Via Feministing, this AP story reports on a Center for Reproductive Rights report on what would happen if Roe is overturned.
It concluded that 21 states are at high risk, and nine states at middle risk, of banning abortion within a year of Roe being overturned. More than 70 million women of childbearing age would be affected, the center said.
Another 20 states, including Massachusetts, which has a pre-Roe ban, would probably retain abortion rights because of other statutory protections or the makeup of their legislatures.
Two quick points.
1) The article says “It is believed that five of the nine justices support abortion rights, but that balance could be tipped if President Bush, in a second term, nominates a new justice who reflects his antiabortion views.” However, unless someone’s switched sides recently, there are currently six votes in favor of Roe/Casey, and only three votes to overturn. So it would take two Bush appointments to change that balance.
However, it would take only one Bush appointment to make the recent “partial-birth” abortion ban legal. Bas as that would be, however, it’s not the same as overturning Roe.
2) Everyone seems to agree that if Roe were overturned, the pro-lifers would be unable or unwiling to make a serious attempt to ban all abortoin, nationwide, at the federal level. Why? The pro-lifers have made it clear that they think they have a right to ban “partial-birth” abortion at the federal level, and to date no court has disagreed with them (the PBA ban has been found unconstitutional on a few different grounds, but never on “state’s rights” grounds).
If Roe is overturned, there would be enourmous pressure from the pro-life grassroots to ban abortion nationwide via a Federal ban, and I don’t think pro-lifers in Congress would be able to resist that, even if they wanted to. I assume that Democrats would filibuster any such law in the Senate – but if the Republian majority in the Senate increases by six or ten seats, we could see abortion banned nationwide.
Gotta go – more later.
I keep hearing that a majority of Americans (and even a majority of Republicans) support abortion rights, but WHERE THE HELL ARE THESE PEOPLE at election time? Roe has made the world Safe for Hypocrisy. Once people actually begin feeling trapped by a lack of abortion rights, real political pressure might finally build to support the pro-choice cause.
So Bush – Yeah, I’m talkin’ ta you! – forget the Supreme Court. Wanna take this outside and settle abortion rights once and for all in the public square?
…Bring it on….
I really don’t think it will happen. No matter who Bush appoints. The Supreme Court will be lynch-mobbed if such a decision were handed down. It is completely politically out-of-sync. Never. Believe me guys. Don’t worry about this one… Worry about the war
Abortion is quickly turning into the war on drugs–everyone thinks abortion and drugs should be legal, but saying so brands you as a deviant so no one will actually come out and say so. In this atmosphere, abortion could very well become illegal.
I’m opposed to this administration for so many reasons, but I don’t actually think they are going to ban abortion, and here’s why – everything for these guys is about keeping power, and I think pro-lifers are more valuable to them as an unsatisfied constituency than they are as a group happy because they got their way. I may be way off base here, but I’ve been having a small amount of success talking to pro-lifers about how the Republican party uses abortion as a political football to keep single issue pro-life people as a group they don’t have to worry about. They didn’t write an unconstitutional ban on “PBA” by accident.
(And when I say small amount of success, I mean I can approach the topic with a few pro-lifers I know without hearing the phrase “baby killers” every few seconds. I haven’t won anyone over yet, but at least I have been able to open up the topic for discussion.)
I’m with most of the commentators– I suspect they’ll do flashy things about banning abortion (PBA equivalents and the like) before each election, but they don’t want to win. Republicans would rather keep their supporters agitated and dependent on their efforts, constantly backing them in their unending quest for “unborn people’s rights”.
…the Republican party uses abortion as a political football to keep single issue pro-life people as a group they don’t have to worry about…
…Republicans would rather keep their supporters agitated and dependent on their efforts, constantly backing them in their unending quest for “unborn people’s rights”…
And Democrats can also use the threat of a Right Wing Supreme Court and an end to legalized abortion to keep feminists in line and firmly embedded in the bosom of a party that mostly treats feminist issues as a joke. As they have for the past few years with great success. And hey, let’s not even talk about the many regions of the country in which abortion might as well be illegal now (as well as it was under that great friend of women, Bill Clinton), since it’s already inaccessable if you don’t have the means to travel.
With “friends” like these etc. etc…
So, alsis38, are you suggesting we should vote Republican instead? On the one side there is a party that treats feminists issues like a joke, on the other is the side that doesn’t even acknowledge that there are feminist issues. I’ll take pragmatism over idealism to get Bush out of office.
“I keep hearing that a majority of Americans (and even a majority of Republicans) support abortion rights, but WHERE THE HELL ARE THESE PEOPLE at election time?”
I keep hearing just the opposite. People, especially if they don’t really care, tend to tell you what you want to hear. If you ask “Don’t you think that women should be allowed to choose what happens to their own bodies?” You get an, “of course.” If you ask the same person “Don’t you think we need to protect the unborn b/c they can’t protect themselves?” You get another, “of course.”
