Dempublicans and the forced childbirth movement

Posted by Joshua Holland at 2:05 PM on January 18, 2006.

Is this the kind of big tent we have to sleep in?

Post Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
13 COMMENTS

Share and save this post:

AlterNet Social Networks:

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

The Mix RSS Feed

Main AlterNet RSS Feed

Ugh.

Rocky Mountain News:

Bill Ritter has been having the same conversation, over and over again, with Democrats all over the state.

The former Denver district attorney, who is now the front-runner for the party's nomination for governor, has been meeting with voters who want to talk with him about something they know they are in disagreement on: abortion.

Ritter, a devout Catholic, is anti-abortion. He is painfully aware that most Colorado Democrats favor abortion rights. […]

Some Colorado Democrats are so uncomfortable with Ritter's personal opposition to abortion that they have been pressuring Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, who favors abortion rights, to jump into the governor's race. […]

Other women who feel just as strongly about the right to have an abortion have endorsed Ritter.

"Bill is someone who promotes the well-being and empowerment of people who are disenfranchised," said Robin Finegan, a longtime activist who worked for Ritter as a victim's advocate and favors abortion rights. "He is morally opposed to abortion, but there's a difference with what the right-wing Republican party is doing.

"It isn't part of a greater political agenda for him."

The conversation now taking place in the Colorado Democratic Party is also taking place nationally.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has been encouraging state parties to be more open to anti-abortion candidates, saying he fears that the party is now seen as not just pro-choice but pro-abortion. […]

"There's a lot of (anti-abortion) Democrats out there," said Luis Miranda, spokesman for the DNC. "Republicans have tried to frame Democrats as pro-abortion. This is about redefining that debate."

You want to redefine the debate? Try this: "I'm against forced childbirth. I don't think the state should be forcing women to give birth against their will."

Because that's exactly what we're talking about: a movement that opposes contraception, opposes the kind of comprehensive sex education that's been proven to reduce unwanted pregnancies and opposes abortion. Is that so hard?

Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.

Return to The Mix » Post Tools: EMAIL PRINT 13 COMMENTS PERMALINK

Also in The Mix
On the religious right 'nuts,' liberals, and catching a break A response to a colleague... Post by Evan Derkacz. October 17, 2006.	Bush thinking of 'replacing' Iraqi government? [VIDEO] A whole new definition of Democracy. Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.	Religious right rally's first gaffe Church opposes bigoted agenda Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.

Comments	Turn comments off sitewide	Give us feedback »
Comments closed. The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.		View:
forced childbirth [Report this comment] Posted by: Gakl on Jan 18, 2006 2:36 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Excellent re-frame. It's too bad that most of our elected officials are too pussy to phrase anything as accurately as this and instead fall victim to the theocratic frames. Unfortunately this all makes way too much sense and will never become mainstream. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » RE: forced childbirth Posted by: JoshuaHolland » but you MUST know what the auto-programmed response to that will be Posted by: sln70 » The mockery gap Posted by: JoshuaHolland » RE: The mockery gap Posted by: sln70 annie [Report this comment] Posted by: jackyD on Jan 18, 2006 3:45 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Let's do a little bartering with these folks. We won't press the gun control issue if you lay off our reproductive rights. We all know if worse comes to worst, you can get black market guns and we can get back-alley abortions. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Hit it on the head again [Report this comment] Posted by: chaoslegs on Jan 18, 2006 6:15 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Josh you nailed it again. The hypocrisy of fighting sex ed and contraceptions, which increase the likelihood of an unintended pregnancy. When will these self righteous bastards take the "personal responsibility" for their irresponsible policies. Never, personal responsiblity is the empowered's arguement to lay all blame on the little guy. Republicans can't overturn Roe v Wade, because they will lose this motivator for the electorate. Then the Christians who care about the economically disenfranchised will turn to the Dems who could finally find a spine, but likely blow it only focusing on Roe v Wade. Yeah Republicans want to reduce abortion to the level of a nuisance. Just like Kerrey proposed for terrorism. Unfortunately these same domestic policies are hurting women throughout the world via the gag order. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Triangulation [Report this comment] Posted by: AlanSmithee on Jan 19, 2006 5:18 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] After jettisoning the gun control issue your feckless democrat leaders are now side shuffling their way into the anti-abortion crowd. Exactly how is this surprising? [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » RE: Triangulation Posted by: YogiBear I suspect I'm stating the obvious but... [Report this comment] Posted by: brunowe on Jan 19, 2006 9:19 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] How much of this is part of a broader anti-feminist agenda? It isn't just a question of a puritanical sexual morality but also against the very idea of the additional freedom that women get from not being tied down with pregnancies they had a lessened ability to prevent or terminate. Contraceptives have been around for a very long time but I believe that the IUD and the pill are both mainly second-half of the 20th century developments and I suspect (but can someone confirm?) that there arrival and the feminist movements of the 60s-70s are not a coincidence. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » RE: I suspect I'm stating the obvious but... Posted by: sln70 reason for opposing abortion [Report this comment] Posted by: vespasian01 on Jan 20, 2006 1:55 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] The writer makes some good implied points about personal liberties but falls short when making assumptions about the motivations of pro-life people (at least some of us). My opposition has nothing to do with law, it has to do with the often-protracted suffering of those being aborted. Some procedures, such as saline poisoning, cause the baby to suffer for hours as he is being burned to death by the solution. The cutting up of the baby sometimes only results in hacked-off limbs, faces, etc., and again, it may take the baby many hours of intense suffering before he dies. The abortionist, in my view, is the lowest of all human forms. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » RE: reason for opposing abortion Posted by: JoshuaHolland

«	November 2009					»
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30

» RE: forced childbirth Posted by: JoshuaHolland

» but you MUST know what the auto-programmed response to that will be Posted by: sln70

» The mockery gap Posted by: JoshuaHolland

» RE: The mockery gap Posted by: sln70

» RE: Triangulation Posted by: YogiBear

» RE: I suspect I'm stating the obvious but... Posted by: sln70

» RE: reason for opposing abortion Posted by: JoshuaHolland

Newsletter

The Mix archive by date:

Use » and « to view other months.

Search: