Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

No Room in the Big Tent

By Rose Aguilar, AlterNet. Posted March 28, 2006.


What will it take for pro-choice Republicans to leave the Republican Party?
Advertisement

Anti-abortion Republicans have a lot to celebrate. The confirmation of Samuel Alito and John Roberts, two anti-abortion Supreme Court justices, and the passage of the South Dakota law banning all abortion, have been seen as clear Republican victories. But for pro-choice Republicans, appalled and disgusted by the South Dakota law, the party ended a long time ago. While some say it's important to speak out and fight for change, others say they're tired of fighting a losing battle.

"I was a Republican. I did stand up. I got crucified for it and finally said, 'To hell with it,'" says Elisabeth "Jinx" Ecke, a longtime Planed Parenthood supporter and board member in San Diego, Calif. "I've tried to support Republican candidates in the California Assembly, and they swear on a stack of bibles that they'll vote pro- choice. Then they go to Sacramento and they vote anti-choice. I'm done."

Ecke, 74, cast her first vote for Dwight Eisenhower back in 1953. Four years ago, she reregistered by checking the "Decline to State" box. "I'm supporting mostly Democrats for one simple reason: choice," she says. "People say you can't be a one issue voter and I say, 'Yes I can.'"

Jewel Edson, 46, another lifelong Republican who "sadly" voted for President Bush in 2000 and Sen. John Kerry in 2004, says she's disappointed with the Republican Party in general. "It has turned me into a person who votes for a candidate, not the party," she says.

Today, the Republican Party's platform says, "Any effort to address global social problems must be firmly placed within a context of respect for the fundamental social institutions of marriage and family. For that reason, we support protecting the rights of families in international programs and oppose funding organizations involved in abortion." It also says, "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions."

Sue Savage ran as a Republican national delegate during George H.W. Bush's term because she wanted to take abortion out of the party's platform and out of politics altogether. She lost her bid.

Savage says she and her pro-choice Republican friends from Lancaster County, Penn., can no longer compromise over the issues of abortion and family planning. "A lot of my friends have left the Republican Party, including friends who've been elected in the Republican Party," she says. "I was privately voting for Democrats in the voting booth, but it got to the point where it was a very cathartic experience to officially change parties."

Hoping to prevent others from leaving the party in droves, the Republican Majority for Choice (RMC) last month launched a campaign called the "Hunt for Real Republicans" in Pennsylvania, home of one of the most watched Senate races in the country. The campaign kicked off with ads in every major daily Pennsylvania newspaper calling for real Republicans to step up and challenge the extreme right wing of the party. While the ads didn't specifically mention Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, they were obviously targeting his extreme views on choice, family planning and stem cell research.

"Our ad campaign is meant to force a dialogue," says Kellie Ferguson, executive director of the RMC. "Can we get Santorum to at least open his mind? If he doesn't, he's going to lose. We don't want to oppose members of our own party, but we need to point out that this has gone too far."

In a March 3, 2006, letter to the group, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., a member of its advisory board, wrote, "I strongly oppose these advertisements. The Big Tent is big enough to include both Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter. The RMC ought not to be in the business of electing Democrats to the United States Senate. Without Senator Santorum's support, I would not have won the 2004 Republican primary. As I believe the RMC knows, I've repeatedly said that Senator Santorum's reelection is my top priority in 2006. I call on." Specter went on to say that he will withhold his decision on whether to resign from the RMC's advisory board until he sees what further action RMC takes on this matter.


Digg!

Rose Aguilar is a San Francisco-based journalist who recently returned from a six-month road trip through the so-called "red states." She is writing a book about her journey.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

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:
It's Time for a CHANGE
Posted by: thinkverybig on Mar 28, 2006 1:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The United States immigration policy needs a complete overhaul. My question is this. Why are Cubans allowed to come ashore to the U.S. and Haitians are sent back at sea? This blatant act of racism is shameful and disgraceful and should be changed immediately. The United States is so set on trying to maintain control of its super power status that it doesn’t care who it tramples on the keep it. But what is the reason for not allowing people of color to enter into the U.S. other than racism? What is the reason it has allowed illegal immigrants to enter into the U.S. and work for wages well below minimum wage? For businesses to continue to prosper while keeping the bridge wider between the rich and the poor, which is a new form of present day slavery by big business with the U.S. Government’s approval. Haven’t we had enough of free labor? I think 400 years of it is quite enough and by the way, where is that 40 acres and a mule you promised those slaves?