Jeez, m, there’s an inspirational[sic] rallying cry I’ve only heard about 968,567,236 times in the twenty-plus years that I’ve been voting. Frankly, it’s gotten more than a little tedious. Women’s rights and the social safety net in this country have erroded steadily in the last two decades regardless of which loaded White Guy has been in charge. I’m not going to be scared anymore into supporting the two-party duopoly by either Republicans or Democrats. I’m far more interested in building alternatives, as would be the mainstream feminist movement if it weren’t such a bunch of complacent, out-of-touch twerps.
Frankly, I am less concerned with how people vote next month than with what they will do to press for election reform in this country once Election Day is over. Every four years, with abortion or some other key issue as a rallying point, I am treated to the same bunch of smug whining and panic-mongering from NOW and others who claim to represent me about how the system is rigged for the two-party shared monopoly, how there is nothing that can be done about this and how I’d better just knuckle under to it like a good little serf or I’ll end up bleeding to death in a back-alley.
The thought of such a fate doesn’t appeal to me, but I won’t live in fear. I’ve grown damn tired of that as the years have gone by. Sadly, as long as the abortion issue is callously exploited by both parties to manipulate American women, we will in fact end up behaving as if we really are only wombs that happen to walk and talk, just as the Right wing always said we were. Every other issue of concern and importance will end up being thrown over the side to try and save a right that is only a bargaining chip to the rich and privileged to be used against the desperate.
What this country really needs is a Feminist Party, but I don’t expect it to come from Smeal, Steinem, and their ilk. They are too embedded, too cozy with the Democrats, too frightened of pissing off the powerful with whom they curry favor with year after year under the current system even as the glass ceiling in the Democratic Party remains a disgraceful and highly visible symbol to any woman with her eyes open. Such a movement will have to percolate at the local level. To seek it at the national level seems hopeless.
Here. (Bolds are mine.) She says it better than I ever could:
A Revitalized Women’s Movement ? Let’s Hope So
“…During the 2000 Presidential Election, many mainstream feminists viciously attacked Ralph Nader for running for President as a Green Party Candidate, despite feminism being one of the party’s key principles. The feminist movement itself was on the receiving end of such invective in the summer of 1989 when NOW delegates who were disgusted with the Democrats proposed an exploratory committee to discuss the possibility of launching a third party that would not only speak to specific women’s issues, but would address militarism, racism, and poverty. After the media, which usually ignored NOW, castigated them for daring to toy with such an idea, feminist leaders publicly distanced themselves from the proposal. (7) NOW briefly considered the idea of forming a third party again in 1992. (8)
What happened to those days when we had standards: when we dreamed? Now, as Bush seeks to corrode the one square foot of ground that we stand tiptoed on, we have a tougher fight because there wasn’t a battle for more when we had two square feet: just a battle in Congress by professional lobbyists to keep what little we had, and if it was chipped away by Democrats we were supposed to look away and pretend that it did not happen. The mainstream feminist leadership became apologists for the rich, white men (the Democrats) who enabled the Republicans to launch these latest assaults on our rights. If the definition of feminism is the end to sexism, then frankly, this mode of thinking is anti-feminist. If I divorced a man because he was taking my money and denying me my basic rights, I cannot see any of these women telling me to marry one of his brothers, yet after eight years of Clinton, that is what the mainstream feminist movement wanted us to do, and they want us to do it now in 2004…
Not being an anarchist or third-party type, I would have to go with the pragmatic position that some of what you want is better than none of what you want. alsis probably lives in a safe blue state and doesn’t risk being called a baby-killing slut if she states publicly that she supports legalized abortion. I live in Missouri.
Do both sides choose hot-button arguments to get out the vote and dollars? Of course.
If Roe v Wade were overturned, I think that it would be impossible for the Republican legislators to avoid bringing federal abortion ban bills, however much they might prefer not to. Their constituents, at least those that vote in primaries, would force them to bring such bills. And then the legislators would face the wrath of the general electorate. So my take is that the R. legislators prefer the current situation, where they can blame the courts and avoid getting into sticky situations by their own votes and bills.
Have I mentioned lately how much I fucking hate the term “safe” state ?
Oregon is a wretched state job-wise, whipsawed as it is between the whims of the timber and high-tech industries. It was the worst state in the nation in terms of folk going to bed hungry (through most if not all of the Golden Age[sic] of Clinton) until earlier this year when it was knocked into second place by Nancy’s very own Alabama. Yipee. I’m so fucking proud.
The degree to which we are ahead of Alabama on social issues like LGBT rights corresponds directly to the proportion in which voters concentrated in the Portland-Metro area and possibly a few “enlightened” areas like Ashland and Eugene can outnumber and overwhelm the much more conservative population that makes up the rest of the state. This leads to no small amount of ill will between urban and rural voters, as you might guess. It also explains why we have one anti-gay ballot measure after another come down the plank each and every election year, and why it takes huge sums of money to knock them down again and again, usually by painfully small margins.
And, of course, Oregon is not a “safe” state if you want to vote for a 3rd Party candidate that Democratic high-rollers despise. Just ask our Secretary of State.
