January, it was Kerry and Hillary and the gang phoning in a thirty-minute filibuster before the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Court, posturing against the anti-choice nominee just long enough to provide ad footage for their reelection campaigns. Then, Democrats in South Dakota helped both to sponsor and pass the law banning abortion in South Dakota. “So much for the notion that Democrats are pro-choice and Republicans are pro-life,” Democratic state representative Gil Koetzle smirked to the Associated Press. State senator Paul Symens, another Democrat, actually complained that his party wasn’t getting enough media coverage for its support of the ban. Now, all nine Democratic women in the Senate have signed a letter of support for Pennsylvania anti-choice senatorial candidate Bob Casey Jr.
South Dakota’s law is a sweeping anti-abortion measure, banning virtually all abortions, and includes language that could effectively outlaw some forms of contraception. The law—which goes into effect July 1—states that “life begins at the time of conception.” Doctors who act in defiance of the law face a minimum of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine, unless an abortion is necessary to save the woman’s life.
One of the bill’s sponsors, Democratic state senator Julie Bartling, said the time is right for a total ban on abortion. “In my opinion, it is the time for this South Dakota legislature to deal with this issue and protect the rights and lives of unborn children,” she told reporters. Senators voted down a proposed amendment that would have made an exception to protect the pregnant woman’s health. A proposed exception in cases of rape—raised by a Republican—lost in a twenty-one to fourteen vote. In the state Senate, the ban initially passed by a margin of eighteen to fifteen, the minimum number of “yes” votes needed. That means that a “no” vote from even one Democratic state senator could have killed the measure. Out of the eighteen who voted for the bill in the Senate, five of the “yes” votes came from Democrats.
Read More
http://counterpunch.org/wolf04262006.html
South Dakota’s law is a sweeping anti-abortion measure, banning virtually all abortions, and includes language that could effectively outlaw some forms of contraception. The law—which goes into effect July 1—states that “life begins at the time of conception.” Doctors who act in defiance of the law face a minimum of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine, unless an abortion is necessary to save the woman’s life.
One of the bill’s sponsors, Democratic state senator Julie Bartling, said the time is right for a total ban on abortion. “In my opinion, it is the time for this South Dakota legislature to deal with this issue and protect the rights and lives of unborn children,” she told reporters. Senators voted down a proposed amendment that would have made an exception to protect the pregnant woman’s health. A proposed exception in cases of rape—raised by a Republican—lost in a twenty-one to fourteen vote. In the state Senate, the ban initially passed by a margin of eighteen to fifteen, the minimum number of “yes” votes needed. That means that a “no” vote from even one Democratic state senator could have killed the measure. Out of the eighteen who voted for the bill in the Senate, five of the “yes” votes came from Democrats.
Read More
http://counterpunch.org/wolf04262006.html
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
You have lived your whole life in this country and don't realize what this is a federaton which holds few nationwide elections and does nto realy have national parties.
What you are complaining about is the downside of democracy. That "the people" get to make the decisions even when they are (in your opinion) wrong. In this case we are talking about the people of South Dakota who are apparently overwhelmingly opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. That's why even some democratic state senators voted the way they did, becuase of what THE PEOPLE of their districts wanted.
Get it? In South Dakota, some Democrat politicians will vote against abortion. In other parts of the country, some Republican politicians will vote in favor of allowing abortions because that's the what the people of their district want. National parties can try to kick out such "mavericks" who get in the way of national party platforms by running "loyal" cnadiates against them in primaries but it ain't easy to win those fights. Get it? In any district where a politician of party X consistently votes against a national platform plank the reality is in THAT district any candidate running on that plank can't win election even for dogcatcher.
What you are complaining about is the downside of democracy. That "the people" get to make the decisions even when they are (in your opinion) wrong. In this case we are talking about the people of South Dakota who are apparently overwhelmingly opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. That's why even some democratic state senators voted the way they did, becuase of what THE PEOPLE of their districts wanted.
Get it? In South Dakota, some Democrat politicians will vote against abortion. In other parts of the country, some Republican politicians will vote in favor of allowing abortions because that's the what the people of their district want. National parties can try to kick out such "mavericks" who get in the way of national party platforms by running "loyal" cnadiates against them in primaries but it ain't easy to win those fights. Get it? In any district where a politician of party X consistently votes against a national platform plank the reality is in THAT district any candidate running on that plank can't win election even for dogcatcher.
Abortion should be opposed by Democrats - and all those opposed to human rights abuses. The killing of the unborn is a violent act. It takes life. Late term abortion is both cruel and barbaric.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network