While the republicans were spending millions of dollars of tax payers money to investigate and impeach President Clinton, we could have been focusing on issues such as illegal immigration, poverty, jobs for Americans, campaign finance reform, political corruption, the outsourcing of jobs to other countries, the environment, overpaid CEO’s, outlawing lobbying, outlawing monopolies, corporations taking advantage of citizens with ridiculous late fees on credit cards, bank teller fees and more

It’s time for a change in our political, social and judicial system. The time has come. I’m ready, are you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's Time for a CHANGE Posted by: nickbk
» RE: It's Time for a CHANGE Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: It's Time for a CHANGE Posted by: bobdotj
Where to go?
Posted by: AlanSmithee on Mar 28, 2006 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pro-Choice Republicans can always cross over and vote for Bob Casey. In fact, there's a whole gaggle of democrats they could vote for in the donk's "big tent."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Go to Alan Sandals Posted by: anothername
mcdike
Posted by: mcdike on Mar 28, 2006 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would love to return to the Democratic Party, however that will not happen under it's current leadership. The first major problem with it's current platform is that as a Life Member of the National Rifle Association, I will never vote for anyone who thinks that they are going to disarm me. Never trust any government that does not trust you with the means to defend yourself. Secondly, the party that I embraced during the 60's and 70's, was a populist party. Today, the Democratic party is controlled by elitist that look down their noses at the average citizen whom they deem not intelligent enough to "vote their own economic interests". In short the Democratic party is in fact an oligarchy, controled by "Limosine Liberals" totally out of touch with reality. Michael E. Wilkin

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: mcdike Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: mcdike Posted by: marcinde
» RE: mcdike Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: mcdike Posted by: dangerouslysane
» RE: mcdike Posted by: jontan88
» RE: mcdike Posted by: YogiBear
» NRAs Politics ... Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: mcdike Posted by: Deep
» RE: mcdike Posted by: outsidea
» RE: mcdike Posted by: sallyjrw
» RE: mcdike Posted by: cottontail
» RE: mcdike Posted by: jmonday
But aren't there already "pro-Choice" Republicrats?
Posted by: sausage on Mar 28, 2006 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's see..... Senators Diane Feinstein, Joe Liberman, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden. I can't come up with any others off the top of my head but I'm sure there's probably some closet "pro-Choicers" out there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who is Specter kidding?
Posted by: bettsoff on Mar 28, 2006 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone and their aunt knew Santorum was pulling for the neocon shill Pat Toomey.

This article was awfully pessismistic. All about how moderate Repubs are fed up and nothing about what Dems need to do to attract them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who is Specter kidding? Posted by: Rowdy714
good lord.
Posted by: bettsoff on Mar 28, 2006 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas told Newsweek he strongly backs the South Dakota law. "I'd have signed it," he said. "Rape and incest are horrible crimes, but why punish the innocent child?"