It’s not merely a question of all of what I want vs. none of what I want, Nancy. It’s a question of how anyone can expect to ever win more than just the bare minimum in the political game when all their energies are concentrated on playing defense. This is a dangerous question to ponder, of course. Once I started, it’s easy to notice that a lot of the defensive players don’t really want to stick their necks out enough to play serious offense, no matter which party is holding the top office. The behavior of groups like NOW under Clinton is testimony to this fact. As Baker pointed out, it shouldn’t matter whether it’s Democrats or Republicans shafting women and pushing us around. It shouldn’t matter whether the Right is operating on its own or being cynically used as a boogeyman by Democrats to continue securing their own power. And yet it does matter to the women running the mainstream feminist movement in this country, because they value their own livlihood much more than they value women at the grassroots level. Like Baker, I have little faith anymore in their willingness/ability or that of their masters’ to save my ass.
D’oh !! Sorry, Nancy. I must’ve been confusing your residence with that of another poster. :o
Alsis, I agree with you completely. Keep not pulling punches! Mainstream feminists need to be taken to task if they’re supporting, even bullying other feminists to vote for, candidates that don’t represent our interests just because the other side tends to be more overtly against our interests.
And voting Democrat is the way to keep our choices safe? Huh. Clinton (Welfare Reform, NAFTA, making abortion less available), Carter (banned abortions for military wives), and Gore (voted Scalia in) tell me otherwise.
But it’s not just the little carrot on the end of a stick of “abortion will be safe if you vote our way” that ticks me off. It’s also the scare tactic of “we’ll go back to back-alley abortions if you DON’T vote our way!” How’s that so different from Cheney telling us that if we don’t make “the right choice” then we will asplode?
I’m making the right choice, and the right choice has EARNED my vote.
How many caught Bush’s pledge to overturn Roe v. Wade in the debate last night? Probably no one who doesn’t spend a little time looking at the anti-choice zealots when they are speaking to themselves.
What do I mean? He pledge no litmus test (reassuring pro-choice Republican women) while promising to not appoint any Dred Scott type judges, telling all the anti-choice people that he does have a litmus test and it’s abortion. The anti-choice crowd think of themselves as new abolitionists. They say Roe v. Wade is the 20th century Dred Scott. And this remark was directed right at them, promsing to overturn Roe v. Wade by assuring them that his no litmus test rhetoric was only rhetoric.
no apologies needed, alsis. Missouri isn’t so different from Alabama. After all, we still have a sodomy law in place, and it too will be reactivated as soon as Bush’s Supreme Court picks overturn Lawrence v Texas. MO merely has a few larger metro areas, and the religiosity trends Catholic, Pentecostal, and conservative non-denominational, and not S. Baptist. Yes, the rural MO politicians and voters tend to resent the black gay Jewish abortionists that make up the entire population of St. Louis. So what’s new?
Welcome to the Republic of Gilead.
Well, as long as I’ve already committed irreversable feminist heresy by abandoning the Democrats, I might as well compound said heresy by declaring that I never liked that damn book, either. :p
One more heresy, alsis–Gloria Steinam just signed a letter asking people not to vote for Ralph Nader: http://feministing.com/archives/000515.html
I’m far more interested in building alternatives
Me too. So what should I do *this* election? Vote for Ralph “Gonadal Politics” Nader? I don’t think so.
Oohhhh, Steinem is kissing Kerry’s ass. I’m shocked. The woman is calcified up to her neck. Her organization is bought and paid for by Democrats. To Hell with her.
mythago, if that’s the best you can do… one more cheap shot at Nader –over a four-and-a-half-year-old moment of boorishness which he susequently apologized for and clarified– while you aparently don’t care that Kerry voted for Scalia and the rest of the Rightie evil Supreme Court judges that he’s now supposed to save us from, I doubt you really give two shits and a fuck about seriously finding any alternative to the duopoly now or ever. You could start by reading that link I provided. Otherwise, do your own damn homework. I haven’t got time today to spoon-feed you more stuff you’d just turn up your nose at anyway.
mythago, if that’s the best you can do
Oh, I’m sorry, was this alt.flame? Here I thought you were talking about alternatives to DemoRepublicrats, rather than having a tantrum at anyone who refuses to kiss Nader‘s ass rather than worship him simply because he’s neither Bush nor Kerry. My bad.
When you really are interested in alternatives instead of blind loyalty, I’d be interested to hear them. Apologia for Nader (and I remember his ‘clarification,’ thankyouverymuch) don’t interest me, and don’t offer any guidance for THIS election. Again.
Your link was very interesting, but perhaps I should break it down a little: I have this absentee ballot sitting in front of me. If Kerry is no better than Bush, for whom should I vote?
How about Cobb ? C’mon, mythago. Don’t jerk my chain. You don’t want to vote for anyone in this race but Kerry. Fine. But even if you think that Nader’s the biggest asshole who ever lived, he’s not the only person out there calling for reform at all levels of government. He’s only the most prominent.
As I told NancyP and Mustang one election thread ago, I don’t expect anyone to vote for Nader if they don’t want to. However, I object to double standards that make Nader’s minor offenses out to be of somehow far greater magnitude than Kerry’s far more major ones. I find this ridiculous and insulting. I also don’t see why I should waste effort digging around for links that try and explain my POV or that to my mind, debunk a great many Democratic lies about Nader (and don’t kid yourself. If Nader wasn’t in the race, they’d be vilifying the shit out of Cobb and anyone else they couldn’t bully back into the fold) only to have NancyP call me a liar. Oh, I’m sorry. First she called me a liar. Then when I proved that I wasn’t, I was treated by her to a bunch of pious, patronizing finger-wagging as if I were a three-year-old who was freshly fallen off the turnip truck.
I’ve said it repeatedly. The answers lie with issues like IRV, election reform, etc etc. But excuse me if I’m losing interest in talking reform with people who alternate between treating me like a liar or a three-year-old and who want to mutter darkly about “Gilhead” without acknowledging the part our supposed allies have played in its formation.
I could die because Roe is overturned. It’s not likely, but it’s possible. I could also die because the healthcare in this country sucks ass, because it would be easy for terrorists to crash a plane into a local chemical plant, because of global warming, and a host of other reasons. I don’t know how much more clearly I can explain that while abortion is an important issue, I will not be held hostage by it nor by anyone.
Anyone who coldly behaves as if to be held hostage by it is the best fate I should expect in this life is not my ally. They are not my friend. I don’t care if they’re Ralph Reed or Gloria Steinem or any number of their apologists or followers or anyone idealogically in between. A person who wants me to throw my whole life and future away in an attempt to preserve on paper a right that should be mine with no questions asked is not my ally and not my friend.
Screw that, mythago. If I die, I die. There will be millions, perhaps, in the same boat I am who will die. Millions already have. Nothing special about it at all. :(
You don’t want to vote for anyone in this race but Kerry.
I’d ask for a refund on that No-Fail Telepathy Course, if I were you.
I also don’t see why I should waste effort digging around for links that try and explain my POV
Did I ask for links, studies or statistics? No, I asked you for information about alternatives. If it’s too much effort for you to get over your snit at NancyP long enough to be informative to somebody who is ASKING for information, then, how do we say in homeschooling, you missed the teachable moment.
Of course it’s not your JOB to teach us poor lumpenproletariat the error of our ways. But we’re sure less likely to see the Righteous Path if you tell us you can’t be bothered.
you missed the teachable moment.
Fuck off.
Failing that, you could try plugging “Money Is Not Democracy” or “Common Cause” or “Public Citizen” or “United States Green Party” or “Instant Runoff Voting” or “Center for Voting and Democracy” into your search engine and doing some general reading.
Your game is rigged. If I tell you I don’t care who you vote for for President, I’m the loser. If I tell you I do care… I’m still the loser. I don’t feel like playing with you any more. If you are smart enough to read this site, you are smart enough to find these other sites yourself. If you are interested in reform at either the national or local level, this will get you started. Of course, if you are having this argument in bad faith, as I believe you are, you won’t bother. It’s not my responsibility either way. You want to behave like a shithead, feel free. Either way, no matter who wins, the real fight only begins when this election is over. How much part you want to take in that fight is your own decision, not mine.
Considering that Bush promised to vote for someone who will overturn Roe v Wade in the debates, I would go ahead and vote for Kerry, myth. I mean, if it’s just a matter of personal fear, it doesn’t matter if abortion is made illegal–I can’t get pregnant myself. But hey, I’m a liberal–hearts gotta bleed. I care about others and don’t want there to be more women out there who want abortions but can’t have them.
It will be nice if Sen. Kerry is elected and if he and the Democrats prove worthy of your trust. I doubt that he and the Democrats will, especially when Supreme time rolls around. Sen. Kerry’s record vis-a-vis Supreme Court nominations and his general relationship with Republicans over the past few years would seem to imply that your faith is misplaced. However, it would be awfully, awfully nice.
[waves around ceramic donkey full of incense. thinks faithful, serene thoughts. votes 3rd Party.]
You are making it sound like you expect Kerry to appoint Scalia Pt. II to the Supreme Court. One thing I have “faith” that he will do is appoint someone with a sensibility towards civil rights that isn’t a villian straight out of Dickens novel.
Sure he will, Amanda. Maybe Lani Gunier will make her big comeback. Whatever.
Jokes about Scalia aside, it’s a fact that Kerry confirmed him, as did a great many Democrats. Those who enable “villains straight out of Dickens novels” aren’t really much better than “villains” themselves, as far as I’m concerned. Certainly not good enough to for me to continue –borrowing a phrase from mythago– putting “blind faith” in.
Even if Kerry loses, House and Senate Democrats –even in a minority– could cause a great deal of trouble and embarassment to Bush should he drag out one of these “villains” for confirmation. But I get the feeling that the average die-hard Democratic voter doesn’t really have any more hope that this could happen than I do. The very exageration and intensity of their pinned hopes on someone as demonstrably lukewarm on feminism, civil rights, and a great many other rights (Patriot Act, anyone ?) as Kerry would seem to demonstrate that.
As for me, I’ve got to dig out my voter’s pamphlet and see if the Libertarian running against Bradbury for Secretary of State is pro-choice. I already know that the Republican running isn’t. Mark your calendars, Folks. This may be the first and last time in the history of humanity that I actually vote for a Libertarian. At least I hope so. I’d prefer to vote for Greens if the party can maintain any kind of organized presence in the state.