WHY PUNISH THE INNOCENT INCEST VICTIM, SENATOR? WHY?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» good lord, indeed Posted by: Michael Robin
» RE: good lord, indeed Posted by: Shehova
» RE: good lord, indeed Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: good lord, indeed Posted by: Shehova
» RE: good lord, indeed Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: good lord. Posted by: mythbuster
rover
Posted by: Roverton on Mar 28, 2006 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
RIGHT FLIGHT!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's my vote: come get it.
Posted by: stormchilde1975 on Mar 28, 2006 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It goes to any candidate for any office who will articulate a reasonable position on abortion. Why is it that people can't understand that outlawing something is not an effective way of reducing its occurence - only of putting power into the hands of criminals? Have we learned nothing from Prohibition, the War on Drugs, or the previous era in which abortion was, in fact, illegal?
You want less abortion? Fine. Promote sex-education and family planning. Subsidize birth-control in as many forms as possible. Put a social safety-net in place to catch unwanted children. It might be a bit costly, but it will be cheaper and more effective than either the current policy of doing nothing or the proposed policy of driving abortion into a black market.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Common Ground Posted by: benzene
» RE: Common Ground Posted by: Shehova
» Right to Choose Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: I Agree With Thee Posted by: Super-Saiyan
» The Kindness of Strangers Posted by: Kelly
» RE: Here's my vote: come get it. Posted by: triana1326
I just don't get it....
Posted by: Rowdy714 on Mar 28, 2006 7:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've never understood this rape/incest argument. If the primary stated goal is to save an unborn human life, what difference does rape or incest make? It's still a life, by their own logic. I just don't get that.

I understand the abortion controversy, and I think it's monstrous. I don't believe men should even be allowed to vote on the issue, if a vote there must be - which is extremely questionable, as well.

It makes me sad. It's one thing for me to drive 120 miles for a tattoo. I can't believe we live in a world where this article need ever be written. I don't know what I'd do if I were a woman in this messed-up society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I just don't get it.... Posted by: BlueTigress
Not Your Father's Republican Party
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 28, 2006 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.

Barry Goldwater

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not Your Mother's Republican Party
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 28, 2006 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all to frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism --

The right to criticize;

The right to hold unpopular beliefs;

The right to protest;

The right of independent thought.


The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know some one who holds unpopular beliefs. Who of us doesn't? Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own.

US Senator Margaret Chase Smith (R) Maine
At the height of the McCarthy witch hunt

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

not the Republican party anymore...
Posted by: chasaturn on Mar 28, 2006 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, they claim they're Republicans - just like that other bunch claims to be Democrats. It's all a game rich white people, bought and sold by the huge corporations, play with the rest of us. Seems their favorite buttons to push right now are wired directly into our brains' bigot centers. That, and their spewing of all that self-righteous abortion/sanctity of life crap. Who's sending our children off to murder innocents and/or die trying? It's time to repeal the tax-exempt status of churches, especially the hypocritical bastions of hate and blind allegiance which own liquor stores.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

History teaches us everything, if we listen
Posted by: Rowdy714 on Mar 28, 2006 11:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our government is in a sad, sad state of affairs when something like this is so familiar that it bears no explanation:

"The Roman government appeared every day less formidable to its enemies, more odious and oppressive to its subjects. The taxes were multiplied with the public distress; economy was neglected in proportion as it became necessary; and the injustice of the rich shifted the unequal burden from themselves to the people, whom they defrauded of the indulgences that might sometimes have alleviated their misery.

"The severe inquisition, which confiscated their goods and tortured their persons, compelled the subjects of Valentinian to prefer the more simple tyranny of the barbarians, or to fly to the woods and mountains, or to embrace the vile and abject condition of mercenary servants. They abjured and abhorred the name of Roman citizens, which had formerly excited the ambition of mankind. The Armorican provinces of Gaul and the greatest part of Spain were thrown into a state of disorderly independence by the confederations of the Bagaudae, and the Imperial ministers pursued with proscriptive laws and ineffectual arms the rebels whom they themselves had made.

"If all the barbarian conquerors had been annihilated in the same hour, their total destruction would not have restored the empire of the West: and if Rome still survived, she survived the loss of freedom, of virtue, and of honour."

- Edward Gibbon, 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' (1776)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pregnant Men
Posted by: benzene on Mar 28, 2006 12:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine what the world would be like if it were possible the we men could get pregnant too...

...abortion clinics on every corner.

...birth control subsidized as heavily as the oil industry.

...fewer fights on any scale (e.g., personally, political, supranational).

...a week off of work every month.

...paid maternity leave, before and after.