I do understand your frustration–we all do. But I find that I can’t get too upset at baby steps. In all honesty, it seems like I’m not doing the right thing by those who fought a century to give me the vote by using it to make a statement that is, in all practicality, going to work towards scaling back what rights women have won.
Alsis, I would take a step back and consider what you’re saying here. Kerry is not a progressive feminist’s dream, but neither is Ralph Nader. In a pipe dream world where Nader won, he would still be completely ineffective fighting for women’s rights. Kerry has done more for women in his career than Nader has ever done. Sometimes I get the feeling that what people are angry with is not the Democrats, but just the idea of a two-party system. Okay, well I can understand why that’s frustrating, but in the grand scheme of things, that we have a two-party system is not as relevant an issue as other issues.
The very structure of our government encourages two-party systems. If we want more choice, it is not enough to keep running ineffectual third party candidates that only work to consolidate party for a radical right wing. We have to address the structure of our government.
Kerry has done more for women in his career than Nader has ever done.
Excuse me ? [raises eyebrow]
If we want more choice, it is not enough to keep running ineffectual third party candidates that only work to consolidate party for a radical right wing. We have to address the structure of our government.
First of all, I’m really sick of hearing about how 3rd Parties “consolidate” power for the radical right, or whatever. It’s the spinelessness and pitiful lack of stones on behalf of the Democrats which has done that. Nobody told Gore that he had to roll over and play dead in 2000 or run such a shit-ass campaign in the first place. Nobody told Democrats they had to rubber-stamp the Patriot Act, authorize Bush to wage war over the objections of their own constituents, vote for his tax bill, etc etc. Spread the blame around a little, would you ? Because I’m really not interested in hearing about how helpless the Democrats were to do anything much beyond playing “Me, Too” for the last four years. What did Bush do, get Rove to practice mass-hypnosis and put drugs in the Senate caffeteria’s casseroles ? Never mind, don’t answer that. I really don’t want to give those assholes any more creative excuses. I’m tired of their excuses and seeing them find fault with everyone except themselves.
Second of all, there is no way to under the current system to raise money and get on state ballots without running candidates for office. This is one of the reasons I am torn between Cobb and Nader. I understood when Nader ran as a Green to try and get the party onto the national radar –which, let’s face it, he did. His current strategy I don’t understand quite so much. Then again, Cobb’s strategy isn’t perfectly fathomable to me either, for other reasons. Thank NOTA I still have a few weeks left to try and figure something out. In any case, if candidates cannot run, their parties cannot get national attention, or local, for that matter. Their candidates cannot get money, either, unless they start out millionaires a la’ Perot. (No wonder I’m incensed with Bradbury’s meddling in Oregon with Nader’s campaign. Bradbury has essentially fired a warning shot in the air over any and all future local candidates in the state. You know, the ones who everyone “sensible” says should be running instead of Nader to prove the worth of 3rd parties, as if the odds weren’t already stacked against them. It’s one of the many reasons why I really can’t think of any Democrat as my friend anymore no matter how many times he or she swears to defend Roe. Of what use is choice in one arena at the expense of choices in all other arenas ? Especially when the choice almmost literally exists only on paper for far too many women…) Ergo, there is no way to address the governmental structure without candidates running.
Yeah, I am frustrated, like everybody. I tried it the “proper” way during the primaries, which now seems like a pointless exercise in which I and others got quite coldly and deliberately conned in a big shell game. Kucinich caved just like 99% of the liberal-Left always does. It seems to me that we are all powerless, that our powerlessness is repeatedly rubbed in our faces by those purporting to be our friends. The only power that remains short of staying home is the power to say “No” and I mean to exercise it for the sake of my own sanity if nothing else.
It really doesn’t matter to me if Nader doesn’t have proper feminist cred (which says as much about mainstream feminism’s obliviousness toward class issues as it says about Nader’s alleged obliviousness to feminism). It really doesn’t matter to me if he’s the biggest asshole to ever stalk the American landscape, frankly. If I decide to vote for him because he says the things that nobody else as prominent on the liberal-Left as he has the nerve to say –things that need to be said, desperately– then I guess it means that you have to be an asshole to have any courage in this country these days. [Shrug.] Fine. I’d rather vote for an asshole than a stooge, which is all Kerry amounts to in my eyes.
Can I break into the Democrats vs. third party flame war to ask a question about a matter of fact?
Clinton (Welfare Reform, NAFTA, making abortion less available),
What’s this about Clinton making abortion less available? I thought the only things he had changed related to abortion were to remove the global gag rule and appoint an attorney general who made defending abortion clinics a higher priority than Republican attorney generals have (both since changed back, of course). Am I woefully misinformed, or missing something major? (Serious question; I’m not super well informed on recent developments in the abortion battle.)
Seriously–I think the biggest issue is that our winner-takes-all political system has made 3rd party candidates unrealistic. So either work to change the system or vote for one of the two parties. And voting for 3rd parties is not working to change the system, because it does nothing to change the underpinnings that make 3rd parties untenable.
It does mean a lot to me that if I’m to throw my vote to a candidate who has no chance of winning that I can at least say that candidate stands for something that is impossible to get with any major candidates. As for feminism, Kerry may not be marching in a pro-choice rally, but I honestly think that he’s going to do what he thinks is best for women. Yes, he doesn’t hang that out for everyone to see and that’s a shame, but that’s politics.
And it’s not *just* reproductive rights but my question is this–why all of a sudden should feminists be ashamed to act as if we are in an emergency situation when it comes to reproductive rights? Without basic reproductive rights, most other pro-woman legislation is utterly meaningless. After all, efforts to break down, say wage inequity, are utterly meaningless if most women are stuck caring for children they don’t want. It’s a stark, ugly fact that 1st you control your reproduction and then you have time and energy for other things. When I see evidence that women can achieve any other equality while having their reproductive rights severely restricted, then I might be open to it.
But then again, probably only because my boyfriend got sterilized so we don’t have to worry about it. I’m free to treat these things casually because they don’t affect me.
So either work to change the system or vote for one of the two parties.
Am I talking to myself here ? Aparently.
“Second of all, there is no way to under the current system to raise money and get on state ballots without running candidates for office.
Under current election law, there is simply NO WAY TO DO ONE OF THESE THINGS WITHOUT THE OTHER, AMANDA !!! Campaigns need money and they need visibility and the only way to begin the process is to run candidates !! What part of that don’t you understand ?!?!
Oh, wait. You’re relying on our collective goodwill and sincerity to persuade Democrats and Republicans to create a fertile field for 3rd Parties. We have nowhere to appeal for this but to them, and somehow, like magic, they’re allllll gonna’ roll out of bed next Thursday and oblige us if we just submit to them some more and think some more good thoughts. Riiiiiiight…
[beats head on keyboard some more]
Whatever, Amanda. Just keep repeating your mantra over and over again. Knock yourself out. Enjoy the perpetual “emergency” (ignoring all other “emergencies” out there) and to use it as an excuse to continue interpreting “realistic” in whatever fashion you like that allows you to keep up your love affair with the status quo. As for me, I wonder what will happen in about twenty-two years when my childbearing years are offically over and all the other social, economic and environmental problems that have been allowed to fester and grow under the two-party system are very much life-and-death problems.
I really need to learn to save my fucking breath.
however, neither of the two major parties have the least bit of interest in changing the winner-take-all system — to the contrary, they both profit from it, since it reduces their competition and guarantees the political landscape will not greatly change from its present state. hence, voting for either of the two majors is not working to change this system, either.
…
i’ve privately been calling this year’s election since some time in 2002. it’s going to Bush. this is because it would take a landslide to defeat the current bunch of republicans — that, after all, is what the 2000 election proved beyond any doubt. and since i first realized this i have seen no indication that the democrats understand it, or that they are capable of pulling off a landslide victory. winning by any less than a landslide will not make Kerry president, not while Karl Rove is still employed in politics, and Kerry’s not sliding any great deal of land in the polls i’m seeing.
therefore, Bush will win this election, and i’ve been quite confident of that for a couple of years already. it’s the 2008 election that has me antsy.
I’m not relying on anything–there’s no reason for the Democrats to take progressives seriously if we ditch at the first sign that we won’t get everything we want. Far right-wingers realized that working with the party was a better way to get what they wanted that creating ineffective 3rd parties, and look what they got–a President willing to cater to some of their more outrageous demands! Hell, how many hundreds of thousands of women have they managed to kill with self-righteous anti-abortion policies enacted globally?
It’s not a mantra–Democratic politicians are not automans. If they can be bent right, they can be bent left, but they won’t be bent left by people who see them as unbendable.
Look, when I say that a two-party system is unavoidable, I don’t mean because of money or because our two parties make it that way. For one thing, the Republicans clearly think two parties is one party too many. No, I mean that if your party doesn’t win, you are powerless. Until you can find a way to change that, you better work with the existing parties or be banished to pouting ineffectively.
Like it or not, I don’t think that it’s such a bad deal to have someone in office who is committed to reproductive rights and is willing to work, albeit slowly, towards some kind of wage equity. Especially if my only real alternative is someone who is trying to take away even those “small” things. I know I’m not convincing you anytime soon, but I’m not talking out of my ass either. I live in a state where the Republicans have put all their effort into reducing us to one party. You think only having two is bad? Wait until there’s only one.
so vote republican. then, your party will win, and you will presumably not be powerless.
it’s not republicans who think there’s one party too many — this notion is a logical extension of the mindset that thinks winning is everything, therefore one must vote for a winner.
the mere fact that i voted for a candidate does nothing to make that candidate “mine”. the candidate who would actually represent my interests might not have any hope of winning, but switching my vote to the winner will not ensure my interests will therefore be represented.
there’s no reason for the Democrats to take progressives seriously if we ditch at the first sign that we won’t get everything we want.
The party has been sliding further and further to the Right now for about three decades, Amanda. Your method has been tried and tried repeatedly. It’s not working. Stick with it if you want. I’ll try it my way. Your “small gains” and “slow progress” are slipping away and have been for quite some time and this has been happening with the cooperation of the party you maintain such faith in. My feeling is that there’s nothing to lose by trying an alternative. We are already in the process of losing what we’ve gained. The difference in how fast we are losing it is largely a matter of different varieties of sugar coating. That’s all.