...really cheap tubal ligations.

But at the rate this country is going, it won't be long until we're back to condoms made out of oiled sheep intestines.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pregnant Men Posted by: Rowdy714
» RE: Pregnant Men Posted by: Shehova
jjmwomenissues
Posted by: SD Women Count on Mar 28, 2006 12:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A broad based group of South Dakotans has begun a petition drive to refer HB 1215 banning all abortions in the state to a vote of the people. The effort is called "South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families" because it takes more than a birth to create a healthy family. We need 16,700+ signatures by June to get the referendum placed on the November ballot. The effort began last Friday, March 24, & thousands have already signed. People are clamoring to sign petitions across the state because they say the state legislature has overstepped its bounds. Abortion is too personal an issue to have a group of people bent on imposing their narrow views for a blanket solution to every circumstance foist their opinion on already hurt & struggling people. Please support our effort by encouraging SD residents to sign petitions & vote to overturn the ban in November!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: jjmwomenissues Posted by: may261989
The abortion quandary
Posted by: phal4875 on Mar 28, 2006 12:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is being written from the perspective of one with questions about both sides of the abortion issue, not deeply-held answers.

It is difficult to argue for any position that is "somewhere in the middle" when it comes to abortion laws. If it is true that a human life exists from the moment of conception, then abortion should never be allowed under any circumstances.

A child conceived through rape or incest is still a child, based on this logic. The health of the mother cannot outweigh the life of a child, and it can never be certain that carrying a child would cost the mother her life. Looked at this way, abortion should never be acceptable.

There is, however, another way of viewing the issue. That view would be that the life and choices of a fully-recognized human being must take precedence over the rights of a developing human.

From this perspective, no woman should ever be forced to make a medical decision that goes against her own perceived interests. She should never be compelled, by force of law, to carry a child to term.

I am not suggesting that an easy answer exists. It seems that most politicians and most citizens want to choose some middle ground that leans one way or the other, but this issue appears to be one of clear colors, not shades of gray. I am just not sure whether that color should be red or blue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The abortion quandary Posted by: BlueTigress
» human life Posted by: stormchilde1975
What will make them leave?
Posted by: BlueTigress on Mar 28, 2006 12:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NOTHING.

They do not want to leave the party. Don't bother with them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why leave? Posted by: chasaturn
» RE: What will make them leave? Posted by: doctorsquared
Democrats are an oligarchy??
Posted by: Newtopian on Mar 28, 2006 12:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What do you call the Bush family? Unbelievable!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bush family??!!! Posted by: chasaturn
Working class citizens...
Posted by: Steve Adair on Mar 28, 2006 1:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I’ve been a laborer all my life. I worked in a factory for over 30 years, and drove truck for over five years. I’ve been a union member for most of that time. I am a progressive and I understand what that means. But, most of the folks I’ve worked with over the years vote against their own interests based on three issues. The first is abortion. Most of the people in my social class have been persuaded that abortion is wrong; even if they have had one. The second is fear of losing the right to have firearms; usually for hunting reasons. And the third is not seeing any difference between the two political parties. When I was in line to vote in the last presidential election, at least two different people in a line of about 25 said that they still didn’t know who to vote for because they couldn’t really see much if any difference. Remember, these are working class people. I really believe that if a political party stood up to the plate and said things that concretely related to benefiting the working class, many of them would start to look beyond issues like abortion and worrying about their guns. But, in their way of thinking, why should they risk a couple of things that seem important to them to vote Democrats who don’t offer any real hope for them in their everyday lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Republican Women who are pro-choice are hypocrites...
Posted by: outsidea on Mar 28, 2006 3:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Republican women who say they are "pro-choice" yet stay in the Repugnant party are hypocrites of the worst sort. I have watched those women with special interest who have won seats in the house or senate of the United States on C-span when they were on...either in committee hearings or from the floor of he house or senate. I was curious. I felt like I was trying to understand a species from another planet and finally over the years just wrote them off. Not aliens from outer space....just your same old human hypocrites, deserving of plain old contempt.