Wait until there’s only one.
For all intents and purposes, there are portions of the country where this is already the case. :( Try looking up the term “shared monopoly.” That’s what we’ve got. I don’t think your method is working. Once upon a time, your method was tried by a contingent of grassroots organizers who called themselves The Rainbow Coalition. They didn’t prevail against the moneymen in the DLC. They were immobilized, absorbed and forgotten by the party they wanted to change and improve. That party continues to shift Right.
You can keep it.
Look on the bright side. You’ll always have a handful of onetime-loyalists-turned-angry-intransigents like myself that you can point to when you want to prove to Democratic heavy-hitters how much better you are to work with. I’m sure you’ll get tons of stuff you want. I mean, 99% of the Left has thrown its support to Kerry, and already he’s calling for an end to the war and an expansion of the social safety net and pay parity for women… and… and…
Oh, wait. [blink blink] No he’s not. He’s treating the Left like shit and ignoring our concerns and getting away with it, because he knows he can. Never mind.
The reason the Democrats have slid to the right is to compete with a Republican party who has slid waaaaay to the right, and why? Because people have exerted internal pressure on the party to do so. Meanwhile the Democrats look around and don’t see that kind of pressure to move leftward from their internals so they conclude that the country is moving right and so will they.
You know what I wish? I wish the Greens were more active at the local level. I know you’re going to say that they are, but I live in a pretty progressive area, and they’re completely invisible here.
It seems to me that the way that Christian conservatives took over the Republican party was to organize at the grass-roots level and show Republican candidates that they could consistently deliver votes at primaries, school-board elections, and off-year elections as well as at the big presidential blow-out. They didn’t whine about being ignored and they didn’t go to third parties: they built an infrastructure which forced the Republican party to take them seriously. Now, they could do that pretty easily because they had churches at their disposal. For progressive Democrats, it’s a bit more tricky, since I don’t think there’s a comperable institution. (Unions are good, but there are big swaths of the country in which there aren’t strong unions, and unions don’t necessarily agree with progressives on social issues.)
I don’t see what voting for Nader is going to accomplish, frankly, and even if Kerry is the lesser of two evils, I’m still voting for him, given how supremely evil Bush is. But after the election is over, I think we need to focus on building our version of the Christian Coalition, rather than wringing our hands if Bush wins or sighing in relief if Kerry does.
They didn’t whine about being ignored
[rolleyes]
Gee, nice to meet you, too, Sally.
Unions are not so great at the national level for those who favor serious workplace reform, I’d say. Mine certainly isn’t. Perhaps once I A) Make a long-overdue departure from my Union job and B) Have time to put together a blog of my own, I’ll go into just why in a bit more detail.
Lynne, I wasn’t sure how else to contact you, so I’m posting here in response to your inquiry about how Clinton also sabotaged abortion rights. By saying “making abortion less available”, I meant that he and his administration quietly sat back and let the most violent anti-choicers do their work in bombing clinics, harrassing and assaulting doctors, and doing the same to women who have been seeking abortions. Clinton/Gore, so far as I know, never spoke out about it, never urged for tougher protections for abortion providers and seekers, and never went after the hate groups. What resulted was the dwindling availability of doctors that were willing to do abortions. So that’s why I’m skeptical whenever I hear about some middle-of-the-road Democrat that feminists say will protect our abortion rights. I think it’ll be more of the same from the Clinton era. Sure, the Bushies sat around, smirked, and signed away our rights publicly, but the undercover erosion of the same rights is more insidious. It can’t be fought in court, like the “PBA” ban.
Meanwhile the Democrats look around and don’t see that kind of pressure to move leftward from their internals so they conclude that the country is moving right and so will they.
Again, as the fate of Kucinich’s campaign and that of the Rainbow Coalition demonstrate, the question is not one of pressure alone, Amanda. It’s a question of whether or not those exerting pressure have a means of retaliation against the hierarchy of their party when it repeatedly does not respond to calls for change or for accommodation.
I stand by my opinion that grassroots movements are not merely an inconvenience that will be tolerated by the people heading the DP. Grassroots movements are anathema to Kerry, McAuliffe, and their cronies, however much window dressing they might apply to the machine at any given moment. (And in terms of even window-dressing, we’ve gone considerably backwards since Clinton’s first campaign.) I can no longer imagine that grassroots action from within the DP ALONE will change it. (Though perhaps it could be made to work with help from people willing to maintain space outside the Party.) More likely the demands of corrupt top-down leadership, its endless hunger for money and its endless emphasis on maintaining a closed shop –no 3rd parties allowed– will change the activists as they move up the food chain. It’s happened over and over again. Those who don’t change, discarding their original goals as “unrealistic,” are either expelled or they end up withdrawing out of frustration and disgust.
Change may begin at the bottom, but if the folks at the top are a brick wall, as the DLC is, those at the bottom are merely wasting their time and energy as far as I’m concerned. They are beating their brains against an unyielding surface. Perhaps if Kerry suffered not merely defeat, but a painful, crushing defeat, the supposed Progressive caucuses within the DP would rise up and break the deathgrip that the DLC has held on the party machine for far too long. But this seems very unlikely to me. So I’ll stay on the outside for the forseeable future, Thanks.
You already know me, Alsis, although not under this name. But thanks for reminding me that it’s kind of useless to talk to you about this.
Let’s say Roe gets totally overturned. You think that a large majority of Americans support abortion rights. Therefore a federal ban either cannot occur, or will be repealed almost immediately.
Right?
Well, that’s mysterious and thrilling, Sally. Thanks. I guess.
Are you a feminist ? Is that how we’re aquainted ? If so, you’ve doubtless been on the receiving end about four billion times of the acusation by sexist trolls that feminists are “just whining.” Perhaps you should take that term off the table if you want dialogue, since you, as a feminist, would know that few things rankle more than having one’s legitimate concerns trivialized and belittled in an attempt to shut down dialogue.
Of course, if shutting down dialogue is your intention, you’re doing great. Carry on, by all means. The cloak-and-dagger bit is a nice touch.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. I actually wasn’t talking about you when I mentioned “whining.” I was presenting two alternative ways people deal with this: voting third party (which is what you do) and whining (which is what I do.) I don’t think either is effective. And honestly, your defensiveness make discussing this with you really unpleasant.
I don’t mean to be cloak and daggerish. I’m Grainne from Ms. There’s no great significance to the name change: it’s mostly because nobody can spell or pronounce Grainne.
Sebastian:
Do I think a majority of Americans support abortion rights at least in the first trimester? Yes.
I also think a majority of Americans support protecting the enviroment, investing in solar power, spending more money on things like child care and college tuition for poor single parents, and universal health care. However, in a representative democracy, just because a majority wants something doesn’t mean that’s what’ll happen.
For one thing, our election system means that people from small states – which tend to be conservative – have more voting power than people from large states.
For another, the ability to organize well and to get big money behind your party is at least as important as majority support, in our system.
On the whole, I think you’re right – a federal ban won’t happen. But I just “think” that – I’m not absolutely certain. Furthermore, just because something won’t happen doesn’t mean that they won’t make the attempt, and that we won’t have to fight off the attempt.
If you had asked me five years ago if Bush V Gore would ever happen, I would have predicted “no.”
Well, I’m sorry for misreading you then. I rather think everyone in this exchange is being pretty damn defensive. To be honest, I didn’t have any quarrel with much of the other stuff you said. Greens do need more visibility in more places. I still don’t think Amanda is correct in expecting them to attack the system on only one front, however. I think it needs to be attacked on as many fronts as possible, all at once. Otherwise, there’s no hope of gaining ground at all. The game is completely rigged. Going after one rule at a time isn’t gonna’ work. :(
Amanda wrote: No, I mean that if your party doesn’t win, you are powerless. Until you can find a way to change that, you better work with the existing parties or be banished to pouting ineffectively.
I don’t think this is always true; historically, some third parties have had an effect without winning many or any major offices. Eugene Debs didn’t waste his life accomplishing nothing, for instance; he arguably had a profound (and positive) impact on policy by using a third party to pressure democrats from their left.
Amp said: Do I think a majority of Americans support abortion rights at least in the first trimester? Yes.
Are you saying you think abortion rights through the first trimester only would be a good thing? That’s not the usual sentiment here and every time a prolifer distinguishes rape, incest, or length of term from any other instance of pregnancy they get nailed.
I don’t think that we should attack from one front. I think 3rd party candidates are great, especially when they can win on the local level. But in a tight election behind a right-winger and a moderate I cannot in good conscience support a 3rd party candidate who will get the right-winger elected.
But I do think that creating non-party liberal groups like MoveOn that can exert pressure on the party is the most important strategy.
Jen wrote: Are you saying you think abortion rights through the first trimester only would be a good thing? That’s not the usual sentiment here and every time a prolifer distinguishes rape, incest, or length of term from any other instance of pregnancy they get nailed.
No, I’m not saying that it would be a good thing. I’m saying that it’s something I’m pretty sure the public would support (although of course, in the abortion wars, you can come up with polls claiming to “show” that either side has the advantage on any issue). I think the majority of the public feels iffier about second-trimester abortions and is against elective third-trimester abortions.
Just because I say the public supports “position X” doesn’t mean that I myself support “position X.” Personally, I support goverment-funded abortion on demand at any point in the pregnancy. Like many people, I’m a little disturbed at the prospect of frivilous third-trimester abortions, but I haven’t been convinced that they represent a large or significant problem. In the end, I trust women to make the right decision more than I trust the government to make it for them.
a 3rd party candidate who will get the right-winger elected.
Kerry is very nearly as Right Wing as Bush on many issues. Not abortion, aparently, but a host of others. :( I think that he and his handlers can thus be held at least somewhat culpable for the fact that the race is tight. I’m not willing to treat the guy as royalty and dump all the blame in the rank-and-file’s lap.
MoveOn is “non-party” ? Do you mean “non-partisan” ? That’s news to me, Amanda.
You know what I mean–they are a group organized to push an agenda but are not a political party.
Thanks, jennhi. I see I was imagining a different sort of abortion restriction from what you were talking about.
Amp: I thought you were saying that it should happen b/c people want it but that wanting it doesn’t mean it will happen. Sorry.