Joseph

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wait! I want a recount... Posted by: chasaturn
Rational arguments about abortion:
Posted by: Fang-Face Dreamweaver on Mar 28, 2006 3:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PRO:

Perhaps the most dramatic effect of legalized abortion, however, and one that would take years to reveal itself, was its impact on crime. In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v: Wade was hitting his late teen years -- the years during which young men enter their criminal prime -- the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime.
--Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, Freakonomics, pg 139

CON:

The women's movement suffers from three classic defense mechanisms associated with minority group status: self-rejection, identification with the dominant group, and displacement.

The demand for abortion at will is a symptom of group self-hatred and total rejection, not of sex role but of sex identity.

The womb is not the be-all and end-all of woman's existence. But it is the physical center of her sexual identity, which is an important aspect of her self-image and personality. To reject its function, or to regard it a handicap, a danger or a nuisance, is to reject a vital part of her own personhood. Every woman need not be a mother, but unless every woman can identify with the potential motherhood of all women, no equality is possible. American Negroes gained nothing by straightening their kinky hair and aping the white middle class. Equality began to become a reality only when they insisted on acceptance of their different qualities -- "Black is Beautiful."
--Daphne de Jong, 14 Jan 1976, and reprinted in Abortion: Opposing Viewpoints (1986), pg 163

ABOUT THE WHOLE DEBATE:

From the point of view of a fetus, pregnancy is no doubt a good deal. But consider it for a moment from the point of view of the pregnant person (if "woman" is too incendiary and feminist a term) and without reference to its potential issue. We are talking about a nine month bout of symptoms of varying severity, often including nausea, skin discolorations, extreme bloating and swelling, insomnia, narcolepsy, hair loss, varicose veins, hemorrhoids, indigestion and irreversible weight gain, and culminating in a physiological crisis which is occasionally fatal and almost always excruciatingly painful. If men were equally at risk for the condition -- if they knew that their bellies might swell as if they were suffering from end-stage cirrhosis, that they would have go for nearly a year without a stiff drink, a cigarette or even aspirin, that they would be subject to fainting spells and unable to fight their way onto commuter trains -- then I am sure that pregnancy would be classified as a sexually transmitted disease and abortions would be no more controversial than emergency appendectomies.
--Barbara Ehrenreich, 07 Feb 1985, and reprinted in Abortion: Opposing Viewpoints (1986), pg 89-90

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Me to! Posted by: Super-Saiyan
» Pregnancy as public event Posted by: BlueTigress
What will it take?
Posted by: deaudonnee on Mar 28, 2006 8:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Either a dead girl or a live boy in the beds of bush, rove, cheney, mcclelland and all those other war-crazy hypocrites who have no dog in that fight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

George W Bush was an abortion but he lived!
Posted by: kooz on Mar 29, 2006 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I see W on TV I think, damn, he's a good reason that we must keep abortion not only legal, but we should encourage all Rigth-wing nut Republican women to get one after getting knocked up by their Born Again pastor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Abortion is not a "quandry"
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Mar 29, 2006 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The aborton "quandry" has been marketed like SUV's and sneakers. People feel obligated to have an opinion. But to me it seems like another way to bully women who are helpless. For some women this is a personal decision and they make it. For others it becomes a social-political-religious issue. It shouldn't be that way. Male or female, consider WHY you deny women their choice. It is not about morality or protecting life. It's about controlling someone . Anna

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not in my party
Posted by: Ian B. on Apr 2, 2006 7:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, I don't want these corporate Kool-Aid guzzlers mucking up the Democratic party. We already have enough problems with the DLC Republican light anti-worker corporate pawns. Let them become greedhead Libertarians if they want. There they can drink from the same polluted well of corporate corruption without the additional foul aftertaste of religious fundamentalism. The good part of this is that the corporatist/fundamentalist coalition is starting to crack. That's will be a boon for working Americans, if we can take back the Democratic party and keep these fools out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]